Overview

I am implementing the FFT using vDSP.DiscreteFourierTransform. According to the official documentation, the count parameter has requirements as outlined below: /// The `count` parameter must be: /// * For split-complex real-to-complex: `2ⁿ` or `f * 2ⁿ`, where `f` is `3`, `5`, or `15` and `n >= 4`. /// * For split-complex complex-to-complex: `2ⁿ` or `f * 2ⁿ`, where `f` is `3`, `5`, or `15` and `n >= 3`. /// * For interleaved: `f * 2ⁿ`, where `f` is `2`, `3`, `5`, `3x3`, `3x5`, or `5x5`, and `n>=2`. Despite adhering to these specifications in theory, my attempt to initialize an interleaved DFT with count = 2 * 2 * 5 * 5 (equivalent to 5×5 × 2²) resulted in a failure. Below is the code snippet I used for the initialization: do { let dft = try vDSP.DiscreteFourierTransform( previous: nil, count: 2 * 2 * 5 * 5, direction: .forward, transformType: .complexReal, ofType: DSPComplex.self ) print(dft) } catch { print("DFT init failed:", error) } Could somebody more knowledgeable with these APIs have a look? Thanks!

I have a $4 USD, one-time-purchase app (Dash Calc) and sales have been rough. In a crowded category, an paid-upfront app feels like a tough sell without a way to try it first. I’d like to offer a simple 7-day free trial followed by a single lifetime purchase, but App Store Connect still doesn’t officially support trials for paid apps. In Jan 2023, an App Store Commerce Engineer recommended the $0 non-consumable IAP + paid non-consumable IAP workaround: https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/722874 I haven’t implemented it yet, but the subsequent discussion suggests the approach is overly complex. Handling refunds, reinstalls, activation timing, and purchase history requires non-obvious logic, and some developers report customer confusion and drop-off when presented with a $0 trial IAP. Has anything improved since 2023? Any new StoreKit APIs or App Store Connect changes that make this simpler or less error-prone? Is the $0 non-consumable IAP still the recommended approach in 2026? Any updated guidance for time-limited access on one-time purchases? I’m happy to use the workaround if it’s still the official path—I just want to confirm there isn’t a better option now.

Environment iOS 18.1+ StoreKit External Purchase Link Entitlement (EU) App distributed via App Store in France Problem Summary I'm implementing external purchase links for EU users using ExternalPurchaseCustomLink. While the implementation works correctly in my TestFlight testing, some production users experience token(for:) returning nil. Implementation Following Apple's documentation, my flow is: Check eligibility using ExternalPurchaseCustomLink.isEligible If eligible, call ExternalPurchaseCustomLink.token(for: "ACQUISITION") Store the token for use in the external purchase flow // Simplified implementation guard #available(iOS 18.1, *) else { return } let isEligible = await ExternalPurchaseCustomLink.isEligible guard isEligible else { return } // This returns nil for some users despite isEligible being true let token = try await ExternalPurchaseCustomLink.token(for: "ACQUISITION") Configuration Entitlement: com.apple.developer.storekit.external-purchase-link is present Info.plist: SKExternalPurchaseCustomLinkRegions set to ["fr"] App is only available in France via App Store Observed Behavior For affected users: ExternalPurchaseCustomLink.isEligible returns true token(for:) returns nil (not throwing an error) The token generation was never previously called for these users Questions Under what conditions does token(for:) return nil when isEligible is true? Is there additional validation I should perform before calling token(for:)? Are there known issues with token generation on specific iOS versions? Any guidance on debugging this issue would be appreciated.

I’d like to submit a feature request regarding the availability of Foundation Models in MessageFilter extensions. Background MessageFilter extensions play a critical role in protecting users from spam, phishing, and unwanted messages. With the introduction of Foundation Models and Apple Intelligence, Apple has provided powerful on-device natural language understanding capabilities that are highly aligned with the goals of MessageFilter. However, Foundation Models are currently unavailable in MessageFilter extensions. Why Foundation Models Are a Great Fit for MessageFilter Message filtering is fundamentally a natural language classification problem. Foundation Models would significantly improve: Detection of phishing and scam messages Classification of promotional vs transactional content Understanding intent, tone, and semantic context beyond keyword matching Adaptation to evolving scam patterns without server-side processing All of this can be done fully on-device, preserving user privacy and aligning with Apple’s privacy-first design principles. Current Limitations Today, MessageFilter extensions are limited to relatively simple heuristics or lightweight models. This often results in: Higher false positives Lower recall for sophisticated scam messages Increased development complexity to compensate for limited NLP capabilities Request Could Apple consider one of the following: Allowing Foundation Models to be used directly within MessageFilter extensions Providing a constrained or optimized Foundation Model API specifically designed for MessageFilter Enabling a supported mechanism for MessageFilter extensions to delegate inference to the containing app using Foundation Models Even limited access (e.g. short text only, strict execution limits) would be extremely valuable. Closing Foundation Models have the potential to significantly raise the quality and effectiveness of message filtering on Apple platforms while maintaining strong privacy guarantees. Supporting them in MessageFilter extensions would be a major improvement for both developers and users. Thank you for your consideration and for continuing to invest in on-device intelligence.

TN3187: In the next major release following iOS 26, UIScene lifecycle will be required when building with the latest SDK; otherwise, your app won’t launch. While supporting multiple scenes is encouraged, only adoption of scene life-cycle is required. How should I understand The Next Major Release? Referring to iOS 26.X or the next big version (maybe iOS 27)?

Dear Apple Customer Support, I’m developing a new Swift iPadOS app and I want the app to run in landscape only (portrait disabled). In Xcode, under Target > General > Deployment Info > Device Orientation, if I select only Landscape Left and Landscape Right, the app builds successfully, but during upload/validation I receive this message and the upload is blocked: “Update the Info.plist: Support for all orientations will soon be required.” Could you please advise what the correct/recommended way is to keep an iPad app locked to landscape only while complying with the current App Store upload requirements? Is there a specific Info.plist configuration (e.g., UISupportedInterfaceOrientations~ipad) or another setting that should be used? Thank you,

I’m implementing StoreKit External Purchase Custom Links (EU) and so far it is really painful. I am running into a strange, device-specific issue. On 3/4 devices it works. On one device I never get a token at launch nor before a transaction. isEligible is true everywhere. All devices have versions 18.5 and are located in Germany. Info.plist: SKExternalPurchaseCustomLinkRegions is set to EU storefront codes and I have followed every step in the documentation: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/storekit/externalpurchasecustomlink Good device: At launch → ACQUISITION = nil, SERVICES = token present. Works consistently. Faulty device: At launch → ACQUISITION = nil, SERVICES = nil. Same before transaction. No token ever reaches my server from this device. isEligible is true on both devices. Any experts or help on the matter?

Hello, I’ve been experiencing a persistent issue in Xcode since version 26.0, and it is still present in 26.2. When using the split view to display two files side by side, the area in the top‑right corner of the window (the inspector / options panel) starts flickering continuously. This happens regardless of whether I’m using the light or dark theme, and even with the Liquid Glass effect disabled in macOS settings. None of these changes have any impact on the issue. I have already submitted a bug report through Xcode (Feedback Assistant), but the issue is still present as of today. The flickering makes the interface difficult to use and visually very distracting. I’ve attached a video to clearly show the issue. I will review the attachment at the time I publish this post. Thanks in advance for any help or feedback. Video 1 https://www.icloud.com/iclouddrive/077l-R7Ybvxz89NI-B7DliEuA#xcode_bug1 Video 2 https://www.icloud.com/iclouddrive/0f6bJp48ioGRdkYiA2U4sI-cg#xcode-bug2

Description Title of the view controller is not displayed for the 1st view controller in navigation stack. Is there a way to show it? Main problem is that selected tab is a UITabGroup and there's no way to understand which child of it is currently selected without opening the sidebar or guessing by the content. Human Interface Guidelines In the guidelines there are examples with title visible on the iPad in similar case: https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guidelines/tab-bars Code import UIKit import SwiftUI struct TestView: View { var tab: UITab? let id = UUID() var body: some View { ScrollView { HStack { Spacer() VStack { Text(tab?.title ?? id.uuidString) } Spacer() } .frame(height: 1000) .background(.red) .onTapGesture { tab?.viewController?.navigationController?.pushViewController( TestViewController(nil), animated: true ) } } } } class TestViewController: UIHostingController<TestView> { let _tab: UITab? init(_ tab: UITab?) { self._tab = tab super.init(rootView: TestView(tab: _tab)) } @MainActor @preconcurrency required dynamic init?(coder aDecoder: NSCoder) { fatalError("init(coder:) has not been implemented") } override func viewDidLoad() { super.viewDidLoad() navigationItem.title = _tab?.title ?? "tab-nil" } } class ViewController: UITabBarController { override func viewDidLoad() { super.viewDidLoad() mode = .tabSidebar let provider: (UITab) -> UIViewController = { tab in print(tab) return TestViewController(tab) } let tab1 = UITabGroup( title: "Tab 1", image: UIImage(systemName: "1.square.fill"), identifier: "tab1", children: [ UITab(title: "Sub 1", image: UIImage(systemName: "1.circle"), identifier: "First Tab", viewControllerProvider: provider), UITab(title: "Sub 2", image: UIImage(systemName: "2.circle"), identifier: "Second Tab", viewControllerProvider: provider) ]) tab1.selectedChild = tab1.children[0] tab1.managingNavigationController = UINavigationController() let tab2 = UITabGroup( title: "Tab 2", image: UIImage(systemName: "2.square.fill"), identifier: "Section one", children: [ UITab( title: "Sub 1", image: UIImage(systemName: "a.circle"), identifier: "Section 1, item A", viewControllerProvider: provider), UITabGroup(title: "Sub Group", image: nil, identifier: "q", children: [ UITab( title: "Item 1", image: UIImage(systemName: "b.circle"), identifier: "c1", viewControllerProvider: provider), UITab( title: "Item 2", image: UIImage(systemName: "b.circle"), identifier: "c2", viewControllerProvider: provider) ], viewControllerProvider: provider ), ] ) tab2.selectedChild = tab2.children[0] tab2.managingNavigationController = UINavigationController() tabs = [ tab1, tab2, ] selectedTab = tab1 } }

Hello guys, We have updated our app icon, and it is correctly reflected in our app build and assets. However, the push notification icon is still displaying the old version for some users. ✅ We have verified that: All icon assets in Assets.xcassets match the new icon. The app icon has been updated in Info.plist. The app has been resubmitted and approved on the App Store. ❌ However, some users still see the old notification icon, even after reinstalling the app. Restarting the device does not always resolve the issue. Could you provide insights into how iOS caches notification icons and how we can force a refresh for all users?

On iOS 26, QuickLookAR (ARQuickLookPreviewItem) shares the actual .usdz file via the system Share Sheet instead of the original website URL. This is a regression from iOS 17–18, where sharing correctly preserved and sent only the source URL. Repro steps: 1. Open a web-hosted USDZ model in QuickLookAR (Safari). 2. Tap Share. 3. Share via any messenger. 4. The full .usdz file is sent. Expected: Share Sheet sends only the original URL. Actual: Share Sheet sends the USDZ file. Impact: Uncontrolled distribution of proprietary 3D assets. Critical IP / data leak. Blocks production AR deployments relying on QuickLook. Environment: iOS 26.0–26.1, iPhone 14 / 15. Works as expected on iOS 17–18. Test case: https://admixreality.com/ios26/

Hi, We recently updated our app icon, but the push notification icon has not been updated on some devices. It still shows the old icon on: • iPhone 16 Pro — iOS 26 • iPhone 14 — iOS 26 • iPad Pro 11” (M4) — iOS 18.6.2 • iPhone 16 Plus — iOS 18.5 After restarting these devices, the push notification icon is refreshed and displays the new version correctly. Could you advise how we can ensure the push notification icon updates properly on all affected devices without requiring users to restart? Thank you.

我们仅有一个订阅组，一个用户收到了订阅续费消息，我们不知道发生了什么， 续费消息中的originTransactionId没有发生变化，但是userAccountToken却变化了，指向了另一个用户，此时旧的用户不会收到续费在哪的任何消息。 哪位技术大佬可以帮助解答问题，什么情况下会出现这样的情况

问题：一个用户升级后，苹果的通知消息中 userAccountToken 不变，但是 originTransactionId变了。此时升级前的originTransactionId还会进行周期扣款，升级后的originTransactionId也会进行周期扣款。 注意，订阅的配置是在同一个组中 哪位技术大佬可以帮助解答问题，什么情况下会出现这样的情况

Since the iOS 26.2 update, we have been experiencing anomalous behavior with the DeviceActivityMonitor extension when utilizing the ScreenTime API. Specifically, we are receiving the eventDidReachThreshold event within a few minutes of initiating monitoring, despite configuring a high usage limit. The process of turning off Screen Time -> restarting the device -> turning on Screen Time does not work. Any ideas? Thanks Filed Feedback Assistant: FB21560904

I am implementing a custom SMS filter using the IdentityLookup framework. My goal is to authenticate the network requests made via context.deferQueryRequestToNetwork using a user-specific JWT token generated in the containing (main) app after a successful login.

Hello, I’m working on an authorization plugin which allows users to login and unlock their computer with various methods like a FIDO key. I need to add smart cards support to it. If I understand correctly, I need to construct a URLCredential object with the identity from the smart card and pass it to the completion handler of URLSessionDelegate.urlSession(_:didReceive:completionHandler:) method. I’ve read the documentation at Using Cryptographic Assets Stored on a Smart Card, TN3137: On Mac keychain APIs and implementations, and SecItem: Pitfalls and Best Practices and created a simple code that reads the identities from the keychain: CFArrayRef identities = nil; OSStatus status = SecItemCopyMatching((__bridge CFDictionaryRef)@{ (id)kSecClass: (id)kSecClassIdentity, (id)kSecMatchLimit: (id)kSecMatchLimitAll, (id)kSecReturnRef: @YES, }, (CFTypeRef *)&identities); if (status == errSecSuccess && identities) { os_log(OS_LOG_DEFAULT, "Found identities: %{public}ld\n", CFArrayGetCount(identities)); } else { os_log(OS_LOG_DEFAULT, "Error: %{public}ld\n", (long)status); } When I use this code in a simple demo app, it finds my Yubikey identities without problem. When I use it in my authorization plugin, it doesn’t find anything in system.login.console right and finds Yubikey in authenticate right only if I register my plugin as non-,privileged. I tried modifying the query in various ways, in particular by using SecKeychainCopyDomainSearchList with the domain kSecPreferencesDomainDynamic and adding it to the query as kSecMatchSearchList and trying other SecKeychain* methods, but ended up with nothing. I concluded that the identities from a smart card are being added to the data protection keychain rather than to a file based keychain and since I’m working in a privileged context, I won’t be able to get them. If this is indeed the case, could you please advise how to proceed? Thanks in advance.

I've tried to notarize my app recently and got the error:{ "logFormatVersion": 1, "jobId": "...", "status": "Rejected", "statusSummary": "Team is not yet configured for notarization", "statusCode": 7000, "archiveFilename": "myapp.dmg", "uploadDate": "2019-06-20T06:24:53Z", "sha256": "...", "ticketContents": null, "issues": null }I've never heard about "team configuration for notarization" previously. What are the steps to resolve that issue?Thanks in advance.

We have a very strange issue that I am trying to solve or find the best practice for. We have a SwiftUI View that uses the Camera to preview. So as suggested in Apples Docs we check authorisation status and then if it's not determined we request authorisation. We also have the privacy entry in the info.plist case .notDetermined: AVCaptureDevice.requestAccess(for: .video) { accessStatusAuthorised in if !accessStatusAuthorised { self.cameraStatus = .notAuthorised } else { self.isAuthorized = true self.cameraStatus = .authorised self.startCameraSession(cameraPosition: cameraPosition) } } case .restricted: cameraStatus = .notAuthorised isAuthorized = false case .denied: cameraStatus = .notAuthorised isAuthorized = false case .authorized: cameraStatus = .authorised isAuthorized = true startCameraSession(cameraPosition: cameraPosition) break @unknown default: isAuthorized = true cameraStatus = .notAuthorised } However when we call this code it freezes the Camera feed, even when allow has been tapped. However and this is the confusing part. If we do not call the code above, we still get the permission for camera access pop up and the camera works fine after allowing. What im concerned about is changing the code to do this and its a possible apple bug that gets fixed and hey then none of the Apps allow the camera function. I cannot see any where that the process has changed for iOS 26 / Xcode 26. Can anyone shed any light on this or had similar experience ?

Hello, We're developing endpoint security software using the Endpoint Security framework, and we've encountered challenges with the behavior change in macOS 15 regarding provisioning UDIDs in cloned VMs. The Change Prior to macOS 15, cloning a VM preserved its UDID (format: 0000FE00-9C4ED9F68BBDC72D). Starting with macOS 15, cloned VMs receive a new UDID generated from the host's Secure Enclave (format: b043d27202c7ac37ca3c6b82673302225485cae9), making each clone effectively a new device. Our Workflow We maintain a clean base VM image and clone it for each test run. We add the base VM's UDID to our provisioning profile once, then create clones which (previously) retained that same UDID, allowing us to start new testing cycles without re-registering devices. This is essential because our product involves low-level system integration through the Endpoint Security framework, and if something goes wrong during development, it has the potential to affect system stability. To prevent any cascading issues between test runs or different product versions, we need each test to start from a known clean state rather than reusing the same VM. The Challenge With each VM clone generating a new UDID, we're hitting Apple's device registration limits quickly. This particularly impacts: New team members who spin up VMs for the first time and can't run signed builds Our CI/CD pipeline where multiple test environments need provisioning profiles Developers testing different branches who need separate clean environments Current Workaround We've found that VMs created on macOS 14 and upgraded to macOS 15+ retain their original UDID format. However, we're concerned this workaround may stop working in future macOS versions, which would leave us without a viable path forward. If the workaround stops working, our fallback would be signing each CI build with a Developer ID signature to allow running on any device. However, we'd prefer to avoid this as it would significantly increase load on Apple's signing infrastructure for what are essentially internal test builds. We completely understand the security reasoning behind tying UDIDs to the host's Secure Enclave for Apple Account support. However, for development workflows that don't require Apple Account features in VMs but do require clean, isolated test environments, the previous behavior was quite valuable. Question Is there a recommended approach for teams in our situation? We're happy to explore alternative workflows if there's a pattern we're missing, or we'd be glad to provide more context if this is a use case Apple is considering for future updates. Thanks for any guidance you can provide! Feedback case: FB21389730