[lawgimenez]

> Apple rejected our stand-alone free companion app “because it doesn’t do anything”.

It says on DHH’s blog. We can’t know for sure unless he shares a screenshot of it but more or less that is the reason because I was rejected with this same reason before.

[ricardobeat]

Providing credentials for a test account is mandatory, and as a company publishing multiple apps it’s not something they would miss.

[angulardragon03]

It feels to me that, if you were going to make the complaint that DHH has, you would also explicitly mention that you had given them test account credentials. The actual reasonable complaint would be to say "we gave them test account credentials and they _still_ said our app was non-functional". But, that isn't the messaging here, it's not even mentioned. Given that DHH has very public opinions about Apple, I find it hard to believe he would miss the opportunity to make such a slam dunk, unless it wasn't true to make that claim.

[ricardobeat]

So you think they intentionally not provided credentials, ruining their own release plans, yet somehow Apple took 19 days to realize and reply? The internet is funny…

[lawgimenez]

Some Apple reviewers will take into account existing data too. Not just being able to sign in. So the provided credentials should have enough data.

[cachehit]

This is a quote from DHH from LinkedIn:

>Of course we gave them a login. We’ve been publishing apps on the App Store for over a decade. This was not a low-level mistake. It went all the way to the app review board.

In another response he writes that the reviewers did in fact log in.