Search results for

“4.3”

625 results found

Post

Replies

Boosts

Views

Activity

>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...

App Store Distribution & Marketing App Review

Nov ’17

Reply to One app, multiple brand

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 .

App Store Distribution & Marketing App Review

Nov ’17

Reply to An app for each school

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.

App Store Distribution & Marketing App Review

Nov ’17

Reply to An app for each school

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

App Store Distribution & Marketing App Review

Nov ’17

Reply to 4.3 Design Guidelines - Apple please reconsider how this is enforced.

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

App Store Distribution & Marketing App Review

Nov ’17

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.

App Store Distribution & Marketing App Review

Nov ’17

Reply to 4.3 Design Guidelines - Apple please reconsider how this is enforced.

I got the 4.3 rejection for this app. https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/id1272669652?ls=1&mt=8This app is a law reader app. I have spend full 3 months to develop this. It also built on several years worth developing resources. I released it a month ago as an updated version of the existing app, which had over 1500 good users' reviews. It was by far the best app compared to similar apps from other developers. https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/id916069107?ls=1&mt=8 It is very handy app for law students and practitioners. The first several updates were fine, but suddenly I got 4.3 rejection on Oct 28. And the reviewer refused to say the exact reason. Only a template reply. No proper reply, no phone call. Yesterday I made a container app as they suggested and uploaded it.https://www.dropbox.com/s/z26xxfapsk56ant/Screen%20Shot%202017-11-08%20at%207.46.21%20AM.png?dl=0This includes my other app https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/20th-industrial-property-law-commentary-reader/id1217317638?ls=1&

App Store Distribution & Marketing App Review

Nov ’17

Reply to 4.3 Design Guidelines - Apple please reconsider how this is enforced.

When did you get a phone call Lena? I think recently they have stopped telling the exact reason for 4.3.

App Store Distribution & Marketing App Review

Nov ’17

Reply to 4.3 Design Guidelines - Apple please reconsider how this is enforced.

Hi, I have the same problem... No matter what now, they reject anything I try to do. All telling me to make a container app. i have an unique app, (we think there is not other similar in all store) ... we submit.... and after one minute they reject with the same copy and paste reply... 4.3 Design spam.... absurd and frustating!!!! PLEASE, STOP USE BOT FOR APP REVIEW

App Store Distribution & Marketing App Review

Nov ’17

Reply to 4.3 Design Guidelines - Apple please reconsider how this is enforced.

Beautiful reply Zeldalink. I was heart broken after apple put me through this crap 4.3 design as well.Well said man, I could not have said it better. It truly is time to move on to Android from this stupid apple guidline and platform. Every single day and year there is a new guideline and new stupidity to deal with. Enough is enough

App Store Distribution & Marketing App Review

Nov ’17

4.3 - Design

Hi,I created new app and submitted but the answer from Apple is:We 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.I coded and designed it by myself. There may be similar apps on App Store doing the similar job but that shouldn't make my app a spam! My algorithm is different and my UI is better. Why I can't compete with other apps? No sense.

App Store Distribution & Marketing App Review App Review

868

Oct ’17

Reply to "container" app

We are facing also the same issue with games for kids. All new games get rejected forGuideline 4.3 - DesignWe noticed that your app provides the same feature set as other apps that have been submitted to the App Store (either under your own account or across multiple developer accounts) and simply varies in content or language.Apps that simply duplicate content or functionality create clutter, diminish the overall experience for the end user, and reduce the ability of developers to market their apps.We encourage you to review your app concept and incorporate different content and features that are in compliance with the App Store Review Guidelines.Creating a container app for kids games seems crazy too. Kids cosume apps more like TV episodes (fast) so we create new app with new content, new topic and release as a sequel. It does not make sense to have one huge app (2-6 Gb) that combines all content inside. I really don't understand Apple vision for this kind of content. The worst part is, they do not

App Store Distribution & Marketing App Review

Oct ’17

Reply to Bizarre situation involving 4.3 guideline and app that cannot be deleted

It really seems that 4.3 thing is getting out of hand. I wonder when they will admit they did a big mistake by trying to enforce it this way.

App Store Distribution & Marketing App Review

Oct ’17

Reply to Bizarre situation involving 4.3 guideline and app that cannot be deleted

By way of an update, even though it would cause our customers to lose their purchase, I've followed Apple's implied advice and deleted the 'new' app and gone back to using the 'old' undeleteable app record (so there's only one app record, no chance of confusion).But my submission has been rejected yet again, citing the same 4.3 guideline. Since the app is not similar to any other app we have... what are they talking about??I'm really out of ideas.

App Store Distribution & Marketing App Review

Oct ’17

Guideline 4.3 - Design

I am being completely blocked from creating apps, or even updating apps. This is the message I receive every time:We noticed that your app provides the same feature set as other apps that have been submitted to the App Store (either under your own account or across multiple developer accounts) and simply varies in content or language.Apps that simply duplicate content or functionality create clutter, diminish the overall experience for the end user, and reduce the ability of developers to market their apps.We encourage you to review your app concept and incorporate different content and features that are in compliance with the App Store Review Guidelines.Best regards,App Store ReviewNo matter what I do I get this for any app I put up. I uploaded 2 bug fixes to 2 apps already on the store, and 1 new app, completely different than any other app I've ever put up, and they all were put into review and rejected in 1 minute. 1 minute for all 3. The reason, is stated above. When I asked about it further I was presen

App Store Distribution & Marketing App Review App Review