Search results for

“4.3”

624 results found

Post

Replies

Boosts

Views

Activity

Guideline 4.3(b) - Design - Spam
hi all, i have dating app, approved in google store, and working website but i cant get approval from apple review team ( Guideline 4.3(b) - Design - Spam) can someone help/suggest how to solve it our app has 2000 clients already
Topic: Design SubTopic: General
1
0
210
Aug ’25
Reply to Guideline 4.3(a) - Design - Spam
Thank you for your post. There are several factors that may contribute to an app not following App Review Guideline 4.3. Typically, these apps share a similar binary, metadata, and overall concept as apps already on the App Store, with only minor differences. If you have questions about App Review's review of your app, we recommend requesting an appointment with App Review during the bi-weekly Meet with Apple event. Sign in with your Developer ID and select App Review Appointment. A member of the App Review team will help you with your questions regarding the review process and the App Review Guidelines. Appointments are subject to availability during your local business hours on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
Jul ’25
Reply to Guideline 4.3(a) - Design - Spam
Guideline 4.3 is pretty explicit: 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. That seem to be precisely your case. Another thought: I don't know if it is the cause, but there is a Babbel app to train for foreign languages. The name of your app appears pretty close to it.
Jul ’25
Guideline 4.3(a) - Design - Spam
Hi all, I'm looking for guidance or experiences from others who’ve run into this issue. I'm developing a series of educational apps that teach different languages from English, using a simple flashcard-based format. Each app is fully offline, has no ads, no subscriptions, and contains native audio and culturally relevant images for that specific language. Each language pack (audio + images + data) is around 50MB, and I’m planning to support 50 languages. Because of size constraints and my offline-first approach, it’s not feasible to combine all languages into a single app. To stay user-friendly and efficient: Each app contains only one language. Each has its own name and icon (e.g., “Babel Bash Chinese ”, “Babel Bash Thai”). All use the same visual structure (by design) for brand consistency and usability. Despite this, I’ve had an app rejected under Guideline 4.3(a) – Spam, with the reasoning that it duplicates the functionality of another app I've submitted (even though the language, audio, and vis
3
0
240
Jul ’25
As a Chinese person, I feel that I have been discriminated against by Apple's review process.
We have developed an app called FastUP, which has been constantly reminding us of 4.3(a). We have uploaded the original evidence of the developed code and UI design drafts, but it still keeps giving us this problem. There will be no manual response and no consideration of our explanations. It always just reacts mechanically. This is a repetitive application. Could you please explain how to apply it repeatedly when our code is original and the UI is also original? Is it possible that there can only be one tool-type app in the AppStore? ? Every time during the process of applying for the phone communication, we were told there was no problem, but they still gave us incorrect information and kept deceiving us. Is this not discrimination against us just because we applied for the Chinese voice phone service?
3
0
257
Jul ’25
Reply to Struggling With Guideline 4.3(b) Rejections – Would Love Dev Insight
Precedent & Fairness in Enforcement Rove is an intentional, safety-forward dating product. It is neither spammy, low-effort, nor duplicative — and yet we continue to face rejections under Guideline 4.3(b). This raises serious concerns about selective enforcement of App Store policy. In the past 60 days, Apple has approved a wide range of new dating apps, including: • Ready: Dating & Relationships – Launched June 3, 2025. Marketed as a native app for “intentional dating,” with a thematic approach directly comparable to Rove. • Meetline – Launched May 15, 2025. A transit-based connection app that limits conversations, just like Rove limits user visibility to avoid overload. • Yuzu – Asian Dating & Friends – A non-swipe app tailored to a specific community — proof that niche dating concepts are not inherently duplicative. • Metya / DateGuard – Two safety-first apps that use community filters and moderation-centric design. These are directionally aligned with Rove’s own innovation in safety a
Jul ’25
3rd time rejected: Guideline 4.3(a) - Design - Spam
My app keep getting rejected after changing complete UI. It's an finance tool app. any advice Guideline 4.3(a) - Design - Spam 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. Next Steps Since we do not accept spam apps on the App Store, we encourage you to review your app concept and submit a unique app with distinct content and functionality. Resources Some factors that contribute to a spam rejection may include: Submitting an app with the same source code or assets as other apps already submitted to the App Store Creating and submitting multiple similar apps using a repackaged app template Purchasing an app template with problematic code from a third party Submitting several similar apps across multiple accounts
1
0
206
Jul ’25
Appeal Account Termination – App ID 6744330283 (Spam 4.3 Misunderstanding)
Hello Apple Developer Support & Community, I’m reaching out regarding the unexpected termination of my Apple Developer Program account, associated with App ID: 6744330283. Recently, my app was flagged under Guideline 4.3 - Spam, and I was asked to make necessary changes. I followed all guidance provided by Apple, including a phone call with an App Review team member, who clarified the steps I should take. I did not submit any further update after that call. However, before I had the chance to upload the new, compliant version of my app, my entire developer account was terminated without a clear explanation or additional warning. I believe this was a misunderstanding, as I was actively working on compliance and fully committed to resolving the issue. My app is not spam I only followed Apple’s instructions I never uploaded a new version after my call with App Review No specific violation or example of “spam” was shown to me I’ve submitted an official appeal via the App Review Board, but I’m hoping
1
0
355
Jul ’25
Rejected for Spam 4.3 (A) Without Clear Reason – Previously Approved App Now Stuck in Review for Weeks! [App ID: 6744330283]
Hello Apple Developer Team and Community, I’m writing to raise a serious concern regarding my app (App ID: 6744330283) which is now being repeatedly rejected under Guideline 4.3 (A) – Spam, despite being previously approved and published for at least two earlier versions. We have had multiple rounds of communication with the App Review team in the past, carefully addressing every request and making adjustments accordingly. These previous versions were reviewed and approved without any reference to 4.3 issues. However, since a recent update, we’ve been receiving rejections citing Spam 4.3 (A) — without any specific explanation or detailed reasoning. Even more frustrating: Each review now takes over a week to process, making our release cycle extremely difficult to manage. It required dozens of phone calls and emails just to get the app reviewed at all. I even had a meeting with an App Review team member, where I was told: “The recent updates are considered Spam 4.3, while th
1
0
183
Jul ’25
Reply to App submission rejected
Thank you for your post and appeal. We're investigating and will contact you in App Store Connect to provide further assistance. If you continue to experience issues during review, please contact us. There are several factors that may contribute to an app not following App Review Guideline 4.3. Typically, these apps share a similar binary, metadata, and overall concept as apps already on the App Store, with only minor differences. If you have questions about App Review's review of your app, we recommend requesting an appointment with App Review during the bi-weekly Meet with Apple Experts event. Sign in with your Developer ID and select App Review Appointment. A member of the App Review team will help you with your questions regarding the review process and the App Review Guidelines. Appointments are subject to availability during your local business hours on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
Jun ’25
Unique application rejected due to guideline 4.3(a)-Design-Spam.
Section 1: Our game was developed using Cocos Creator 3.8.5, written in TypeScript. The team spent nearly two years completing it. Initially, our submission wasn't classified under Guideline 4.3(a). The first four reviews provided normal feedback, which we addressed. However, after a subsequent rejection citing 4.3(a), we considered whether similarities in gameplay concepts, narrative, or art assets might exist. In response, our team introduced unique features not found in other App Store applications. We completely redesigned our original art assets to ensure originality and extensively modified aspects potentially resembling other developers’ work. This included removing all third-party SDK modules except Apple Pay and Sign in with Apple. Despite these significant efforts, we still received a 4.3(a) rejection. We have now iterated over 20 versions but continue to face this issue.  Section 2: Our game’s business logic code (excluding the Cocos engine code) is entirely original and
1
0
189
Jun ’25
Unique application rejected due to guideline 4.3(a)-Design-Spam.
Here is the English translation of your content:  Section 1: Our game was developed using Cocos Creator 3.8.5, written in TypeScript. The team spent nearly two years completing it. Initially, our submission wasn't classified under Guideline 4.3(a). The first four reviews provided normal feedback, which we addressed. However, after a subsequent rejection citing 4.3(a), we considered whether similarities in gameplay concepts, narrative, or art assets might exist. In response, our team introduced unique features not found in other App Store applications. We completely redesigned our original art assets to ensure originality and extensively modified aspects potentially resembling other developers’ work. This included removing all third-party SDK modules except Apple Pay and Sign in with Apple. Despite these significant efforts, we still received a 4.3(a) rejection. We have now iterated over 20 versions but continue to face this issue.  Section 2: Our game’s business logic code (exclud
0
0
141
Jun ’25
4.3a Refuses to appeal or seek a solution, and the game production will solve the 4.3a problem for 2 years and be revised for half a year.
Our game was written by Cocos Creator version 3.8.5 ‌TypeScript, which took the team nearly 2 years to complete. At the beginning, my application was not defined as 4.3a. The first four reviews were all normal feedback questions. We revised the questions. After the last review rejected 4.3A, we also suspected that the reasons such as game creativity, game copywriting and game art might be close to other applications. Then our team added functional innovations that other applications in the Apple Store didn't have, and the original art was original. We created new art again because of 4.3a, and also revised many places that may be similar to other developers, including that we removed all SDK modules except Apple Pay and Apple Login, and it also showed that 4.3a refused, and we have revised no less than 20 versions or failed. Our business code except the game engine code is newly developed by us and should not be duplicated with other developers' code. Is it because the JSC file and binary file output by JavaS
1
0
211
Jun ’25
Guideline 4.3(b) - Design - Spam
hi all, i have dating app, approved in google store, and working website but i cant get approval from apple review team ( Guideline 4.3(b) - Design - Spam) can someone help/suggest how to solve it our app has 2000 clients already
Topic: Design SubTopic: General
Replies
1
Boosts
0
Views
210
Activity
Aug ’25
Reply to Guideline 4.3(a) - Design - Spam
Thank you for your post. There are several factors that may contribute to an app not following App Review Guideline 4.3. Typically, these apps share a similar binary, metadata, and overall concept as apps already on the App Store, with only minor differences. If you have questions about App Review's review of your app, we recommend requesting an appointment with App Review during the bi-weekly Meet with Apple event. Sign in with your Developer ID and select App Review Appointment. A member of the App Review team will help you with your questions regarding the review process and the App Review Guidelines. Appointments are subject to availability during your local business hours on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
Replies
Boosts
Views
Activity
Jul ’25
Reply to Guideline 4.3(a) - Design - Spam
Guideline 4.3 is pretty explicit: 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. That seem to be precisely your case. Another thought: I don't know if it is the cause, but there is a Babbel app to train for foreign languages. The name of your app appears pretty close to it.
Replies
Boosts
Views
Activity
Jul ’25
Guideline 4.3(a) - Design - Spam
Hi all, I'm looking for guidance or experiences from others who’ve run into this issue. I'm developing a series of educational apps that teach different languages from English, using a simple flashcard-based format. Each app is fully offline, has no ads, no subscriptions, and contains native audio and culturally relevant images for that specific language. Each language pack (audio + images + data) is around 50MB, and I’m planning to support 50 languages. Because of size constraints and my offline-first approach, it’s not feasible to combine all languages into a single app. To stay user-friendly and efficient: Each app contains only one language. Each has its own name and icon (e.g., “Babel Bash Chinese ”, “Babel Bash Thai”). All use the same visual structure (by design) for brand consistency and usability. Despite this, I’ve had an app rejected under Guideline 4.3(a) – Spam, with the reasoning that it duplicates the functionality of another app I've submitted (even though the language, audio, and vis
Replies
3
Boosts
0
Views
240
Activity
Jul ’25
As a Chinese person, I feel that I have been discriminated against by Apple's review process.
We have developed an app called FastUP, which has been constantly reminding us of 4.3(a). We have uploaded the original evidence of the developed code and UI design drafts, but it still keeps giving us this problem. There will be no manual response and no consideration of our explanations. It always just reacts mechanically. This is a repetitive application. Could you please explain how to apply it repeatedly when our code is original and the UI is also original? Is it possible that there can only be one tool-type app in the AppStore? ? Every time during the process of applying for the phone communication, we were told there was no problem, but they still gave us incorrect information and kept deceiving us. Is this not discrimination against us just because we applied for the Chinese voice phone service?
Replies
3
Boosts
0
Views
257
Activity
Jul ’25
Reply to Rejected from Apple 43(b)
What's 43(b)? You mean, 4.3 (b)?
Replies
Boosts
Views
Activity
Jul ’25
Reply to Struggling With Guideline 4.3(b) Rejections – Would Love Dev Insight
Precedent & Fairness in Enforcement Rove is an intentional, safety-forward dating product. It is neither spammy, low-effort, nor duplicative — and yet we continue to face rejections under Guideline 4.3(b). This raises serious concerns about selective enforcement of App Store policy. In the past 60 days, Apple has approved a wide range of new dating apps, including: • Ready: Dating & Relationships – Launched June 3, 2025. Marketed as a native app for “intentional dating,” with a thematic approach directly comparable to Rove. • Meetline – Launched May 15, 2025. A transit-based connection app that limits conversations, just like Rove limits user visibility to avoid overload. • Yuzu – Asian Dating & Friends – A non-swipe app tailored to a specific community — proof that niche dating concepts are not inherently duplicative. • Metya / DateGuard – Two safety-first apps that use community filters and moderation-centric design. These are directionally aligned with Rove’s own innovation in safety a
Replies
Boosts
Views
Activity
Jul ’25
3rd time rejected: Guideline 4.3(a) - Design - Spam
My app keep getting rejected after changing complete UI. It's an finance tool app. any advice Guideline 4.3(a) - Design - Spam 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. Next Steps Since we do not accept spam apps on the App Store, we encourage you to review your app concept and submit a unique app with distinct content and functionality. Resources Some factors that contribute to a spam rejection may include: Submitting an app with the same source code or assets as other apps already submitted to the App Store Creating and submitting multiple similar apps using a repackaged app template Purchasing an app template with problematic code from a third party Submitting several similar apps across multiple accounts
Replies
1
Boosts
0
Views
206
Activity
Jul ’25
Reply to Metal Developer Tools on Windows Companion File issue
我也遇到了同样的问题,我用的是metal developer tool 4.3 for windows。生成metalsym时会出现“warning: 'test.metallib' architecture air64_v21 does not support a companion MetalLib; copying verbatim”,当我在xcode import sources时,仍然现在显示 metal code。
Topic: Graphics & Games SubTopic: General Tags:
Replies
Boosts
Views
Activity
Jul ’25
Appeal Account Termination – App ID 6744330283 (Spam 4.3 Misunderstanding)
Hello Apple Developer Support & Community, I’m reaching out regarding the unexpected termination of my Apple Developer Program account, associated with App ID: 6744330283. Recently, my app was flagged under Guideline 4.3 - Spam, and I was asked to make necessary changes. I followed all guidance provided by Apple, including a phone call with an App Review team member, who clarified the steps I should take. I did not submit any further update after that call. However, before I had the chance to upload the new, compliant version of my app, my entire developer account was terminated without a clear explanation or additional warning. I believe this was a misunderstanding, as I was actively working on compliance and fully committed to resolving the issue. My app is not spam I only followed Apple’s instructions I never uploaded a new version after my call with App Review No specific violation or example of “spam” was shown to me I’ve submitted an official appeal via the App Review Board, but I’m hoping
Replies
1
Boosts
0
Views
355
Activity
Jul ’25
Rejected for Spam 4.3 (A) Without Clear Reason – Previously Approved App Now Stuck in Review for Weeks! [App ID: 6744330283]
Hello Apple Developer Team and Community, I’m writing to raise a serious concern regarding my app (App ID: 6744330283) which is now being repeatedly rejected under Guideline 4.3 (A) – Spam, despite being previously approved and published for at least two earlier versions. We have had multiple rounds of communication with the App Review team in the past, carefully addressing every request and making adjustments accordingly. These previous versions were reviewed and approved without any reference to 4.3 issues. However, since a recent update, we’ve been receiving rejections citing Spam 4.3 (A) — without any specific explanation or detailed reasoning. Even more frustrating: Each review now takes over a week to process, making our release cycle extremely difficult to manage. It required dozens of phone calls and emails just to get the app reviewed at all. I even had a meeting with an App Review team member, where I was told: “The recent updates are considered Spam 4.3, while th
Replies
1
Boosts
0
Views
183
Activity
Jul ’25
Reply to App submission rejected
Thank you for your post and appeal. We're investigating and will contact you in App Store Connect to provide further assistance. If you continue to experience issues during review, please contact us. There are several factors that may contribute to an app not following App Review Guideline 4.3. Typically, these apps share a similar binary, metadata, and overall concept as apps already on the App Store, with only minor differences. If you have questions about App Review's review of your app, we recommend requesting an appointment with App Review during the bi-weekly Meet with Apple Experts event. Sign in with your Developer ID and select App Review Appointment. A member of the App Review team will help you with your questions regarding the review process and the App Review Guidelines. Appointments are subject to availability during your local business hours on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
Replies
Boosts
Views
Activity
Jun ’25
Unique application rejected due to guideline 4.3(a)-Design-Spam.
Section 1: Our game was developed using Cocos Creator 3.8.5, written in TypeScript. The team spent nearly two years completing it. Initially, our submission wasn't classified under Guideline 4.3(a). The first four reviews provided normal feedback, which we addressed. However, after a subsequent rejection citing 4.3(a), we considered whether similarities in gameplay concepts, narrative, or art assets might exist. In response, our team introduced unique features not found in other App Store applications. We completely redesigned our original art assets to ensure originality and extensively modified aspects potentially resembling other developers’ work. This included removing all third-party SDK modules except Apple Pay and Sign in with Apple. Despite these significant efforts, we still received a 4.3(a) rejection. We have now iterated over 20 versions but continue to face this issue.  Section 2: Our game’s business logic code (excluding the Cocos engine code) is entirely original and
Replies
1
Boosts
0
Views
189
Activity
Jun ’25
Unique application rejected due to guideline 4.3(a)-Design-Spam.
Here is the English translation of your content:  Section 1: Our game was developed using Cocos Creator 3.8.5, written in TypeScript. The team spent nearly two years completing it. Initially, our submission wasn't classified under Guideline 4.3(a). The first four reviews provided normal feedback, which we addressed. However, after a subsequent rejection citing 4.3(a), we considered whether similarities in gameplay concepts, narrative, or art assets might exist. In response, our team introduced unique features not found in other App Store applications. We completely redesigned our original art assets to ensure originality and extensively modified aspects potentially resembling other developers’ work. This included removing all third-party SDK modules except Apple Pay and Sign in with Apple. Despite these significant efforts, we still received a 4.3(a) rejection. We have now iterated over 20 versions but continue to face this issue.  Section 2: Our game’s business logic code (exclud
Replies
0
Boosts
0
Views
141
Activity
Jun ’25
4.3a Refuses to appeal or seek a solution, and the game production will solve the 4.3a problem for 2 years and be revised for half a year.
Our game was written by Cocos Creator version 3.8.5 ‌TypeScript, which took the team nearly 2 years to complete. At the beginning, my application was not defined as 4.3a. The first four reviews were all normal feedback questions. We revised the questions. After the last review rejected 4.3A, we also suspected that the reasons such as game creativity, game copywriting and game art might be close to other applications. Then our team added functional innovations that other applications in the Apple Store didn't have, and the original art was original. We created new art again because of 4.3a, and also revised many places that may be similar to other developers, including that we removed all SDK modules except Apple Pay and Apple Login, and it also showed that 4.3a refused, and we have revised no less than 20 versions or failed. Our business code except the game engine code is newly developed by us and should not be duplicated with other developers' code. Is it because the JSC file and binary file output by JavaS
Replies
1
Boosts
0
Views
211
Activity
Jun ’25