App rejection due to missing in-app purchase

I built a meditation app with a subscription model with payment via a website similar to the often suggested Netflix or Spotify model. In order to work around the lack of in app purchase functionality. But I still can’t get passed the apple review. I even removed all mentions of the subscription in the app, but I am still rejected.

I had a call with Apple today, and it seems like the strategy suggested in this forum of the Spotify and Netflix model doesn’t easily work. My reviewer said that such “Reader” apps as in the guidelines 3.1.2 (a) do only qualify as such if there is large amounts of content being accessed (like in the millions). The interpretation of the review guidelines seems kind of arbitrary on this. But anyways, it’s the reason my app is rejected.

I just wanted to let you know that there is currently no real workaround to the missing in app purchase in adalo. I therefore would love your support on upvoting the in-app purchase feature to get it on the roadmap!


I understand @k.r and that feature is important

In the meantime, how about launching with upfront pricing… to get the ball rolling then switch to in-app once that feature is out and grandfather in previous customers?

Also I’m trying to get around this for a project. Have also seen models where the mobile app is sign in only and “requires a XYZ app account” - and that subscription is bought off the web. So you could have a web version of your app to sell the subscription and the mobile is free and just to login and run it? Have seen those rejected too (famous one being but have just downloaded several apps today to test that run on this model…

Hope you can find a solution in the meantime

1 Like

Hi nocodemaker,

I guess thats exactly what I was trying to do to get passed them. But I made it so you can still create a free tier account inside the app. You would only see the premium content if you log in with a paying account, which you do on the website.

I can’t imagine apple approving an app that is only functional with a log-in that you have to payed for?

But it gives me an idea for one last try. I guess I could provide the free version without a log in required and have the login with premium content for paying users only.

1 Like

Excellent! This should have helped.

That’s a great idea and quite original. They like content without needing a login so this might work. And reference the login subtly so that they must go to your website to pay for the subscription. Without drawing too much attention as Apple will want a cut off that payment. This reminds me similarly of the Fortnite saga.

Incidentally I’m struggling with another app rejected for 4.2.2 - minimum design - “rejected as does not differ much from a mobile web browser experience” “only includes links and images” - so we all must keep adapting our apps to satisfy Apple!

Keep at it!

This topic was automatically closed 10 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.