Someone’s app was rejected from Apple on the grounds of 2.12 and 10.6. To Apple, the app was not very useful because it was taking its content from the web server, and it also used buttons that were not Apple-like, so to speak. Not using the “native iOS look and feel” might be another way of decribing it.
Here is my reply in the forum post. The app and the video here just served as a stepping stone for my reminiscences of what makes a great app for both the user and the originator. Here goes my forum post:
I have watched the video and I think that, on this occasion, Apple got it right. Your content is awesome, but it does look like visiting a site, it has no reckognizable Apple user identity and – the main question – so what?
With your app, the user visits, watches and then – does what? Scribbles on a piece of paper which elements to buy? Goes to a computer keyboard and writes a note to himself what to buy? Picks up a phone to tell someone what was decided?
Let the user keep some data on the device, only then it is his/her own project. At the very least, let them keep a list of the elements that they have surveyed, chosen or have looked at. Let them then email that list to someone else, or share the data with the architect, contractor or spouse. The apps are at their best when they mirror the personality and choices of their user. Otherwise, it is just surfing the web.
To be honest, my apps are also guilty of being non-personalized, but I publish them on Android, where there is no Apple police. Still, it is wise not only to strive for the best user experience, but to strive to be useful as well. Let the user invest some time into the app and then they will come back to use it on their own. That will automatically increase the number of page views and then it is not so difficult to start monetizing.
Content or usefulness first, interactivity second, personalizing third, and only then monetization. Otherwise, there is no one to monetize from.