history of the YoloPrice application

Hello, I am developing a mobile application YoloPrice: it compares prices for the desired product in all leading marketplaces and stores in the country in real time.

When I was faced with the fact that my update was not allowed through moderation, the first thing I did was look for information about whether anyone had had a similar experience, but there was no such information on Russian-language resources, so I decided to share.

This article will not talk about primary moderation when the application is completely new. My case is that the App Store moderation began to reject new versions of the application, which had previously existed quietly in the App Store for a couple of months and had 1000+ installations, that is, all the basic requirements for the application were met.

Perhaps someone could have complained about him, or a new moderator was hired, we won’t know the real reason, but I will tell you in detail on what points the new versions were rejected and how I eventually dealt with these points.

First brush with rejection

When I submitted the next version of YoloPrice 0.8.5 for moderation, it was rejected due to my use of logos of well-known marketplaces:

Guideline 4.1 – Design (Copycats):

The App Store team felt that my application was misleading users by displaying content similar to well-known platforms (Wildberries, Yandex, Aliexpress) without the necessary permission. Despite the fact that YoloPrice is a metasearch engine, moderators decided that the application is not sufficiently different from copies of other services.

I found this remark too harsh, given that other metasearch apps such as Skyscanner and HotelsCombined already operate successfully in the App Store, providing similar services and displaying the same airline logos.

My actions and adjustments

After the refusal, I made changes to the description of the application and wrote an explanatory letter for moderation, emphasizing that my application is a classic metasearch engine, and this is indicated in the User Agreement on the application website. Also, I added a list of stores that are searched and links to them directly in the application description.

However, after these changes, the next version of the application was again rejected. This time the reason was Guideline 4.2.2, according to which the application “does not differ from a standard web browser.”

New Disclaimer: Guideline 4.2.2

According to moderators, YoloPrice's functionality was not unique and, as they pointed out in a comment, “is not very different from a standard browser.” This came as a surprise to me (or rather, it bombed me), since, again, this clause does not seem to apply to other aggregator applications. I wanted to say a lot to the moderator, but I had to keep it to the point in 4,000 characters.

Letter explaining functionality

In a new attempt to moderate the version, I wrote another letter in which I explained in detail the unique functions of YoloPrice, which are difficult or impossible to implement in the browser:

• Metasearch algorithm:
  YoloPrice searches 136 online stores simultaneously for products through a single search bar. This cannot be done in a browser by opening over 136 tabs, collecting product prices and ranking them from low to high.

• Machine learning:
  I use machine learning filters to rank products to ensure that the offers shown are relevant (e.g. don't show cases when searching for a phone).

• Neural network:
  Groups identical products based on text and images so that users see a compact and organized interface rather than scrolling through 50 identical products.

• Patented mobile SDK:
  All metasearch processing, filters and neural networks are controlled through a proprietary SDK, which makes implementing such functionality in the browser impossible. I also offered to provide patent documentation upon request (it's more than 70 pages, if that).

However, this did not impress the moderator, and I was rejected again, and again for the same reason: Guideline 4.2.2, the functionality “is not much different from the standard browser.”

The letter that changed everything

At this stage, I had already decided that, as a last resort, I would be ready to delete the application from the App Store and create a new account as a legal entity (now it is published as an individual).
In the final letter, I directly told the moderation team that I did not understand the reason for the refusal, because if applications like Skyscanner, Aviasales and HotelsCombined successfully pass moderation, despite similar functionality, then why are different requirements applied to YoloPrice?

Perhaps the Apple team would like me to use more of the built-in iOS features? This question prompted me to do a little analysis, where I compared the built-in functions used in YoloPrice and similar applications:

I explained that YoloPrice uses similar iOS features to other metasearch apps (Siri & Search, Push Notifications) and requested a detailed explanation of the differences that led to my app being rejected. I also emphasized that we already had over 1,000 installs on iOS and 4,000 installs on Android, and users deserve access to an updated version of the app with improved functionality.

Here are the key points from my last letter:

1. Comparison with competitors:
   I provided a table of the functionality of other metasearch apps and pointed out that the use of APIs and iOS functions in those apps is not much different from ours. This was an important argument that YoloPrice should not be considered a “regular web browser”.

2. Request for clarification:
   I asked for specific recommendations or a video call to discuss exactly how my application could be adapted to meet Guideline 4.2.2 requirements.

3. Emphasis on differences in platforms:
   In the letter, I also pointed out that Android users have been successfully using the updated version of the application for over two weeks, while iOS users are unable to do so, emphasizing the need for equal access for all users.

4. Suspicions about the unreasonableness of the refusal:
   I directly asked the question whether the rejection was due to the fact that the application was published by an individual or due to the citizenship of the owner (Russia). While this was not the central argument, it did highlight possible bias in the moderation process.

Result: YoloPrice is approved and the new version is available in the App Store

Every time the application status changed to “In Review”, I looked at which IP addresses the moderators were coming from, and usually one IP address came from the USA, but this time during moderation I noticed 5 IP addresses at once, 4 of which were from the USA and one from the UK.

In response to this letter, the moderation team succinctly replied: “Thank you for the information provided, we will continue to review your application,” and the version status changed from “refused” to “under moderation,” and a couple of hours later my application was successfully published in the App Store.

I concluded that open communication with moderators, as well as detailed explanations of features and comparisons with similar applications, can make a significant difference in the outcome. It is important not just to make changes, but to explain each action and find similar cases for examples.

I hope that my experience will help other developers when going through moderation, especially if they are faced with vague wording in refusals.