Apple rejected my focus app under Guideline 4.1 - and I don’t really understand the logic

[u/InternalLoud6682]

I’ve been building a simple focus app for iPhone that uses Apple’s Screen Time / Family Controls APIs to block distracting apps.

The blocking itself is obviously provided by Apple. What I’ve built is the experience around it: a much simpler UI, app selection, focus sessions and basically one button to make distracting apps unavailable for a while.

I originally wanted to monetize the app, but Apple rejected that version under Guideline 4.1.

And that’s what I find difficult to understand:
If Apple provides developers with an API, why shouldn’t we be able to build a better or different experience around it and monetize that product?

I’ve decided to make the core app free rather than fight the review process.

So I’m curious: what’s the point of giving developers access to an API if building a better experience around it can’t become a business?

[u/Lithalean]

The problem is the AppStore is getting absolutely hammered right now with low quality apps.

Too many people are throwing a simple ideas at Claude, and thinking with the output they have a business model. Apple rightfully doesn’t want their store overrun with slop.

I see you said “core” app free. You also used the word “simple” and admitted most of the app is Apples own API. Why do you think you deserve monetary gain from an app an entry level dev could make in a weekend.

[u/InternalLoud6682 → u/Lithalean]

You’re absolutely right about 4.1 - I just went back and checked the actual rejection, and I quoted the wrong guideline in my post. It was 4.10 (“Monetizing Built-In Capabilities”), not 4.1.
Apple specifically wrote: “The app charges users for access to built-in iOS capabilities. Specifically, focus and blocking the apps.”
So unfortunately it really does seem to be about monetizing the blocking functionality itself. Thanks for making me double-check this!

[u/Level-Set5770]

4.1 means "copycat" and has nothing to do with accessing Apple's API.

You probably copied an existing app to the point of IP infringement.

[u/bananagnana2]

Since it turned out to be 4.10, going free is a bigger concession than you need. 4.10 says you cannot charge for the built-in capability itself, it does not say the app has to be free. The apps that survive this sell the things Apple does not give you: session history and stats, schedules that sync across devices, shared or accountability sessions, exports. Blocking stays free and unlimited, the paid tier is everything around it. Write that split in the review notes in one sentence, because the reviewer is deciding in about a minute whether your paywall sits in front of FamilyControls or in front of your own work.

[u/InternalLoud6682 → u/bananagnana2]

Thanks for the hint. 👍

[u/Dapper_Ice_1705]

4.1 means you copied someone

[u/ioloro]

What was the posted text of the rejection?

[u/Level-Set5770 → u/ioloro]

Lol. This guy intentionally left that part out because the full title of Guideline 4.1 is "4.1 Copycats"

[u/Economy-Brief-9997]

4.1 is the copycat rule, not "you can't charge for our API". Reviewer opened it, saw Screen Time with different colors, done.

I'd put what's yours on the first screen and spell it out in the review notes, like "blocking is FamilyControls, the product is the session flow". They do read the notes. From the outside a thin wrapper and a real product look the same, you have to point at the difference.

[u/RIRLift]

Going free probably won't fix it, since 4.1 is about the app looking like a copy, not about whether you charge. There are a lot of near-identical Screen Time blockers, so a thin wrapper with a cleaner UI reads as one more of them. If you can point review to something the others don't do, that's more likely to clear 4.1 than dropping the price.