Dear Apple Review Team & Develpers! Could anyone clarify why Apple Reviewers, when rejecting the app under Guideline 4.3(a) - Design - Spam, do not provide any specific details? Each time my app is rejected, I receive a generic, automated response. In contrast, I provide detailed information and request clarification on the exact reasons for the rejection- specifically, what aspects of the app do not meet Apple's requirements. However, the responses I receive are always the same standard message without any useful details. Am I correct in understanding that the review process is entirely automated, with no human evaluation, resulting in repetitive, unhelpful replies? I would appreciate a more detailed response that can genuinely help me address the issue and ensure my app complies with Apple's guidelines. Here is their standard generic response to any my reply where I provide details and ask questions, but Apple Reviewer answer alsway with the same text: Guideline 4.3(a) - Design - Spam
Search results for
4.3
585 results found
Selecting any option will automatically load the page
Post
Replies
Boosts
Views
Activity
Could anyone clarify why Apple Reviewers, when rejecting the app under Guideline 4.3(a) - Design - Spam, do not provide any specific details? Because they don't have to. Your relationship with Apple is governed by the developer agreement that you signed. It says what you and Apple have to do. There is nothing in there that says that Apple has to provide any reasoning for their rejections. See section 6.9.
Topic:
App Store Distribution & Marketing
SubTopic:
App Review
Tags:
Hello dear friends, I created the application from scratch, but Apple writes to me to do it as a mistake, please tell me 😭😭😭 Guideline 4.3(a) - Design - Spam We noticed your app shares a similar binary, metadata, and/or concept as apps previously submitted by a terminated Apple Developer Program account. 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 Learn more about our requ
Dear App Review team, My app Goodie AI (Apple ID 6741483227) has been flagged as violating Guideline 4.3(a) - Design - Spam. I thought I would reach out to the team to explain that Goodie AI is an entirely original concept, and would seek guidance on if we misunderstood what specifically the problem with the submission is. DESCRIPTION Please suggest next steps? We've already appealed, and have resubmitted the app. Thanks! SCREENSHOTS ATTACHED
Topic:
App Store Distribution & Marketing
SubTopic:
App Review
Tags:
Design
App Store
iOS
App Review
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.
Our application was first published on December 16, 2012, at 11:42 PM, and has been available on the market for 13 years. Over the years, we have implemented hundreds of updates to enhance and refine the app. Our recent updates are rejected for the reason Guideline 4.3(a) - Design - Spam warning. How can it be for a 13 years old app. Please advice me what to do. Thanks in advance
Hello, while creating the sample app I found a message in the debugger: Widget archival failed due to image being too large [1] - (6000, 4000), totalArea: 24000000 > max[2121055.200000]. Can you provide a table, what is the limit or how to calculate it? I found that this limit is different for all my devices. Now I use a magic number = 3.6. It is not the scale of the device screen, but something else. //ipad 10 sqrt(13.54) ~ sqrt(13) ~ 3.6 //iphone 16 pro sqrt(18.5) ~ 4.3 //iphone SE sqrt(17.59) ~ 4.1 And it is better to have documentation about it. And the archiving of images in the widget is not very fast. Especially it becomes a problem when using a long timeline. Even if the image is the same for all parts of the timeline, archiving is slow.
Topic:
App & System Services
SubTopic:
Widgets & Live Activities
Tags:
Conclusion: The Fight for Fairness in the App Store After months of jumping through hoops, removing features, and complying with vague rejections, it’s clear that Apple’s 4.3 guideline enforcement lacks transparency and consistency. The App Store is meant to be a platform that fosters innovation, yet it often feels like an arbitrary gatekeeper deciding which apps get through and which don’t—without proper explanation or recourse. Trust me, this app was one of one—a completely unique tool that no other competitor offers. And I don’t say that lightly. As a developer with 10 years of experience, I know what makes an app stand out, and I’ve built multiple successful ones. This wasn’t just another generic tracking app; it brought real innovation, from gender insights to bot detection and shortcut integrations—features that were built specifically to enhance the user experience. I have repeatedly revised my app, stripping away functionalities users found valuable, only to be met with the same copy-paste re
Topic:
App Store Distribution & Marketing
SubTopic:
App Review
Hey everyone, We’ve been facing an ongoing issue with 4.3 spam guideline rejections, and I wanted to see if anyone has experienced something similar or has advice. Initially, we got rejected under 4.3, but we complied by adding unique features that helped us pass. These included: ✅ Public tracking profiles ✅ Widgets for stats ✅ Background fetch for updates ✅ No login required After two successful updates, we pushed a third update focused on bug fixes—fixing iPad UI issues and notification improvements—but suddenly, we got rejected again for 4.3, without any clarification. We strongly believe this is a mistake because our app has distinct features not found in any other app. We’ve reached out to Apple for clarification but haven’t received a meaningful response. Has anyone else had a similar experience where a compliance fix worked initially, only to be rejected again later? Any advice on how to appeal this effectively? Would appreciate any insights! Thanks.
Topic:
App Store Distribution & Marketing
SubTopic:
App Review
We submitted our application for a review and got rejected with the followings. Review date: February 18, 2025 Version reviewed: 1.0.0 Guideline 4.3(a) - Design - Spam We noticed your app shares a similar binary, metadata, and/or concept as apps previously submitted by a terminated Apple Developer Program account. 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 Learn more about o
UPDATE: Hey everyone, We’ve been pushing hard to make our app stand out, and we just rolled out some crazy new features, including: Apple Watch Companion App – Expanding stats to your wrist AI-Powered Gender Insights – A feature no other app offers Incognito Mode – For a more private experience That’s two features no other app has, yet we’re still being rejected under 4.3 Spam, even after making major updates. We originally passed after making compliance fixes, but now, despite these new unique features, we’re facing rejection again. Has anyone else dealt with this? Any advice on appealing effectively?
Topic:
App Store Distribution & Marketing
SubTopic:
App Review
Hi everyone, I recently received a rejection for my app submission on the App Store. The rejection reason 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. (Guideline 4.3(a) - Design - Spam) However, my game is quite different. It features a unique pixel art style and introduces fresh mechanics, such as cleaning tasks, accepting additional missions from NPCs, and even an idle clicker-style system where players can hire workers to gather in-game points. These elements differentiate it from other apps in the same category. My game's name is quite different as well: My Pixel Market Sim - AppID: 6742187384 Additionally, the code behind the game is completely my own, and I even sell a popular Unity Asset on the Unity Asset Store for this category. So, I can assure you
My game was also rejected with a 4.3 rating without any reason. I spent a long time developing it and tried countless ways to appeal, but all of them were mechanically replied with a 4.3 rating without any reason. I watse lots of time on Apple. My game currently has thousands of DAUs per day on Google and a rating of 4.7. It's ridiculous that it can't even be listed on Apple. Independent developers should give up Apple. I feel discriminated against.
Topic:
App Store Distribution & Marketing
SubTopic:
App Review
Tags:
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 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.
Topic:
App Store Distribution & Marketing
SubTopic:
App Review
Tags:
Hello, We are developing a multimedia routing platform written in Rust and uses gstreamer 1.20. We are targeting running on Mac Minis (older intel and newer M1/2/3/... w/ 8GB ram) using macOS 14.6.1 I have profiled memory usage using XCode instruments with the allocation tool, stack and heap memory is very stable once the pipelines are up and running. There are between 50 to 100 incoming RTSP streams with multiple webrtc connections, so lots of network and memory bandwidth is being used. However, we eventually see real memory usage increasing in Activity Monitor along with memory pressure increasing, but the heap/stack usage is constant in instruments, so we do not understand this behavior. Page fragmentation is a possibility, but have not been able to prove this with instruments. Please see attached image.You can see that 10-minute run had a total of approx 4.3 GB of allocations, but only 50.17MB persistent. Eventually we see kernel panics in either userspace watchdog timeout: no successful checkins
Topic:
App & System Services
SubTopic:
Core OS