iPhone Lite 版本 - 允许什么？
我对此感到摸不着头脑。
我有一个相当成功的应用程序，除了完整版本之外，它还有免费的“LITE”版本。这是一个实用程序应用程序，而不是一个有关卡的游戏，我很难弄清楚苹果会接受精简版的哪些内容。现在这个问题之所以成为一个问题，是因为我将两个代码库与不同的目标结合在一起，并且我的新改进的精简版也将兼容 iPad。
这些版本有两个根本区别。在精简版中，显示的数据仅显示当天的数据，而完整版则允许用户选择任何日期。此外，其中一个数据屏幕详细显示了 3 个数据点，而完整版本则显示了更多数据。精简版本身功能完善，没有灰色功能。
我想做的是利用精简版数据屏幕上的空闲空间来解释完整版中有更多数据可用，并提供升级按钮，但我不知道苹果是否会将其归类为“追加销售” “（不然我怎么提完整版呢？）通过阅读新的应用程序商店审查指南，我很失望地注意到库比蒂诺在这方面似乎没有进一步的澄清。我从苹果找到的所有例子都是带有附加关卡的游戏，这根本不符合“实用”应用程序。
最近有关于什么是允许的、什么是不允许的建议吗？我知道没有将功能灰显并打扰用户 - 但在其中一个选项卡上有升级按钮（对于 iPad 的弹出窗口）是否算作打扰？我是否可以提及高级版本中的附加功能，或者这是否算作追加销售？如果不是，我还能说什么？
欢迎提供线索！
I'm scratching my head over this.
I have a moderately successful app which has a free "LITE" version in addition to the full one. This is a utility app, not a game with levels, and I'm having trouble figuring out what Apple will accept for the lite version. The reason this is now an issue is that I've brought both code bases together with different targets and my new improved lite version will be iPad compatible as well.
There are two fundamental differences in the versions. In the lite version, the data displayed is only displayed for the current day, whereas the full version allows users to choose any date. Additionally, one of the data screens shows 3 data points in detail, whereas the full version shows much more. The lite version is perfectly functional in its own right and has no greyed out features.
What I would like to do is use the spare space on the lite version data screen to explain that more data is available in the full version and offer a button to upgrade, however I can't figure out if Apple will classify this as "upselling" (well how else am I going to mention the full version?) and from reading the new app store review guidelines, I was disappointed to note that absolutely no further clarity seems forthcoming from Cupertino in this regard. All the examples I find from Apple are games with additional levels and this simply doesn't match a "utility" application.
Is there any recent advice on what is and what is not allowed? I'm aware of not having greyed out functionality and nagging the user - but does having an upgrade button on one of the tabs (in the case of the iPad in a popover) count as nagging? Am I allowed to mention the additional features in the premium version or does that count as upselling? If not, what can I actually say?
Clues welcomed!
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（3）
坦率地说，如果不提交应用程序，就无法100%确定。可能有人已经尝试过此操作并被拒绝。这并不容易确定。但作为用户个人，我不会高兴地在每个页面上看到升级按钮。相反，我想在不同的页面上获得完整版本的摘要。尽管这是我个人的意见，但在每个页面上都有升级按钮可能不是更好的设计。苹果非常重视与惯例保持一致，我认为惯例就是有不同的升级页面。
你可以下载一些精简版的应用程序，看看是否有人做过这种事情。游戏和实用程序的策略应该相同。如果检查了很多之后你没有找到一个，那么你应该重新考虑这一点。但是，是的，你不能 100% 确定。
Frankly speaking, there is no way to be 100% sure without submitting the app. There might be someone who have already tried this and get rejected. It's not very easy to be sure. But as a user personally I won't be happy to see the upgrade button in every page. Rather I would like to get the summery of full version in a different page. This might not be a better design to have an upgrade button in every page, though this is my personal opinion. Apple gives importance to be consistent with the convention, and the convention is to have different upgrade page, I think.
You can download a number of lite apps and check whether any one has done this kind of thing. The policy should be same for both game and utility. If after checking many you don't find a single one, then you should reconsider this. But yes, you can't be 100% sure.
这些规则的应用似乎不一致。
我认为这可以归结为“哈！除非你付钱给我们，否则你不会获得$功能！”之间的感知差异。 “顺便说一句，我们还提供具有更多功能的 $more_expense_app。”两者实际上是同一件事，但给人留下的印象却不同。是的，这是一个很大的灰色地带——我见过各种各样的应用程序（我不记得有任何持续的唠叨/提及，但肯定是“购买 $full_app 以获得更多级别”）。
“$company 的其他应用程序”可能是一个好方法，也许在“关于”选项卡或类似选项卡中。
评论家的意见也不一致。在 Apple 进行任何“私有 API”检查之前（他们似乎直到 2009 年中期才这样做；显然甚至连你链接到的框架都不是很容易），私有 API 的使用取决于你的应用程序是否在 $list_of_suspicious_behaviour 中执行了任何操作，不同审稿人的应用似乎不一致。
我还使用了“$full_app”，因为这就是我的印象；我认为指南的一部分是，您不应该给人留下您的应用程序未“完整”的印象。我也讨厌残废软件（人为地限制某项功能，例如导航应用程序仅限于 8 个航点，并告诉您如果需要更多就购买完整版本，而不是简单地不包括某项功能），但苹果似乎并不介意。
The rules appear to be inconsistently applied.
I think it boils down to the perceived difference between "Ha! You don't get $feature unless you pay us!" and "By the way, we also offer $more_expensive_app with more features." The two are effectively the same thing, but they leave a different impression. Yes, it's a big grey area — I've seen apps across the spectrum (I don't recall any persistent nagging/mentions, but certainly "buy $full_app to get more levels").
"Other apps by $company" might be a good way to go, perhaps in an "about" tab or similar.
Reviewers are also far from consistent. Before Apple did any "private API" checks (they didn't seem to until mid-2009; apparently not even the frameworks you linked to which is dead easy), private API usage was determined by whether your app did anything in $list_of_suspicious_behaviour, which seemed to be applied inconsistently by different reviewers.
I've also used "$full_app" because that's the impression I got; I think part of the guidelines is that you're not supposed to give the impression that your app is not "full". I also hate crippleware (artificially limiting a feature, e.g. a navigation app limited to 8 waypoints and telling you to buy the full version if you want more, as opposed to simply not including a feature), but Apple doesn't seem to mind.
如果应用程序以合理的方式呈现，Apple 允许在应用程序中投放广告。
开发者可以选择运行哪个广告网络，甚至可以选择 Admob 等竞争对手的广告网络。
毫无疑问，您不能成为自己的广告网络。
只需确保您的产品广告（有时恰好是同一应用程序的完整版本的广告）遵循与 admob、iAd 等广告相同的展示规则即可。您自己的广告网络可能是也可能不是您在审核期间选择投放的广告系列。
Apple allows ads in apps if they are presented in a reasonable manner.
Developers can choose which ad network to run, even from competitors such as admob.
There's nothing to say you can't be your own ad network.
Just make sure your ad for your products (which occasionally just so happens to be an ad for the full version of the same app) follows the same presentation rules as the ads for admob, iAd, etc. follow. Your own ad network may or may not be the campaign you choose to run during the review period.