Hello everyone,
I am seeking advice regarding a persistent Guideline 4.2 (Minimum Functionality) rejection for my app, Naxçıvan Avto. My app is a specialized automotive marketplace designed specifically for the Nakhchivan region.
The Issue:
The App Review team has stated that the app's usefulness is limited by minimal functionality and lacks sufficient "app-like" features. However, the app is built strictly around the services provided by our company and the specific requirements of our local automotive industry.
Current Functionality:
• Dynamic Regional Marketplace: Real-time car and license plate listings with detailed technical data (VIN codes, mileage, engine specs).
• Localized Financial Tools: Filters and categorization for Cash (Nağd), Credit, and Barter options, which are essential for our regional business model.
• Real-time Push Ecosystem: Integration with Supabase Edge Functions to notify users about new listings and approval statuses.
• Native Tooling: Includes a financial calculator for credit evaluations and a direct communication bridge between buyers and sellers.
The Constraint:
As a developer, I am strictly limited to the services provided by the company. Adding "entertainment" features or unrelated utilities would deviate from the app's core business purpose and degrade the user experience for our specific target audience.
My Question:
How can I better demonstrate to the review team that a highly specialized, niche business tool provides "sufficient utility" without adding bloatware? Has anyone successfully appealed a 4.2 rejection for a regional marketplace by emphasizing business-specific constraints?
I have already populated the app with significant real-world content and ensured all interactive elements (filters, calculators, notifications) are fully functional.
Any insights or suggestions on how to phrase my appeal or further demonstrate "app-like" value within these constraints would be greatly appreciated.
Topic:
App Store Distribution & Marketing
SubTopic:
App Review