Apple rejected OnFoot. Reason: users can’t use the app without allowing | @welsimarsantos

Lvl 2ExplorerOct 28

Apple rejected OnFoot.

Reason: users can’t use the app without allowing location.

OnFoot is a walking navigation app. 🙃

Fix: a screen explaining why we need it. Lesson learned: “obvious” isn’t obvious to App Review.

iOS build #21, here we go 🍎

7644

Get to know me Sign in to let's talk privately

6 replies

Mark Rosario@markrosarioLvl 5Builder12h

"Obvious" isn't obvious to App Review" — that line belongs on every iOS dev's monitor. A walking app plainly needs location, but the explainer screen before the system prompt is what gets it through. Build #21 should do it.

Raftopoulos Yannis@yannisraftLvl 6Maker20h

Yeah I've faced a similar issue in the past... Android has a similar requirement!

Tito Kiragu@tito_kiraguLvl 5Builder21h

That lesson is one every app store submission teaches eventually. One plain screen saying why location matters, and build #21 should clear it. Good luck with the resubmit.

Paul Yorke@originforgestudioLvl 4Contributor22h

A rejection for needing location on a walking navigation app does sound odd, but a screen explaining why before the system prompt appears is the usual fix. Will the app still show something useful, such as a search for a place or a saved route, if someone taps 'don't allow' on the prompt? Reviewers often want to see that the app does not just dead-end without permission.

Mark Rosario@markrosarioLvl 5BuilderOct 29

'Obvious isn't obvious to App Review' is a lesson worth framing — a walking navigation app obviously needs location, but the reviewer only sees the permission prompt. The explainer screen is the right fix: it helps the review and it helps the user trust the prompt. Good luck with build #21.

Ehsan@acadictiveLvl 8ShipperOct 28

Handy connections for community posts: @sherryjew, @maxma, @chrisgwynne, @appitometechnologies, and @schamack are recent voices from other help topics. Say hi if any of them resonate.