App rejected from app store because of guideline 4.2, requesting additional native functionality

Hello Evan,

1. I think this just means that if you give up the appeal and try again with a new binary, they are not going to bother with the appeal. I've only had a couple of rejections that were actually worthy of an appeal. In both cases, the reviewer simply didn't understand how the app worked. Instead of using the appeal mechanism, I submitted a response to the reviewer who then approved the app. That took about 2 days instead of weeks for an appeal.

2. In this case, native doesn't mean a compiled language. It means your app needs features that differentiate itself from a web site. Does your app actually consist of a ruby interpreter, the rails framework, and some scripts? Or is your web site running Ruby on Rails and your app is little more than a web view? That is, could you replace your app with Safari? If so, then it isn't an app, it is a web site.

3. Apple wants people to build web sites that offer a rich experience on mobile browsers. Apps that run natively on a device must go beyond that. In theory, if you were a highly skilled web developer, you could implement virtually anything short of hardware interfaces in a web app. But in most cases, it is impractical to develop very complex apps in on a website. It is easy for reviewers to see which apps are just web apps and which provide truly native functionality.

Thank you. This was very helpful.

I have emailed my programmer to get you the answers to the questions you have asked for item #2. I will reply as soon as I can with the answers.

Best Regards,

Evan

So the answer to your question on item #2 is:

"The answer is yes. It can be replaced with Safari."

Dose this mean you think if I redo the app with the ruby interpreter as you described, it will likely get on the app store?

I was just wondering aloud how you would ever write an app in Ruby because you had mentioned it. To clarify - no. You would not want to attempt an app in Ruby.

If your app can be replaced by Safari, then it isn't an app. It is just a web site. You have to recognized what the phone is and how it might be useful. Assuming you could get your app in the store, you have the potential to have your app running on a computer in people's pockets. What can you do with that power? How can you engage with those people who have your app? How can you give them more value from their phone? If you had a great mobile web site, what could you do with an app that would make them want to quit Safari and use your app?

Thanks,

Is there a particular reason why you should never write an app in ruby? do ruby apps ever get accepted onto the apple app store?

I understand your second point to some degree, however, I still feel that all app's could be made into web apps that are run on Safari and therefore all apps can be replaced by Safari.... I understand they are accessing the info in a different way but don't see why that should cause apple to not make a very important app available to all of their users.

It is just that writing an app is difficult enough as it is. I think there is some kind of Ruby/Objective-C bridge, but it is mainly for hobbyists. I think your own Ruby web developers could answer this question well enough. Tell them you want them to start writing web sites in Swift. That's your response.

Only the most basic and simple apps can be replaced by web apps.