Log in or register to post comments

App rejected '..too simple'

December 20, 2013 - 1:37am #1


I'm a visual artist and I've made a free app to accompany a large wallprint installation. Markers are concealed within the print & activate motion captured performances. The app store has rejected my app because it is 'to simple'. I have added extra menus, link to website - to get markers etc. But it has been rejected again, '..limited set of features'. As the app has a rather mesmeric effect on viewers I think its rather wonderful. Does anyone have any good ideas/experience??. I realise Apple will not reconginse the validity or concept of art....but im not sure if the best way forward is to add, I dont know, stock market price tickers or whatever...

App rejected '..too simple'

May 5, 2016 - 12:06pm #8

It happended to me once, I sent an email, explaining the impact that the app was going to have in the art exposition I made the app for. It was very simple, I submited an example just changing the web view and the targets and videos, yet they aproved it.

App rejected '..too simple'

April 16, 2016 - 8:37pm #7

thanks for sharing the tips. However, it's a rare case for rejecting an app in that reason.

App rejected '..too simple'

March 14, 2016 - 2:09pm #6

Hello everyone,

First of all, I am sorry to resurrect this old thread. Sadly, this issue is still very much on topic. While developing our latest Augmented Reality app we encountered the "Too Simple" problem (among others xD) and I wanted to share my findings with you:


Thanks a lot and I hope it helps,


App rejected '..too simple'

July 3, 2015 - 11:06pm #5

I realise that this is now a very late reply but I'd be interested to know how this process ended. 

I am approaching the point of submitting my first app to Apple and have similar worries about the 'simplicity' of my app.  My app works with pre-printed images on posters and cards and plays a series of animations based on these.  It is for the museum/gallery market and so the entire product has a 'cultural' or 'educational' value, but the actual app process is quite simple - load, point the camera and watch the animations.  The animations are looped to allow the user to focus on the content.  In this respect it is not unlike the older Guiness Book of Records apps.  The actual 3D content is histroically accurate and far from 'simple' but the interactivity is limited at this stage, as I had planned to add more interactivity at a later stage - although this is likely to take weeks or even months to complete.

At this stage, would I be wise to include 'extras' such as an offline mode or make the 3D content more interactive (eg. buttons).  I'm reluctant to create content simply to appease Apple but obviously I would if it eases the application process.    The printed 2D images contain a certain amount of information, which I could replicate on the app itself - although this seems a little redundant when the combination of the two is the intended goal.

App rejected '..too simple'

December 23, 2013 - 2:20am #4

then what is the point of the AR in the first place.


I think the point is that things have moved on beyond simply having an AR experience of augmenting the video feed, which has a certain novelty feel about it, and as an end application consumers may expect more than just this.

That said, given your case is enhancing a real-life experience/installation, hopefully Apple can see the value in this.


Good luck and keep us posted!



App rejected '..too simple'

December 21, 2013 - 12:20am #3

Thanks for the reply. I have made a video - and sent to apple -  a little tricky because the exhibition isnt installed yet and opens in Jan. Seems to me though that if the point of the app is to have an AR experience, & you can have that experience without the AR - then what is the point of the AR in the first place. We are trying to create a site specific experience here. Anyways...Got it into the Google Play no bother.. 

App rejected '..too simple'

December 20, 2013 - 3:37am #2

There have been a few instances of this where Apple has rejected certain apps because they offer too limited experience.

One of the things they seem to have pointed out is that users need to be able to have an experience without printing out an ARtarget.

In your case it seems that it is there to "accompany a large wallprint installation".  Possibly one thing to consider is what the experience is without it?

The other thing you could do is make a video as part of the appeals process with Apple, and maybe show this experience within the App itself?





Log in or register to post comments