One thing that I've seen here a few times it Apple rejecting an app because they say it's merely a marketing tool, or even saying that the business itself should get their own developer account. The marketing part is s separate issue, and people have commented that including other features such as a quiz can solve that issue. The other thing is, being rejected and Apple saying that the business should get their own developer account. This leads me to my question. Do any of you build apps for local businesses? If so, what's the deal with Apple saying that the business should have an individual developer account rather than being submitted by you? I'm asking because I'm thinking about getting into building apps for businesses, but, looking ahead, I don't want to do all the legwork to build an app only to need the business to get their own developer account. I guess they could do that and I could just do the submittal for them if it comes to it. Just askin'!

Something to consider: Who's app is it? Your app? If so, your account. Or, The local business' app? If so, their account. Fred

I build apps to locals, and I require each to get their own account. I set them up with Apple, and setup a login for myself (of course, explaining to each client why I am doing so). That way I do all the submitting myself (and charge accordingly). Another good reason for this is that if you plan on making apps for yourself as well, its better to build a consistent brand for yourself, rather than having a potpouri of apps in your development account. You can always use any app you made in your own portfolio.

I didnt knew about that Apple asks a separate account for business entities. There is a point in what Fred says. If its your app it should be your account but, if its app of a particular business entity, then it should be their account and this means your clients will have to loosen their pockets by $100 per year for that. Apple Store is not as flexible as Google Play Store.

True. To add to my thinking... If the app is going to be a "paid" app, then its a no brainer - the client needs to have the Apple Dev account to receive their monies directly. If its a free app, but the client is paying you to develop it, the end result (submitted binary) should be their "property". (If that's how you have your contract setup). Thus requiring the client to have an Apple Dev account. If its a free app, and you're simply creating it as a "fan" of the local business - then there should be no problem in maintaining the submission in your dev account. Many variables.

Hey guys, I've create several app for local businesses, I don't force them to get their own account unless their budget covers it. Never been rejected. Obviously I offer clients the option of using their own account and some of my higher budget clients do choose that option. As for mostly marketing, I always include features apart from the mobile store efc, such as a quiz or gallery that users can interact with. //J

If i want to make an app for a client and he wants to upload it to his account.Do i need to download certificates again or the process is the same us i upload it to my dev account ?

Yep you need to download his certificates and profiles and sign it with his details.

Oh thats a problem.It took me 2 weeks with help to download with success my certificates :(

Really? Took me 5 minutes. What issues did you have?

Im newbie so a lot of issues ! Finally a friend make all the job for me

Maybe the 'usefulness' could be a hint? If you had to accept or reject an app, and you see the app looks like a pure useless advertising, maybe you'd reject it. But if this 'marketing tool' gives more than plain advertising (e.g. for a restaurant useful tourist info about the area or cooking tips etc.) you may consider it as useful and accept it... Just my own feeling...

Exactly right @fusionsch - my aim with apps that the clear purpose is advertising is to allow the user to INTERACT with the app ---> through quizes, shareable galleries, etc.

Well, the way I was going with this was a bit different than some of you maybe, so I'll tell you my idea. I was thinking about building apps for churches, and not charging the church. I could make a small income from the app through banner ads, and make it a free app. The apps that I'd make would have good functionality, but would eliminate the barrier that most smaller churches have in getting an app - their budget just can't take it. What I was thinking of was setting up and LLC that's separate from my main Apple account, and name it "Church Apps" or something like that, and use that account only for building apps for churches, at no cost to the church.

Setting up the LLC is certainly a way to go, as it separates the church apps from other apps. Not obligatory, but possible. The downside is another $99/year to Apple. Alternative is to be clear that it's your app and not the church's app and keep just one account. In any event with a separate church app account you'll run into same problem if it's not clear that it's not the church's app. Fred

Daniel, would it work to consider the app a joint initiative between your company and the church? I can see the $99 being a barrier with some churches. Here is a link to a "collaboration" between the developer and organization who wanted the app. http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/my-healthy-smile/id392874005?mt=8

Very interesting stuff here. Subscribed! David buzztouchmods.com

What you must appreciate is that Apple is sorta like a born-again post-reformation mega-church. Apple wants to have a personal relationship with each and every one of us, and tithing starts at $99/year. Apple doesn't want priests (app developers) placing themselves between the flock (publisher) and the Almighty (Apple). Therefore every organization (publisher) desiring to have an app shall be allowed (obligated) to have a personal relationship with Apple. So though Apple is happy for you the developer to help bring the flock to enlightenment (creating the app) you will not interfere with Apple's personal relationship ($99/yr.) with the flock (publisher). Even further, the flock (the publisher) shall not interfere with Apple's direct and personal relationship with the sheep (the app user) by allowing direct install of the app. Install will be directly through the Almighty (Apple). Therefore all personal relationship (30%) between the user and Apple shall not be interfered by either the developer or the publisher. Furthermore, Thy shall not jailbreak, it's a mortal sin which leads to damnation and you'll be excommunicated (Apple will cancel your warranty). Just some musings by, Fred

I hear ya, Fred, but the cost is the thing that makes having an app prohibitive for a lot of churches and mom and pop local businesses. Sure, Papa Johns pizza and large churches can afford the $99 annual developer fee and production costs, but Papa Luigis's Pizza, owned by one guy named Luigi in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and The First Baptist Church of Jackson, Mississippi may not have that kind of budget. And @fusionsch, I'm not so much talking about the app being rejected for poor quality marketing, I'm talking about it being rejected because I've read here that some people who develop apps for businesses get rejected because Apple says the business needs their own developer account. I just wanted to distinguish between the two in my initial post.

I agree that it's cost prohibitive for many, which is why I keep repeating that jailbreaking makes a lot of sense for publishers and users. (Oh, such heresies.) Another alternative is a mobile web app. Fred

If only there was a way to favorite posts, love it @Fred. David buzztouchmods.com

Don't worry, it'll go into my next article, "Understanding Apple". Fred

I've been trying to get my head around Apple's rationale on this one too. It seems like a money grab (600,000+ apps x $99/year) but, although I hate to admit it, I'm beginning to think I can see it from Apple's perspective (either that or I'm coming down with the flu). Here goes: I think Apple feels they should be reimbursed for distributing content, not code. Because, after all, the end-user value in apps is usually not the lovely code but the content. And Apple feels (hah!) that the content owner (client), not the code writer, should pay for that wonderful distribution. If so maybe they should rename the apple developer accounts as apple content owner accounts. I'm considering creating apps for small businesses too and I was planning to charge them an annual fee to maintain their app - maybe $1000 or something like that and I guess I could wrap their Apple "content owner's account" fees into that somehow. I don't know about churches and I understand that the $99 is not in their budget right now but if the app is useful to them surely they can have a bake sale or something and raise the $99. Now I better go. I have to Google "flu remedies".

Yeah, it's a real puzzler, jon - and I hope you don't have the flu! The conundrum, to me, is that I would prefer to build apps for churches and submit under my developer account, doing it at no cost to the church. This would allow me to have iAds in the app to at least generate some recurring revenue. If I have to set the church up with a $99 per year developer account, I also lose the ability to get the recurring advertising revenue from the app, so I'd have to offset that, like you say, by charging them $1,000 bucks a year or something. Some bigger churches would do this in a second, but most just can't do it. So it's sort of a catch 22, with churches at least, to me. Now, for the local business owner, I don't see a problem with charging them $1,000 - $1,200 a year to get an app with their own developer account, but I just see more of a need for apps for churches than I do every bar and restaurant in town. I know, I know, a church can have a mobile website too.

I see your point. And I guess BuzzTouch doesn't have a banner ad plugin? That would be sweet - you'd manage the app for the churches, sell banner ads to local businesses and receive the income from the ads directly with NO cut to Apple. If that was possible you'd be able to pay the church's $99 fee for them. A banner ad plugin would be really neat - I don't suppose it exists already?

The conundrum, to me, is that I would prefer to build apps for churches and submit under my developer account, doing it at no cost to the church. You can but must be clear regarding ownership of app. If you're not clear it may or may not be approved by reviewer. They should reject, but they make mistakes. Create Holy iRollers Spirits Association, and register it as the developer. Then app proudly declares the iRoller Church of Tulsa app by Holy iRoller Spirits Association. Whom the app belongs to is clear. Now you'll be approved by Apple. Change names used accordingly. And don't forget to register LLC appropriately to prove you actually are Holy iRollers Spirits Association, or just publish app as iRoller Church of Tulsa app by [your name] (no registration required). Fred

Dear Fred I have been away for a what seems to me ages, and come back to see you extol the virtues of jail breaking, I am a happy man, the banks may falter, the arab spring may change governments but your viewpoints on apple (on many points quite rightly) will never change. I definitely am glad to be back at Buzztouch. My perspective is that guiding the local business or organization such as a church to be as autonomous as possible is the best step. In the end this enables them to take ownership of the app and your become a developer in the early stages and a consultant in the later. The fact that it enriches apple further is secondary to the business having ownership. Just my viewpoint as someone who has a great deal of experinece giving guidance to small businesses. Marko

@Marko, your words are ever true, which gets back to the question: Who's app is it. I think someone relatively important once said something about avoiding unnecessary entanglements. Glad you back. Fred

Thanks Fred You are always make me smile, and your guidance has got me through some sticky moments. I have to say Fred and it may be hurtful but the bear is looking older and its paws look like its got arthritis or woodworm. I am not sure if it looks cute or a member of a new wing of some Scientology group PS any scientologist, 1- who doesn't like John Travolta, 2 - Tom Cruise needs to have less e numbers, 3 - If we are from another planet can I come from a warm one as Brittan is not getting a good deal out of the global warming

This is a great discussion. The thing that I'm wrestling with is that I want it to be my app, and something I do as a service to a church. The content will be ABOUT the church, but the owner and person who maintains the app would be me. That's sort of my whole selling point - I can do the entire process to build and maintain an app for a church, and let them be totally hands off, mainly having the ability to tell me if they like or don't like the look of the app. But this route, I'd want the app to be mine to maintain and be responsible for. Now, if I built one for the hair salon, restaurant, or fitness center up the road, I'd be more prone to go the route of doing it on a fee basis to them with the business taking ownership of the app in their own Apple developer account. I guess it's sort of irrelevant how I see it though, and depends on what the Almighty Apple thinks.