4.3

I would try appealing the app rejection notice. Have you tried that yet? Explain the situation, and let them know that you deleted the other apps. Hopefully they allow that one in.The guidelines are very unclear. 4.3 Design - Spam has to do with not creating similar apps, but they also can delete apps they deem as low quality or a saturated category. It's a very broad spectrum, guideline, and it seems to only judge developers on a case by case basis. There doesn't seem to be any clear, black and white rules regarding the guideline. It's at the discretion of the reviewer's subjective opinion on the app submission.We've encountered both scenarios with our apps, and heard other stories from other developers too.I also believe that this guideline is a very slippery slope for Apple. How many developers that supported Apple by purchasing products will cease doing so? How many customers of legitimate developers, snagged by this new guideline, will drive consumers to other platforms, and in turn, other devic

>The copycat section seems the most relevant.Seems not.From your comment, tho., it appears you've heard the recent chatter about which guideline is more likely to apply. Search here on: 4.3

Masatoshi,You said in one of your ealier posts thatI also removed ALL OF MY LAW APPS from sale, including the previous version app.I got 4.3 rejection AGAIN this morning.Yet, you were somehow able to get through the review process and get approved later. What exactly did you do differently next time around? Did you remove ALL your apps from sale and then went through the approval again?I got the following rejectionDesign 4.3Thank you for your resubmission. However upon further review we continue to find that your photo taking apps are very similar. We understand that these apps are not exactly the same. However, apps that provide the same or similar feature set is not appropriate for the App Store.I removed all of my photography apps except for one. Submitted that for review and I still got the same Design 4.3 rejection. So that did you do different in your case? Whatelse did you end up removing? I have no idea whatelse they want me to do? I have no photography app left after removing all. I

Guys, if you have enough resources there's still another way: you could create separate account for each of your apps (would work fine for white label and similar business models).I've tried that way and also got 4.3 rejection, so our aim now is to figure out how apple's review algorithms find identical or similar apps and how we could pass through it. We should find a way to confuse/obfuscate code and app's structure, so the bot can't identify copies.If there's no fair review, we should find our own way to make it fair. I understand that this method would help those who just spam on AppStore, but at least that'll attract apple's attention to our problem and problem in its algorithm

Guys, if you have enough resources there's still another way: you could create separate account for each of your apps (would work fine for white label and similar business models). As i have said above, I've tried that way and also got 4.3 rejection, so our aim now is to figure out how apple's review algorithms find identical or similar apps and how we could pass through it. We should find a way to confuse/obfuscate code and app's structure, so the bot can't identify copies.If there's no fair review, we should find our own way to make it fair. I understand that this method would help those who just spam on AppStore, but at least that'll attract apple's attention to our problem and problem in its algorithm

Thanks a lot, I'll try your suggestion with bitcode and metadata (I don't use admob etc.).Do you have any more tricks to share?My experience: After couples of attemps to make apple approve my app, I've tried to create a new separate dev account for one of my apps, and I again got 4.3 and message saying identical apps.So my question is, how apple bot spots identical or simular apps and what could we do to pass thro this algorythm, at least on a separate account. If fair review doesn't work, we should at least find a workaround...

Apple reviewers are just taking the 4.3 guideline out of context these days.Your Church app(s) is a perfect example of how this guideline fails.Main thing is the searchability. Each country, each state, each city probably has multiple churches, one person who goes to, say, Michigan state , Midland Pentecostal Church would probably simply search michigan church on the app store.But if all church apps in the country is under one app he / she will get no search results since the developer just can't fit all the states in the keywords...

>wondering how would one person search forApp Store search is a black box - hopefully Apple has faith in it (Chomp) to backup their plans behind 4.3, not that any of us would know until we see how it works out...

I'm wondering how would one person search for a partiulcar travel guide for Peru in the future. Cos there can only be so many keywords for one app, if it is a contain app, it would not contain all countries in the keyword. Usually if people go to Peru, they would search Peru guide instead of Travel guide.So i think some of you need to stop defending or replying general knowledge about 4.3 .

There are actually apps doing this already, like Mathletics, Raz kids. So each school gives the teachers, students / parents the school login AND the individual login for students.But for some other cases , e.g. the Church example i saw in another thread, 4.3 guideline doesn't make any sense.Religious people would search for their own church on the app store naturally, say Michigan state Pentecostal ABC church or whatever. The problem is if it was under one container app, the religious person would most liklely unable to search for the app since there can only be 100 characters in the keyword field and there is no way to fit all church names in it.

You'll get busted by 4.3 eventually. In fact, they call out schools/universities, right in the guideline. You are essentially looking to white label your business, meaning that any school can put their logo on your app, but it is all the same app. Unfortunately, Apple doesn't like the white label business model, so you are SOL

Did you receive any other feedback after that? What did they ask or argue on the phone? What did you write in the paper? Did they say if this means you should request a phone call and submit a paper everytime you submit/update an app for review or does it create an expcetion for your account or at least for the app?My company creates apps for churches and we are having the same problem. Each church wants its own app with its own brand, name, colors and visual identity but all of them need the same features (articles, musics, calendars, events and others). Because of that our apps are being rejected with the 4.3 topic justification.The main problem is that our clients (the churches) do not have any interest on having a single app with data from all the churches and a random visual identity - like Apple suggests in the review. They want their brand in the App Store but also at a minimum price. Our product offers exact that, but now with this new approach, Apple is killing our business model, frustratin

I'm experiencing very weird situation now.• Yesterday morning, my app finally got approved.• I have changed a little bit, re-submitted it as an update yesterday.• The app got rejected again this morning.[8 Oct] Build 7534 - Rejected because of Guildeline 4.3 breach[9 Oct] Build 7591 - Approved[10 Oct] Build 7692 - Rejected because of Guildeline 4.3 breachThe differences between these builds are• Bitcode (off for 7591, on for other two)• Firebase Core/AdMob, Fabric, Crashlytics (I removed them in 7591. Other builds contained these frameworks)As well as screenshots and store descriptions.When it was rejected, it was rejected super fast like one minute. When approved, it took 30 minutes.I'm suspecting any one of Firebase Core/AdMob, Fabric, Crashlytics, or the combination of all of these, made the Review Bot think the app was made from a template.Or, it was just a coincidence, or the reviewer showed a temporary mercy for build 7591.I'll keep on checking.