
The limited world of iOS's auto-renewable subscriptions - adamjernst
http://www.marco.org/2012/01/06/autorenewable-subscription-restrictions
======
JimDabell
> I was told via phone about an apparently unwritten rule that I was
> violating: auto-renewing subscriptions can only be used for apps that
> deliver “new content” during each renewal period, like magazines. Charging a
> monthly price for an ongoing service is not allowed.

That's nice. I worked on a auto-renewing service app, and I received a
rejection phone call from Apple too. They didn't tell me anything useful, they
just said that "your kind of app isn't appropriate for this type of in-app
purchase". When I pressed for details and talked about alternative options,
the person at Apple admitted to me that she'd never actually used our app!

I can't get over how terrible Apple are at communicating with developers. It's
bad enough that there are these unwritten rules, but having to deal with
Chinese whispers internal to Apple as well is ridiculous.

------
MatthewPhillips
Am I confused? Didn't Marco blog about this last year[1] and then Steve Jobs
replied to someone's email saying, quote, "We created subscriptions for
publishing apps, not SaaS apps. Sent from my iPhone".

Did Marco forgot about this, or did he decide to try and slip it through
anyway?

[1][http://www.marco.org/2011/02/22/subscription-rule-not-for-
sa...](http://www.marco.org/2011/02/22/subscription-rule-not-for-saas-access)

~~~
thorstadt
Alas, unfortunately it's not that cut and dry. We're SaaS, and were able to
get through 4 or 5 releases of our app without Apple seeming to care about our
model. Eventually we got a rejection stating that our application would be
pulled if we didn't remove a reference to our website from the app (we can
collect payment information on our website if you log in with an account
you've created on the phone). The app reviewer stated that we should look into
implementing IAP subscriptions.

Since we didn't want to confuse our customers by giving them no information on
how to subscribe, and the app store is a valuable marketing channel, we
decided to implement auto-renewable IAP subscriptions per Apple's
recommendation and documentation but got rejected for having the wrong
purchasability type. We then had to go implement non-renewable subscriptions
(which are more complicated and provide a worse user experience, in my
opinion) and got approved for sale.

One of our developers filed a bug report with Apple about the documentation
regarding purchasability types and received a response that they would improve
it. I guess I'm fine with sharing revenue with Apple if they make it really
easy for users to subscribe (which IAP certainly does), but it'd be nice to
understand the Right Way from the beginning.

~~~
psychotik
Aw man - I'm building IAP auto-renewable support right now so I feel your pain
- I've invested enough in it that I'm going to try and push it through.

Did they ask you to remove the ability to let users subscribe from the
website, or did they let that stay after you built IAP.

~~~
thorstadt
They let us keep that. There is a rule that the price has to be the same
AFAIK, but we're doing that anyway.

------
teaspoon
I'm currently appealing a similar rejection of an auto-renewing subscription
app. Here's the rejection:

 _We found that the Purchasability Type for one or more of your In-App
Purchase products was inappropriately set, which is not in compliance with the
App Store Review Guidelines._

 _Your In-App Purchase is currently an Auto-Renewable Subscription. However,
it would be more appropriate to use the Non-Renewing Subscription In-App
Purchase type. Auto-Renewable Subscriptions are intended for periodical apps,
such as magazines and newspapers. Non-Renewing Subscriptions should be used
for products that are not appropriate for Auto-Renewable Subscriptions._

Nothing in Apple's documentation hints that Auto-Renewable Subscriptions are
more appropriate for one class of app than for another, so I was hoping that
my reviewer was acting on some subjective, high-level guideline that I could
argue on. However, it's beginning to look as if there is a specific, unwritten
policy against non-periodical apps.

~~~
sumukh1
Apple would do a big favor to developers by being a bit more open and
transparent with the regulations.In your case this will probably be the
relevant guideline that they may cite.

> 11.9 Apps containing "rental" content or services that expire after a
> limited time will be rejected

It seems that Apple's review team has interpreted SaaS to fall under this
guideline.

------
ghshephard
What stops SaaS providers from co-publishing a newsletter or publication so
they fall within the guidelines of this rule, and therefore become "Publishers
sending out periodical apps."

Up to Apple to make the judgement call, but the line gets grey with something
like TheStreet.com, which has a lot of services, and also a newsletter.

~~~
JimDabell
That's a good idea, and there is precedent for it working. Pastebot wouldn't
ordinarily be allowed to run in the background, as it isn't one of the
predefined types of background app. They decided to configure their app as a
media player and play a silent audio file when they wanted to run in the
background. Apple wouldn't allow this, but as long as they play audible music
- so they are actually a media player - it is permissible.

You'd have to go to the trouble of building the functionality and submitting
it to Apple to find out though, and you'd be running the risk of Apple
changing their mind at any time.

------
adamjernst
I too have been bitten by this. What makes it truly annoying is that it isn't
documented anywhere publicly, so beware! You are not allowed to build a
business on auto-renewable subscriptions, unless you are a large publisher.

------
slaven
This is silly, this is a HUGE opportunity for Apple and developers. I don't
understand why Apple would shy away from it - probably fear of abuse?

~~~
adamjernst
Apple was nice enough to call me on the telephone to discuss my rejection.
They wouldn't say why auto-renewable subscriptions can't be used by non-
publishers.

My suspicion is that they want to prevent app authors from using a SaaS-like
monthly billing model. Whether this is due to customer confusion or their own
distaste for monthly billing I can't figure.

~~~
sumukh1
It seems that developers have to take the backseat unless they want to miss
out on the ride.

A lot of Apple's thinking can be explained through the eyes of the user. As a
user I'd hate for apps to continually bill me unless I expect it (which I
would in case of a publication). As a Developer, I can see where SaaS billing
would make sense and would like to have that option.

~~~
chc
Having apps require a _non_ -renewing subscription hardly seems like the more
user-friendly approach.

------
cemregr
Weird, I am using two dating apps that have a monthly subscription that
enables certain features.

~~~
kennywinker
Monthly auto-renewing subscriptions? If yes, would you mind saying which ones?
I'm curious if there are certain classes of non-publishing apps which are
being allowed to use auto-renewing IAP subscriptions.

~~~
cemregr
Grindr and Scruff. Heck, Scruff has even two separate $4.99/month features!

------
illumin8
Wait, maybe I'm late to the party - purchased Instapaper over a year ago for
$4.99 on my iPad - does Marco want to charge me a renewing fee now for my use
of his server time? I suppose that's fair, but it is a change of policy and
I'm wondering why he can't let early adopters get a free ride (I paid money
after all) because we supported him in the beginning before he was popular...

~~~
teaspoon
Instapaper offers an optional $1/month subscription. It's a voluntary way to
support future development.

<http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/04/instapaper-subscriptions/>

------
NonUmemoto
My app got rejected by the same reason, apple said I have to use usual
subscriptions, not auto-renewable.

Evernote, Dropbox, they seems to be forced to use non auto-renewable-
subscriptions.

But, Greplin is using auto-renewable-subscriptions on their iPhone app. I
don't know why they can use it when other SaaS apps are rejected.

------
richardburton
That sounds infuriating. You have the patience of a saint.

