"Your app is misusing background location for purposes other than location-related features and functionality."
> It would seem Apple are directly telling you that this aspect is misuse, on account of they call it that, and the actual disagreement here is "We do not ... agree that this is “misusing” the method". Apple's position seems clear.
The problem for is more that it's open and inconsistent interpretation, in their own words, when they decide that. Their position is "clear" with the respect to the other apps in our space that they banned, and then allowed back in. So "clear" to one entity combined (-1) * "clear" to another has the sum of zero clarity.
> What's your evidence for this? That they provide it themselves? There are plenty of things that Apple bless for themselves to do via apps, and not for 3rd parties to do. Is your evidence that the rules aren't being applied consistently? That's not evidence, that's an appeal to fairness.
This evidence is not shareable here for others privacy and respect. It is the combination of content of a number of conversations between app developers we communicate with, and with Apple's conversations with all of us.
> This seems an odd sentence to say just after "Apple has not said this aspect is misuse".
This is admittedly a poor and opaque hint at the above note.
We haven't been targeted first, we are in the pool of targets, and some Apple has let back in. These apps list screen time management as their primary raison-d'etre.
It seems some here maybe confused that location in the app is being used surreptitiously, or ScreenTime measured surreptitiously. In fact, it is explicitly requested, explained to the users who sign up, and reflected clearly in the app with all the necessary warnings about possible battery issues on generations of devices affected (6 and prior) and used to report on location. And screen time.
Our users are installing the app for both features, knowing both are there, in the same vein as a number of other digital tools Apple has allowed in the store, that use the same approach.
Unfortunately, this is from a phone call with Apple. Supposedly why there are multiple other apps currently in the store, accepted by apple, the do precisely the same approach for reporting phone use.
Please re-read the guidelines and the use. No API has been used that wasn't explicitly allowed to be used for said purposes. Location provided location. The public signal that indicates screen off and on was used. Neither was used surreptitiously, rather, used explicitly. Apple says this os OK. They just have an inconsistently applied definition of what qualifies as "location is the primary use".
#1 Does not violate TOS. At least the rep spoken to said it does not. It is permitted to apps to known when the screen is on / screen off, via the built-in notification it provides.
It is not recommended to enable this capability on iPhone 6 generation and older. Devices after that have on chip acceleration that makes it a minimal drain... it was one of the big hardware advancements a few years back.
You can go download Moment from the App Store right now and find out :)
No other data issue has been cited... There is no other data available on iOS to use for productivity tracking anyway. The app is best used as an out-of-band console / intervention / notification center, however getting a "total screen time across all devices" metric is a much desired feature for users.
As the APIs stand today, the only way the phone screen pick up event can be captured, is if the persistent location capability is in place. Of course, a users location is very informative for work goals and what a users hopes might be for screen time, so it also matters as a data point (think, office vs transit).
So a number of apps have used both together, for the purpose of tackling digital wellness. The decision as to which is "primary" has been applied without consistency by the reviewers.
It is of note in this case that "misuse" is perfectly arbitrary. The RescueTime app did use location, only locally on the device, to enrich the information provided to users. It also happened to capture screen time, obviously important to the app. Be clear here: Apple has not said this aspect is misuse. Screen time recording is blessed by Apple. There are at least three other apps active in the app store that do the same thing, and advertise themselves as screen time management tools. It cannot be argued that location is the primary reason the api is used for any of these, but it can be argued that it is an important aspect. Just like RescueTime claims.
Apple's issue here is there is no consistency for "misuse" where misuse is defined as location being secondary or primary to the API use. That is what their review board is claiming, and it so far used in a capricious and anti-competitive fashion.
The problem for is more that it's open and inconsistent interpretation, in their own words, when they decide that. Their position is "clear" with the respect to the other apps in our space that they banned, and then allowed back in. So "clear" to one entity combined (-1) * "clear" to another has the sum of zero clarity.
> What's your evidence for this? That they provide it themselves? There are plenty of things that Apple bless for themselves to do via apps, and not for 3rd parties to do. Is your evidence that the rules aren't being applied consistently? That's not evidence, that's an appeal to fairness.
This evidence is not shareable here for others privacy and respect. It is the combination of content of a number of conversations between app developers we communicate with, and with Apple's conversations with all of us.
> This seems an odd sentence to say just after "Apple has not said this aspect is misuse".
This is admittedly a poor and opaque hint at the above note.
We haven't been targeted first, we are in the pool of targets, and some Apple has let back in. These apps list screen time management as their primary raison-d'etre.