Search results for

“4.3”

649 results found

Post

Replies

Boosts

Views

Activity

Connections application with 4,000 pre-sign ups rejected unfairly - 4.3
For the last 2 years, our team at Panda has had one goal in mind: to change the failing connection application industry. The business model is severely flawed - evidenced in decline of users in match group etc (all public info). We are building the only connections app in the market without paid features – We Don't Play Games”. This in itself revolutionizes a space which currently commodifies human connection; true connections aren’t forged through super-likes, platinum memberships and such pay-to-win models, where users that don’t pay are unfairly disadvantaged. Key Differentiators: Never having paid features 50/50 Male-Female Ratio: Our app will ensure a balanced male-to-female ratio, something not found in other apps, especially in countries like India, where dating apps are dominated by men. This helps create a healthier, more equitable user experience for all genders. In a country like India, how can any connections app succeed with 99.9% men and 0.1% women? Panda Duos: A first-of-its-kind feature where
3
0
153
Mar ’25
App Store Rejection - Guideline 4.3(b) - Spam (Dating Apps)
Hi everyone, I understand that Apple is cracking down on generic dating apps, and I totally agree that the App Store is full of low-effort clones. However, our app is a legitimate business with a real user base actively requesting an app version. Been operational since 2020 and serves users in Australia, the US, Canada, and Brazil, with over 57,000 monthly active users (MAUs). This isn’t a reskinned template or a quick-fix dating app—it’s an extension of a platform that users already trust and rely on. Our unique features include: Disappearing Photos & Voice Notes – Messages auto-delete after being viewed for better privacy. Private Galleries with Revocable Access – Users can share and revoke access to private albums anytime. We explained these points in our App Review Notes, but Apple keeps rejecting the app with the same template response about duplicate content in a saturated category. Has anyone successfully overcome this type of rejection for a dating app? Any advice would be greatly appreciated!
1
0
189
Mar ’25
Reply to Guideline 4.3 -- made from template... but they are not.
Here is the list of our apps that got Guideline 4.3 rejection so far...• https://itunes.apple.com/app/id926102392?ls=1&mt=8 (approved after one month)• https://itunes.apple.com/app/id1272669652?ls=1&mt=8 (approved after giving up the obsolete version and IP commentary book reader (id1217317638))• https://itunes.apple.com/app/id978926628?ls=1&mt=8 (no new update is allowed)• https://itunes.apple.com/app/id325361059?ls=1&mt=8 (no new update is allowed)• https://itunes.apple.com/app/id560440657?ls=1&mt=8 (approved after several phone calls)• https://itunes.apple.com/app/id1020070997?ls=1&mt=8 (no new update is allowed)• https://itunes.apple.com/app/id1217317638?ls=1&mt=8 (no new update is allowed)• https://app-liv.jp/320090110/(told to remove on the phone because it violates Guideline 4.3)
May ’18
Reply to 4.3 Design Guidelines - Apple please reconsider how this is enforced.
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.
Nov ’17
Need Help: Modern Male-Oriented Social Casino App Rejected Twice for 4.3(Submission ID: fbb70e69-c91f-49fd-82d7-43c02bbdca4e)
Hi everyone, I'm reaching out to this community for advice and hoping to get some insights from anyone who has faced similar issues. Our social casino app has been rejected twice under Guideline 4.3 (Spam), and we're struggling to understand the specific reasons. App Details App ID: 6753935757 Submission ID: fbb70e69-c91f-49fd-82d7-43c02bbdca4e Category: Social Casino Game (Slots) Our team has been developing social casino games for 7 years. We've had both successful launches and products that didn't work out - we understand this market well. For this new product, we conducted extensive market research and identified a specific gap: modern, high-impact themed slots targeting young male players.focused on modern male-oriented content including sports, beast taming, competitive gaming, and other high-energy themes. We created specifically for these intense, modern themes - not reused from previous projects. Yes, we did reuse some foundational technical components like:RNG algorithms, basic framework st
1
0
103
Nov ’25
Repeated 4.3(a) Spam rejection for a dedicated client app with existing cross-platform user base
Hi Apple Developer community and Apple Review team, I'm hoping to get assistance with a persistent 4.3(a) rejection for our app ByGate (net.bygate.vpn). Submission ID: c8278a90-8e90-45b2-9256-d2e6b34e9518 Latest review date: May 19, 2026 Our situation: ByGate is not a generic VPN tool. It is a dedicated client application for ByGate's proprietary server infrastructure. The app works exclusively with ByGate servers - users cannot enter custom addresses, import third-party configurations, or connect to any other provider. It is functionally similar to a banking app or a streaming app: it only connects to one specific service. We have been operating ByGate as a cross-platform service: Android app live on Google Play Windows desktop app distributed via our website macOS desktop app distributed via our website Active paying subscriber base across all platforms Our existing users regularly contact our support team asking when the iOS version will be available. They are already using our servers and subscri
2
0
344
May ’26
Reply to Having Multiple Similar Apps
Has anyone tried changing their apps to B2B apps in response? I don't think it's something you can enable once the app's been on the App Store so it's a huge disruption for existing users, but I want to know if it's at least an option for new clients.I'm also getting 4.2.6/4.3 rejections for a white label app for specific clients (my own code, not another service).
Aug ’17
Reply to 4.3a then 3.2f
What a long post just to explain your app was rejected. BTW, what is section 3.2f you refer in your title ? I do not see it in the guidelines. PS: you have posted several times for the same issue and show that you have received a confirmation by reviewer of clause 4.3. And I don't think your financial proposal will help in anyway, will probably have inverse effect. So it is not really useful to repeat the same message again.
Apr ’25
Reply to Concerns About Rule 4.3 Spam Restriction - Enlightenment Needed
Did you try to submit the app under your own developer account? Or did you enroll the client, and submit their customized app through that client’s own developer account? (Note that you could contract to manage each client’s enrollment, which might potentially allow creating some nice ongoing revenue streams for you. Thus, if Apple approves each client’s apps when submitted under their own account, then rule 4.3 could create additional business opportunities for you.)
Dec ’17
Reply to App rejection Guideline 4.3(a) - Design - Spam
Dealing with 4.3(a) rejections can be frustrating. Since you've already made technical changes without success, I'd recommend escalating to the App Review Board detailing your uniqueness or added value. They may be able to provide clearer guidance on exactly what needs to change to meet the guidelines. You can request an App Review Board review directly in App Store Connect under the Submit an Appeal option.
Dec ’24
Reply to Guideline 4.3 -- made from template... but they are not.
I got another phone call from Apple.• My account is flagged as a spammer. (It's sad)• The original rejection reason 4.3 is nothing to do with the quality of the app itself. It's based on the spammer flag that is added to my account.• I have to appeal to the review board when I got rejected.• App Review Board originally maintained the rejection, but they have changed their decision last week. They will approve AB Player as an independent app.• That decision hasn't gone through to the reviwer yet. That's why I got rejected yesterday again and I got another copy&paste reply from the reviewer a few hours before the phone call.The above was the fact heard from Apple.The reviewer (who reviews apps on firsthand) thinks I'm a spammer so he doesn't think anything, just copy & paste Guideline 4.3 rejection.That's why he can't tell any particular rejection reason and he doesn't reply anything other than copy&paste message. (Don't waste your time by trying to communicate with the reviewer.)
Apr ’18
Reply to Whatsapp Sticker Apps Getting Rejected
And as assumed, it got rejected:From Apple4. 3 Design: SpamGuideline 4.3 - DesignWe noticed that your app provides the same feature set as other apps submitted to the App Store; it simply varies in content or language, which is considered a form of spam.The next submission of this app may require a longer review time, and this app will not be eligible for an expedited review until this issue is resolved.
Nov ’18
Connections application with 4,000 pre-sign ups rejected unfairly - 4.3
For the last 2 years, our team at Panda has had one goal in mind: to change the failing connection application industry. The business model is severely flawed - evidenced in decline of users in match group etc (all public info). We are building the only connections app in the market without paid features – We Don't Play Games”. This in itself revolutionizes a space which currently commodifies human connection; true connections aren’t forged through super-likes, platinum memberships and such pay-to-win models, where users that don’t pay are unfairly disadvantaged. Key Differentiators: Never having paid features 50/50 Male-Female Ratio: Our app will ensure a balanced male-to-female ratio, something not found in other apps, especially in countries like India, where dating apps are dominated by men. This helps create a healthier, more equitable user experience for all genders. In a country like India, how can any connections app succeed with 99.9% men and 0.1% women? Panda Duos: A first-of-its-kind feature where
Replies
3
Boosts
0
Views
153
Activity
Mar ’25
App Store Rejection - Guideline 4.3(b) - Spam (Dating Apps)
Hi everyone, I understand that Apple is cracking down on generic dating apps, and I totally agree that the App Store is full of low-effort clones. However, our app is a legitimate business with a real user base actively requesting an app version. Been operational since 2020 and serves users in Australia, the US, Canada, and Brazil, with over 57,000 monthly active users (MAUs). This isn’t a reskinned template or a quick-fix dating app—it’s an extension of a platform that users already trust and rely on. Our unique features include: Disappearing Photos & Voice Notes – Messages auto-delete after being viewed for better privacy. Private Galleries with Revocable Access – Users can share and revoke access to private albums anytime. We explained these points in our App Review Notes, but Apple keeps rejecting the app with the same template response about duplicate content in a saturated category. Has anyone successfully overcome this type of rejection for a dating app? Any advice would be greatly appreciated!
Replies
1
Boosts
0
Views
189
Activity
Mar ’25
Reply to Guideline 4.3 -- made from template... but they are not.
Here is the list of our apps that got Guideline 4.3 rejection so far...• https://itunes.apple.com/app/id926102392?ls=1&mt=8 (approved after one month)• https://itunes.apple.com/app/id1272669652?ls=1&mt=8 (approved after giving up the obsolete version and IP commentary book reader (id1217317638))• https://itunes.apple.com/app/id978926628?ls=1&mt=8 (no new update is allowed)• https://itunes.apple.com/app/id325361059?ls=1&mt=8 (no new update is allowed)• https://itunes.apple.com/app/id560440657?ls=1&mt=8 (approved after several phone calls)• https://itunes.apple.com/app/id1020070997?ls=1&mt=8 (no new update is allowed)• https://itunes.apple.com/app/id1217317638?ls=1&mt=8 (no new update is allowed)• https://app-liv.jp/320090110/(told to remove on the phone because it violates Guideline 4.3)
Replies
Boosts
Views
Activity
May ’18
Reply to 4.3 Design Guidelines - Apple please reconsider how this is enforced.
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.
Replies
Boosts
Views
Activity
Nov ’17
Need Help: Modern Male-Oriented Social Casino App Rejected Twice for 4.3(Submission ID: fbb70e69-c91f-49fd-82d7-43c02bbdca4e)
Hi everyone, I'm reaching out to this community for advice and hoping to get some insights from anyone who has faced similar issues. Our social casino app has been rejected twice under Guideline 4.3 (Spam), and we're struggling to understand the specific reasons. App Details App ID: 6753935757 Submission ID: fbb70e69-c91f-49fd-82d7-43c02bbdca4e Category: Social Casino Game (Slots) Our team has been developing social casino games for 7 years. We've had both successful launches and products that didn't work out - we understand this market well. For this new product, we conducted extensive market research and identified a specific gap: modern, high-impact themed slots targeting young male players.focused on modern male-oriented content including sports, beast taming, competitive gaming, and other high-energy themes. We created specifically for these intense, modern themes - not reused from previous projects. Yes, we did reuse some foundational technical components like:RNG algorithms, basic framework st
Replies
1
Boosts
0
Views
103
Activity
Nov ’25
Repeated 4.3(a) Spam rejection for a dedicated client app with existing cross-platform user base
Hi Apple Developer community and Apple Review team, I'm hoping to get assistance with a persistent 4.3(a) rejection for our app ByGate (net.bygate.vpn). Submission ID: c8278a90-8e90-45b2-9256-d2e6b34e9518 Latest review date: May 19, 2026 Our situation: ByGate is not a generic VPN tool. It is a dedicated client application for ByGate's proprietary server infrastructure. The app works exclusively with ByGate servers - users cannot enter custom addresses, import third-party configurations, or connect to any other provider. It is functionally similar to a banking app or a streaming app: it only connects to one specific service. We have been operating ByGate as a cross-platform service: Android app live on Google Play Windows desktop app distributed via our website macOS desktop app distributed via our website Active paying subscriber base across all platforms Our existing users regularly contact our support team asking when the iOS version will be available. They are already using our servers and subscri
Replies
2
Boosts
0
Views
344
Activity
May ’26
Guideline 4.3(a) - Design - Spamsubmitted by a terminated Apple Developer Program account
code write by flutter,and I never post by a other account,why?
Replies
0
Boosts
0
Views
522
Activity
May ’24
Reply to Having Multiple Similar Apps
Has anyone tried changing their apps to B2B apps in response? I don't think it's something you can enable once the app's been on the App Store so it's a huge disruption for existing users, but I want to know if it's at least an option for new clients.I'm also getting 4.2.6/4.3 rejections for a white label app for specific clients (my own code, not another service).
Replies
Boosts
Views
Activity
Aug ’17
Reply to 4.3a then 3.2f
What a long post just to explain your app was rejected. BTW, what is section 3.2f you refer in your title ? I do not see it in the guidelines. PS: you have posted several times for the same issue and show that you have received a confirmation by reviewer of clause 4.3. And I don't think your financial proposal will help in anyway, will probably have inverse effect. So it is not really useful to repeat the same message again.
Replies
Boosts
Views
Activity
Apr ’25
Reply to Concerns About Rule 4.3 Spam Restriction - Enlightenment Needed
Did you try to submit the app under your own developer account? Or did you enroll the client, and submit their customized app through that client’s own developer account? (Note that you could contract to manage each client’s enrollment, which might potentially allow creating some nice ongoing revenue streams for you. Thus, if Apple approves each client’s apps when submitted under their own account, then rule 4.3 could create additional business opportunities for you.)
Replies
Boosts
Views
Activity
Dec ’17
Reply to App rejection Guideline 4.3(a) - Design - Spam
Dealing with 4.3(a) rejections can be frustrating. Since you've already made technical changes without success, I'd recommend escalating to the App Review Board detailing your uniqueness or added value. They may be able to provide clearer guidance on exactly what needs to change to meet the guidelines. You can request an App Review Board review directly in App Store Connect under the Submit an Appeal option.
Replies
Boosts
Views
Activity
Dec ’24
Reply to Guideline 4.3 -- made from template... but they are not.
I got another phone call from Apple.• My account is flagged as a spammer. (It's sad)• The original rejection reason 4.3 is nothing to do with the quality of the app itself. It's based on the spammer flag that is added to my account.• I have to appeal to the review board when I got rejected.• App Review Board originally maintained the rejection, but they have changed their decision last week. They will approve AB Player as an independent app.• That decision hasn't gone through to the reviwer yet. That's why I got rejected yesterday again and I got another copy&paste reply from the reviewer a few hours before the phone call.The above was the fact heard from Apple.The reviewer (who reviews apps on firsthand) thinks I'm a spammer so he doesn't think anything, just copy & paste Guideline 4.3 rejection.That's why he can't tell any particular rejection reason and he doesn't reply anything other than copy&paste message. (Don't waste your time by trying to communicate with the reviewer.)
Replies
Boosts
Views
Activity
Apr ’18
Reply to Whatsapp Sticker Apps Getting Rejected
And as assumed, it got rejected:From Apple4. 3 Design: SpamGuideline 4.3 - DesignWe noticed that your app provides the same feature set as other apps submitted to the App Store; it simply varies in content or language, which is considered a form of spam.The next submission of this app may require a longer review time, and this app will not be eligible for an expedited review until this issue is resolved.
Replies
Boosts
Views
Activity
Nov ’18
Reply to iOS 7.1 it's supported by AppStore?
You can still use iOS 7.x as a deployment target in the store, but not w/current tools (Xcode 8.3.2). I'd wonder about doing so, however, as number of users on an iOS that far back is in low single digits.Note that according to iTunes Connect, minimum now for the store is Xcode 6, which supports iOS 4.3 or iOS 5.1.1 minimum deployment.
Replies
Boosts
Views
Activity
May ’17
Reply to Battery Draining Too Fast- watchOS 4.3 beta 2
Watch OS 4.3 dev ᵦ6 (15T5212a)Series 0 42mm sport.Battery life 42% after 12 hours... 2-column activity rings face with fantastical complication. Also, did a mile (indoor walk). Dramatic increase in battery life since last couple of betas. I did remove SIRI as one of my available watch faces if that matters.
Topic: App & System Services SubTopic: Core OS Tags:
Replies
Boosts
Views
Activity
Mar ’18