“4.3”

Hello. I've been struggling to get through the app review. It's been 3 months of constantly improving and adding new features to the app and getting rejected. A week ago i got a call from apple review team, and they said that my app shares the similar binary with other apps. They don't tell the specififcs or details. My app is a vpn app that is written by me in flutter. The only native code i have is a library that i use to work with vpn. I changed the entirity of the library, but still can't get pass. Although, the only think left is the xray-core (https://github.com/XTLS/Xray-core) framework that implemented as .xcframework to use vless protocol. Does apple check .xcramework for similarity? i can't rewrite the framework, because it written in a go language.

I built an app which is a modern twist on a game called Reversi. My app is fundamentally different than the original game because it adds a different game dynamics (a point scoring version and a puzzle mode). Not to mention, it is free and ad-free for users. However, my app continues to get the same boiler plate rejection from Apple. I understand Apple wants to reduce the number of similar apps and also prevent spam, however it is disappointing they take no time to read my responses or provide more information on what the issue is. It's a disappointing experience as a developer, as all of the effort I've put into this app feels like a gamble with Apple as they don't take my submission seriously. Also, the app reviewers have not answered any of my questions through the mail. Unsure of how to continue. If Apple is going to reject an app merely on concept there should be a way to do that before someone spends the time finalising and polishing the game.

I've been rejected by Apple many times for design spam. I'm confused whether this is because I'm reusing codebase or because my app is similar to other apps on the store. However, very few other apps on the App Store are similar to mine, so I don't think I'm spamming. Could you please tell me how to fix this? Should I refect the codebase or completely redesign the app's features? Thank you for reading!

Title: Seeking Clarity on App Rejection: Understanding Specific Issues with My Game Under Guideline 4.3(a) Message: Hello Apple Review Team, I recently received a rejection for my game Super Flappy Rocket under Guideline 4.3(a) regarding spam applications. I understand that flappy-style games might be a crowded category, but I've put significant effort into creating unique gameplay mechanics and visuals. I would appreciate more specific guidance on which aspects of my app triggered this rejection: Is it the core tap-to-navigate mechanic that's considered too similar to existing games? Are there specific visual elements or UI components that need differentiation? Would enhancing my existing unique features (gravity-flipping, spacecraft unlocking system, power-ups) be sufficient? Is the app's name Super Flappy Rocket part of the issue? I've developed this game from scratch without templates or purchased code, and I'm committed to making necessary changes to meet App Store guidelines. Any addit

Hello, My app was recently rejected due to App Review Guideline 4.3(a), which states: Don’t create multiple Bundle IDs of the same app. If your app has different versions for specific locations, sports teams, universities, etc., consider submitting a single app and provide the variations using in-app purchase. The feedback provided was: We noticed your app shares a similar binary, metadata, and/or concept as apps submitted to the App Store by other developers, with only minor differences. Submitting similar or repackaged apps is a form of spam that creates clutter and makes it difficult for users to discover new apps. This has left me quite confused. I have only one app, Fly2enjoy, which I originally uploaded on Android and am looking to upload it also to iOS. I don't have any other active apps on the Apple App Store. The app was developed with the intention of being unique, and I have not repackaged or copied another app. Additionally, I only have one Bundle ID associated with my app. On Android, th

Hi everyone, I recently submitted my app, X2, to the App Store, but it was rejected due to guideline 4.3(a) - Design - Spam. The rejection message stated that my app shares a similar binary, metadata, and/or concept as other apps I’ve already submitted, with only minor differences. They suggested I review my app concept and submit a unique app with distinct content and functionality. For context, I have another app, X1, which was accepted and is live on the App Store. X2 is meant to be a different version of the same app, targeting a unique audience. It has the same core features but includes a completely redesigned user interface, a new name, and a new logo. I overhauled all the screens in X2 to give it a fresh look, but it was still rejected. I’ve reached out to App Review via the Resolution Center, but their response was fairly generic, emphasizing the need for distinct content and functionality. I’m now turning to the community for advice. What specific changes can I make to X2 to ensure it’s uni

Hello everyone, I am looking for some advice or shared experiences regarding a prolonged App Review Board appeal process. I submitted my app earlier this month. On March 3rd, it was rejected under guideline 4.3(b) Spam. On the exact same day (March 3rd), I submitted a detailed appeal to the App Review Board. In my appeal, I provided clear documentation and explanations to prove that the app is not a generic template. I specifically highlighted our proprietary algorithm that calculates a unique total daily energy percentage for users, which distinctly separates it from standard, saturated apps in the market. The issue: It has now been 23 days since I submitted the appeal, and I have not received any response from the Board. My main concern is the lack of visibility. Since appeals to the Board do not appear in the Resolution Center UI, I have no way of knowing if my ticket is actually actively open, in a queue, or if it has been lost due to a system glitch. I recently tried reaching out to general supp

Hi everyone, I'd like to raise a concern about the transparency and fairness of Guideline 4.3 reviews. A rejection that says an app duplicates existing functionality or is indistinguishable from widely available apps should explain what specifically led to that conclusion. General categories, followed by an instruction to make substantial improvements, do not give developers an actionable path forward. Which functionality is the problem? Which aspects need to change? What standard would satisfy the reviewer? Without concrete examples or a clear threshold, the assessment feels highly subjective. Developers can spend significant time building a product and still be left guessing what would make it acceptable. In my view, independently developed apps should be able to compete in existing categories. Products naturally share basic functionality when they solve the same problem. Competition can come from a better workflow, a clearer interface, privacy, pricing, accessibility or serving a different audienc

Hi everyone, I'm hoping App Review can take a look at our case, or help us get a call. Our app FlightCue: Flight Tracker (App ID 6790973619, version 1.0) was rejected under Guideline 4.3(a) – Design – Spam on September 9 and, after a resubmission with new features, again on September 19, 2026. Timeline: September 1: submitted for review. September 9: first 4.3(a) rejection. September 9: we replied in App Store Connect, asked which of binary / metadata / concept applied, and requested a call (with our phone number, hours and language). We did not receive a call. September 17: App Review replied to our message that the app still provides the same feature set as other apps submitted to the App Store for review. September 18: we resubmitted with the two feature areas we had been building: (1) a Turbulence tab on every flight screen – a segment-by-segment turbulence forecast along the actual route, headwind/tailwind and its effect on arrival time, thunderstorm areas the route crosses, nearby pilo