Rejected: it's just a website
You wrapped your Lovable web app with Capacitor and sent it to Apple. It came back rejected under Guideline 4.2, 'Minimum Functionality'.
This answers: Why did Apple reject my Capacitor app? No coding needed. 3 quick decisions.
- Keeping it running
Checking your access…
Why did Apple reject my Capacitor app?
Guideline 4.2 rejections mean Apple sees your app as a website in a box: nothing it offers beyond the site. Add features that matter on a phone, such as an offline screen, notifications, native sharing or camera use, design for phone navigation, and explain them in review notes. If none apply, an installable web app may serve you better.
Breaks at App store: App adds nothing beyond the website
Why AI tools write this bug
AI tools make wrapping a web app in Capacitor quick, so it's easy to submit before asking what the app does that the website can't.
How to fix it
- List what the app does that the website can't.
- Add an offline screen and phone-sized navigation.
- Use native features where they truly help.
- Explain those features in the review notes.
Check your own app
Paste this into Lovable, Cursor or Claude Code:
Without changing anything, list what this app does on a phone that the website doesn't: offline behaviour, notifications, camera, sharing, location, haptics. Then tell me which links open web pages inside the app, what happens with no internet connection, and what a store reviewer would see in the first minute after installing it.
Common questions
- Does Apple ban Capacitor apps?
- No. Many Capacitor apps are in the App Store. Apple judges what the app offers, not the framework used to build it.