We submitted a Lite version of our iPad book app a couple of weeks after the paid version was accepted into the app store. To our surprise, the Lite version was rejected by Apple. Our Lite version has just the 1st of the 8 chapters of our graphic novel, along with a call to action page to purchase the full app. Here's part of what they wrote to us:

Developers “spamming” the App Store with many versions of similar apps will be removed from the iOS Developer Program

We found that your app provides the same feature set as other apps you've submitted to the App Store; it simply varies the content or language.

Apps that replicate functionality with different content create clutter in the App Store, hindering users' ability to find apps, and do not comply with the App Store Review Guidelines.

Additionally, apps that use the same - or very similar - icons also make it difficult for users to find apps and are considered a form of spam. For information on Application Icons, please see the iOS Human Interface Guidelines.

Apps based on a common feature set should be combined into a single container app that uses the In App Purchase API to deliver different content. For example, it would be appropriate to consolidate the following apps, using In App Purchase:

Be Confident in Who You Are: A Middle School Confidential™ Graphic Novel
Be Confident in Who You Are (Lite): A Middle School Confidential™ Graphic Novel

To be in compliance with the App Store Review Guidelines, it would be appropriate to revise your app to use the In App Purchase API to provide content purchasing functionality.

They then provided links to give more info on in-app purchases.

I asked for the decision to be appealed and got a call from an Apple representative a week later. He told me that our Lite version would still not be accepted and that this has been Apple's policy since August (I assume when in-app purchasing was started).

I told him that there were 38 newly released Lite versions in the iPad Books section of the app store in April alone. He was really surprised and asked me to supply him with the list (which I did). He was going to forward that to people in Apple to research and find out why the policy wasn't being consistently carried out (though I did notice that there were no new versions after April 24, which is about when mine was rejected). I don't think this affects updates to Lite versions that have been released earlier.

It's possible that the policy was in place before but not enforced until around April 22nd.

I asked if this was the same case for other types of apps, and got an unclear answer back.

I actually think this is a good policy. I was just frustrated that I didn't know about it beforehand (or that it hadn't been consistently enforced before). Our main problem is in coming up with a solution on how to convert our paid app into a free one that has the first chapter available, with the rest accessible via IAP.

If someone purchased the app before, and then does an "upgrade" to the IAP enabled version, I want to make sure they don't get asked to pay again for the locked content.

I have a partial solution, and wanted to see if anyone else has gone through this process, and also kept the previous owners of the app happy!

In our current version, we save a file every time the app is exited which contains bookmark info on where the person was in the app. So it would be possible to detect that file on startup and unlock the content the first time (if the file is there but doesn't contain a lite-version-specific value, it must be the earlier paid version).

The problems would arise if the person reinstalled the app (no file?), if they purchased the original app but never launched it, if they paid for it on one device and then reinstalled on another, etc. In those situations, I'd have to provide a way for someone to ask for help (email?), and then provide some sort of unlock code.

(Which brings up another question... If I create a sort of backdoor unlocking mechanism, then wouldn't that mean I'd never need promo codes again? I'd have a reviewer download the app, and provide them with the backdoor code, and it would open it up for full use. How would Apple feel about that? I'd be providing the same functionality as a promo code, but handling it myself and wouldn't be limited by the number of promo codes I could get.)

I'd have to make sure my unlock code was unique for each person so it couldn't be posted on a message board for anyone else to use. No idea how to do that yet... unless I post the valid codes in a database on my server and cross off each one once it's used...

One final note. I explained the above problem to the Apple rep. He suggested discontinuing our old app and launch a new free version that met their standards. That would mean no updates for the "orphaned" original version.

I'd really appreciate any thoughts you have, if you faced a similar situation, and how you handled it without upsetting your customer base!

Thanks!!

Thanks for telling us about this, I'm very curious if this new policy applies to games. I'm on the verge (as in a week or two) of releasing my game and made a lite version.

Thanks for the info.
Here's how to start with the inside code sharing:
http://www.raywenderlich.com/2941/how-to-write-a-simple-phpmysql-web-service-for-an-ios-app

I have not try this. I'm no good with terminal and servers :S

Thanks for the insight. It's the pioneers like you that pave the way for the rest of us. :) Glad we can learn from your experience!

Best,
Mario

Apparently this policy does not apply to games, because the Lite version of my game Memory Stacks was just released:
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/memory-stacks-lite/id440109281?mt=8&ls=1

It's annoying and frustrating that Apple made is rejecting Lite versions of book apps.

I ran into this back in Nov of last year when the revised rules came out. I have 7 bar exam apps. They were afraid I was going to release 50 covering each state. I showed them evidence of the apps in the store that were even recently approved like the Camera App which is like 70 different apps with the same framework just different camera info. It didn't matter. I settled when I sent an email stating we would only be doing the 7.

They have this blanket response to encourage users to build a starter (lite framework) app and then offer the In App stuff to build onto the app rather than download a separate version. I just think in some cases that doesn't work. In may case every bar exam is different... they suggested I make a Bar Exam with sample content from each of the 7 states then In App purchase the content that is wanted. Glad I won this round. It took me 2 months of dealing with the review and appeal board.

I am about to rewrite my apps and then submit them to Android Market and hopefully Nook so I hope it is not the same waiting/fighting game with them.

Good luck.

It is unfortunate that deserving cases of the Lite version have also gotten the axe. I am glad that Apple is taking a step at removing the gazillion C*Apps on iTunes that are text files wrapped in a UI straight from Project Gutenberg. Many of these were also Manga Comics, that have had been creating issues of copyright, etc.

Lastly these also tampered with the ratings and rankings and obscured many other legit apps and utilities.

@David, I am sorry to hear your experience and I do feel bad for you, but in general I guess it is a good thing that Apple is deciding to clean up the mess.

cheers,

?:)

@jayantv, agreed!

@mattchapman: They have this blanket response to encourage users to build a starter (lite framework) app and then offer the In App stuff to build onto the app rather than download a separate version. I just think in some cases that doesn't work. In may case every bar exam is different... they suggested I make a Bar Exam with sample content from each of the 7 states then In App purchase the content that is wanted.

Hi Matt,

Can you please clarify this for me? Is Apple's "new policy" to encourage apps being initially free, but with an in-app purchase to "unlock" the remainder of the application? Thus minimizing the clutter of Lite vs. Full versions in the App Store? Does this apply to games or mostly to non-game apps?

I actually think this is a good approach, if this is their decision. Instead of having 2+ versions of everything in the store, just have 1 version which lets the user try out a few levels/chapters/whatever, then unlock the rest with an in-App purchase (which Corona thankfully supports :) I understand that doesn't work so nicely for all apps (like yours) but the App Store is so cluttered already, I find myself in support of cleaning it up somehow.

It also makes it easier from a development and submission standpoint, in my opinion, since the alternative is/was to release the full version, then submit a Lite version 2-3 weeks later which links to the full version (which you need to App ID for, so they can't really be released simultaneously).

Brent

I think when you have an app that is going to have several versions of the same type of thing ie Different content but similar layout. They are going to try and push you to having a singular framework that can allow users to buy the content they need , much like the newspaper subscription method.

which you need to App ID for, so they can't really be released simultaneously

Just for clarification, you can get the App ID before releasing or even submitting a game. As soon as you register an app on iTunes Connect (before submitting a binary) it tells you the App ID.

The real reason for waiting before submitting the Lite version is that you want to ensure the full version is in the store before the Lite version is released. It would be pretty awful if the Buy links led to a "not exist" error.

And then in the hurry to send out promotional messages after the full version is released you don't have time to keep working on the Lite version, so that version can get even further delayed.