Proud to say that after 14 months of app development (and 5 years of api versions), a lab visit at #wwdc 23 and 24, and office hours over the fall, that the App Store Review team has no idea if my business model will actually pass review or not. My entire app hinges on the single word “may” in section 3.1.1, and I couldn’t be happier. One of these days I’ll actually submit, but until then I’m going to continue enjoying my liminal use-case.
A #SchrodingersReview update for #sharedPhotography.
Update: I have submitted it for review. Due to my absurd use of 3.1.1 I fully expect to get rejected and escalated afterwards, but here’s to hoping!
Rejection number 1 in the bag, but various reasonable pieces of feedback to address.
Did you know that you can build an entire business based on a single word in a single bullet of the App Store Review guidelines?! I don’t remember who originally pointed me to RFC2119, but I am so thankful for the definition of the word “may” having so much prior art.
Looking forward to my future blog posts “When is a physical good not a physical good?” and “IP over Carrier Pigeon: the ideal use of AppClips.”
@babbage hahah no the opposite. It say something like “Apps that sell gift cards that send them through physical mail MAY use a form of payment other than in-app purchases.”
In my use case, I want the exact opposite, as in I want to use in-app purchase for the above, and generally the use of “may” like this conforms to it’s definition in RFC2119: “This word, or the adjective "OPTIONAL", mean that an item is truly optional.”
In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.
erin sparling
Duncan Babbage