Hi all,
First of all apologize if this is not the correct forum, tried to search but search seems to not work properly yet.
I have my first Corona App ready for publication, my client is very very happy with it and I was convinced everything was ok. The free app will allow users to enter a traceability code number of my customer’s products and then show particular information about each product or play a game to try to guess the exact product taste score (and save it’s progress and share in facebook twitter etc), that we certify by a profesional on packaging. It basically works like a barcode reader, but instead of a barcode the user enters a numerical code printed in the label of each product.
Apple rejected the app due to Guideline 11.1: “We found your app inappropriately unlocks or enables additional functionality with mechanisms other than the App Store, which is not compliant, blah blah blah” And then I was offered the option of using In-App purchases…
I tried to explain the reviewer that the user does not need to buy the product to check it out and that we cannot show the information to the user before knowing the code number of that particular product and that the app works the same way as a barcode or QR code reader that shows the info related to that particular code.
The reviewer replied back with the same answer, mostly said “yes yes but it does unlock features by mechanism other than the App Store blah blah blah”.
So I am in a position now that I do not understand how to proceed. If I show a list of all the code numbers available (which I summited right now with this option), the list will get quickly too large to be easily navigable. And anyway I do not understand how they reject an app that clearly works like a barcode reader or a bank app where you can check your bank data but you need to have a bank account to use it, unless barcode readers and bank apps are not approved anymore in the app store.
Any one have any thoughts or ideas of what might be wrong here?
Thanks all in advance! [import]uid: 168845 topic_id: 35250 reply_id: 335250[/import]