I see many developers struggling with ASO where AI written content does not deliver results, performance analysis is unclear, localization is ignored, App Store optimization is incomplete, and keywords are often poorly chosen. I am considering running two simple group sessions to share practical tips and show clear ways to improve ASO with real effort involved, and I would like feedback on this idea whether offered for a small fee or even for free.

Hi, Got my first submission rejected due to Design - Minimum Functionality and would like to ask for some guidance on what to do. To give some context of my app. My app is quite simple but solves a common issue in my home town. During the winter month, every street will have a certain time when parking is forbidden. This results in everyone having to move their car several times a week to avoid getting tickets. Every time you move, you need to note and remember when to move it again, etc. A parking ticket for forgetting is around 140 USD. My app aims to solve this by letting the user press a button which makes the app use the current GPS location to fetch the parking relevant parking restriction and create a notification the day before, reminding the user to move their car. Simple UI and nothing fancy. I've also created onboarding that gives relevant information the first time a user open their app. I'm a bit on the fence on what I should do to pass. In my opinion, the functionality is more than a website because it uses GPS, creates notifications, loading spinner when parking restrictions are being fetched, has onboarding, etc. I think an issue that might cause the reviewer to dismiss it is that it currently only work in my specific town - it uses certain APIs to fetch the parking restrictions. So, should I try to create more functionality (not sure what) or do I need to clearly argue my case and demo my apps functionality via recordings? Thanks in advance for any help and guidance :)

Hello, With the recent update to Guideline 1.2 stating apps used primarily for “anonymous chat” may be removed, could App Review clarify what “anonymous” means in this context? In our app, users interact using a chosen username and avatar. We don’t display legal names publicly, but each user has a persistent, verified account and all UGC is tied to that account so we can enforce bans. We also provide filtering, reporting, and blocking. Question: Do applications that provide chat functionality with pseudonymous users — meaning users do not display their real names — have the right to exist under this guideline, provided that accounts are persistent and enforceable? If anyone has recently passed review with a similar pseudonymous chat model, I’d appreciate any guidance on how you framed 1.2 compliance.

My app (App ID: 6757516331) has been stuck in "Waiting for Review" since February 3rd. It has been over a week, and I have not received any updates yet. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Hello, My app update was rejected under Guideline 2.3.4 (Accurate Metadata) with the note that the app preview includes “framing around the video screen capture.” Apple attached four images to the review. I reviewed them carefully, and they appear to show full screen gameplay without borders or visible background. I am attaching two of those images here for reference. I am trying to understand what Apple might be interpreting as “framing” in this case. Has anyone encountered a similar rejection where the preview looked full screen but was still flagged? Any insight into what reviewers typically expect or what subtle issues might trigger this would be very helpful. Thank you.

Hello, My new app (App ID: 6757254070) has remained in the “Waiting for Review” status since February 1 (UTC+9). Because the review process seemed to be taking unusually long compared to my previous experiences, I submitted an inquiry (Reference ID: 102812788306), but I have not yet received any response. For additional context, the app was originally submitted on January 23 and remained in the “Waiting for Review” state for eight days. As I was concerned there might have been an issue with the review queue, I canceled the submission and resubmitted the app on February 1. At this point, I am wondering whether the prolonged waiting time is simply due to a heavy backlog in the App Review process. Thank you very much for taking the time to read this. I hope you have a great day.

Hello everyone, I’m facing an issue with In-App Purchases during App Review and would appreciate guidance from anyone who has encountered a similar situation. Context: New iOS/iPadOS app, first submission. One Non-Consumable In-App Purchase. IAP was created, fully configured, and submitted together with the app version. IAP status in App Store Connect: In Review. App includes Restore Purchase and uses standard StoreKit purchase flow. Paid Apps Agreement is accepted. Problem: During Apple’s review, when the reviewer taps the purchase button, a generic error appears: “Purchase failed. An error occurred, please try again.” Apple rejected the app under Guideline 2.1 – Performance – App Completeness, stating that the IAP shows a bug. What seems to be happening: The IAP itself is still in review and therefore not fully active, which causes the purchase attempt to fail. However, the app cannot be approved because the purchase fails, creating a circular dependency: App cannot be approved because IAP purchase fails. IAP cannot work because the app is not approved yet. According to Apple documentation, IAPs are tested in the sandbox during review and should not require separate approval to function, so I’m unsure what additional step is required. Questions: Is there any special configuration needed to make first-time IAPs work during review? Should Apple reviewers be able to complete sandbox purchases even if the IAP status is “In Review”? Is there a recommended workaround or reviewer instruction to avoid this deadlock? Any insights or real-world experience would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

When I update my app name, the App Store URL also changes, and since the app URL contributes to ASO performance, this is a concern for me. I would like to know whether it is possible to change the app name without affecting the URL, or if the previous URL automatically redirects to the new one.

I have a desktop application developed in SwiftUI that shows property locations on the map. That's NOT the main feature. IF you give the application permission to access your location, the blue dot will appear on the map. If you don't, the blue user dot won't appear. That's the only difference with location services. In other words, the application has no use of user's current position beyond showing it on the map. Since it's just the matter of showing or not showing the blue dot on the map, the application doesn't really need to use the location service. Anyway, the reviewer is talking about something else by rejecting the application in two aspects. Guideline 5.1.1 - Legal - Privacy - Data Collection and Storage Guideline 5.1.5 - Legal - Privacy - Location Services As I said earlier, the application only wants to show the blue dot on the map so that you can see your property locations relative to your current location. In code, it's something like the following. Map(position: $propertyViewModel.mapPosition) { ForEach(propertyViewModel.properties) { property in Annotation("", coordinate: CLLocationCoordinate2D(latitude: property.lat, longitude: property.lon)) { ... } } UserAnnotation() } So I'm hit with two rejection reasons with this one line. UserAnnotation() And the reviewer is talking about something like the app is not functional when Location Services are disabled. To resolve this issue, please revise the app so that the app is fully functional without requiring the user to enable Location Services. Well, I can remove the UserAnnotation() line if I want to put this application through the review process. Nothing will become dysfunctional, though, if you decide to reject permission request. So would you remove it or would you play along with this reviewer if you were me? It's been three or four days since rejection. As you can imagine, the reviewer doesn't bother to answer as to What are the exact coordinates that the application has allegedly collected What won't work as a result of location permission request refusal. This isn't the first time I get my app rejected. I've probably had 150 to 200 of them rejected in the past 15 years. And just because a reviewer rejects your app for a bizarre reason, would you give in? Remove this feature and that feature because the reviewer is incompetent such that he or she makes his or her decision based on imagination? What do you think?

My app was reviewed and approved on Feb 3rd, and still does not show in app store. I have submitted a ticket to Apple Feb 3rd, and still have not received a reply. I get either 404, or "this app is not available your country or region". This does it for me, and anyone I've asked to try it. This is very confusing - please someone help! https://apps.apple.com/us/app/exp-lights/id6758403863

Hello, I’m experiencing repeated rejections related to Guideline 2.1 – App Completeness for an iOS app using auto-renewable subscriptions, and I’m struggling to understand what is missing, as the purchase flow works correctly in sandbox and TestFlight. App setup: iOS app built with React Native (Expo + react-native-iap) Auto-renewable subscriptions: • Monthly: €4.99 • Yearly: €39.99 Paid Apps Agreement accepted Subscriptions configured and active in App Store Connect Privacy Policy and Apple Standard EULA included: • Visible inside the app on the subscription screen • Added in App Store metadata What App Review reports: App Review states they are unable to buy the in-app purchase, resulting in a rejection under Guideline 2.1 (App Completeness). What works correctly: getSubscriptions() returns valid products in sandbox Subscription titles, prices, and durations are displayed in the app UI requestSubscription() is triggered when tapping the subscribe button Apple purchase sheet appears and completes successfully in: • Sandbox testing • TestFlight (external testers) What I’ve verified: No conditional logic blocks purchases in review builds Purchase button always calls requestSubscription purchaseUpdatedListener and purchaseErrorListener are correctly registered No hardcoded prices; prices come from StoreKit Same behavior on iPhone and iPad Question: Is there any known limitation or requirement in the App Review environment for auto-renewable subscriptions that differs from sandbox/TestFlight when using a custom subscription UI (not SubscriptionStoreView)? If App Review requires a specific implementation detail (StoreKit 2, SubscriptionStoreView, or something else), I would really appreciate clarification, as this is not explicitly stated in the rejection. Thank you for your help.

I submitted my first ever app for review last Thursday, yet I have still had no updates from Apple regarding my review. Is this common for a first time submission or should I be slightly worried that i've been lost in the queue??

Hi, Our app (Tenkobo) received a rejection notice after review due to the fact that we use Gemini AI since 3 builds ago. Since then, we have been improving the disclosure of the data we collect, explicitly stating all the data, introducing a new feature that checks granular consent and syncs consent state for the user to the backend, and controls for whether to send to the Gemini API service for that feature depending on consent state for the user. Moreover, this feature is a premium add-on to a module that already does most things locally on the device and sends to our cloud infrastructure to allow storage and sync when users use multiple devices. It is a multi-platform app. However, despite every improvement, we keep getting the same Rejection reason that "The issues we identified still need your attention. I have asked for help or even that the rejection reason be more specific, but nothing. I have send pictures, and in this last rejection about 8 hours ago, I had to reply with a video showing that what they are asking for is already there. Why does the system work like this? It is frustrating, especially if a development team needs to be guessing how much is too much. We feel we are now close to removing the feature completely out of frustration, and it is very useful feature for our users based on the feedback we received from the android users (the android app has been live since about 6 weeks ago.) Please, what else can we do? We have requested a review meeting with App Review, the entire product plans are now on the verge of being irredeemably disrupted, and the company could go bankrupt just because our reviewer does not deem it fit to tell us exactly what they are expecting to see. Anyone with experience in this area should kindly provide some advise on what to do now. Thank you.

My app has been in “Waiting for Review” since January 31. I already submitted a support case (id - 102819325365) last week, but haven’t received a response. I also requested an expedited review but with no response either. This is not a new app, and all previous submissions were completed in less than 48 hours, so this delay seems unusual.

Hello, I have a question regarding payments for iOS apps in Russia. Currently, In-App Purchases are not available or do not work for many users in Russia, making it impossible for them to purchase digital subscriptions or digital content via Apple IAP. Is it allowed to: use an external payment provider available only in Russia, show this option only to users located in that region, and unlock access to digital content after payment is completed outside the app (for example, via a web page), in cases where Apple IAP is technically unavailable? Is there any official guidance or exception for regions where Apple IAP cannot be used? Thank you.

Hi everyone, I'm reaching out in hopes of getting some guidance on a persistent App Store review issue that I've been unable to resolve despite multiple submission attempts over the past few weeks. The situation: My app has been rejected several times because reviewers report being unable to log in during the review process. With each rejection, I've provided: Detailed step-by-step login instructions Valid testing credentials Demo videos showing the complete login flow However, the rejections continue with similarly vague feedback, and there's no indication that the materials I'm providing are being reviewed or considered. My concern: I'm genuinely at a loss for what else I can provide to help the review team successfully test the app. The lack of specific feedback about what isn't working makes it impossible to address the actual issue. I've demonstrated that the login process works as intended, but I can't seem to get past this roadblock. Has anyone experienced something similar? Are there any additional steps or formats for providing test credentials that might be more effective? At this point, I'm willing to try anything to move this forward. I appreciate any insights or suggestions you might have. Thank you!

Hello, When I recently distributed my app, I received the following warning message: "Starting April 2026, all visionOS apps must be built with the visionOS 26 SDK or later, included in Xcode 26 or later, in order to be uploaded to App Store Connect or submitted for distribution." However, the Apple Developer News page dated February 3 (https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=ueeok6yw) states that apps submitted to the App Store must meet the version 26 requirement starting April 28, 2026. I need to clarify whether the mandatory enforcement begins on April 1, 2026, or April 28, 2026. As the major specification changes in version 26 are significantly impacting our current app development, the exact deadline is critical for us to determine our updated development schedule. https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/814892 Thank you.

a I am submitting this appeal because we believe our app was misunderstood and the review outcome and follow-up communication have been unfair and mechanically handled. 1) What happened / Outcome we disagree with Our submission was rejected under Guideline 4.8 – Design – Login Services, with the reviewer stating that our app uses a third-party login service but does not provide an equivalent login option that meets Apple’s requirements (limited data collection, private email option, no advertising tracking without consent). However, our game does not require or force any third-party login. The feature being treated as “login” is not a login service at all—it is Mainland China real-name / anti-addiction compliance verification. 2) Why we believe we comply with the App Review Guidelines A. The feature in question is compliance verification, not login Players do not need to create or log into any in-game account to play. The flow exists solely to satisfy Mainland China real-name/anti-addiction compliance requirements. Verification can be completed by either: Using TapTap only as a real-name verification authorization option, or Manually entering a Chinese ID number + legal name to pass verification and play. Because this is verification, not an account login, Guideline 4.8 “Login Services” should not apply in the way the rejection message assumes. B. There is no “playable account” to provide After we clarified the above, we continued to receive repeated, template-like requests to provide a “playable account.” This request does not match our product design: there is no account system required for gameplay, so there is no “review account” to provide. We have already provided the information needed to complete the verification path (ID + name for the compliance flow), yet the responses remained repetitive and did not reflect that the reviewer checked our explanation. 3) Why we believe the handling was unfair Even after clearly explaining that this is not a login system, the review communication continued with mechanical responses that did not address the clarification. This caused significant delays to our release timeline and appears to be unfair treatment compared with many existing App Store apps that use similar compliance verification flows. 4) What we are requesting from the Appeals Team Please investigate and correct the misclassification of our real-name compliance verification as a “login service” under Guideline 4.8. If the team still believes Guideline 4.8 applies, please provide: The specific guideline rationale, and The exact screen/step in our app that is being interpreted as “login.” Please advise what specific materials you need to proceed efficiently (e.g., screen recording of the verification flow, step-by-step review instructions, configuration notes). We are ready to provide them immediately.

Hello, My app (App ID: 1616628950) was recently reviewed, and I received an email stating that the submission review was completed and that the build is eligible for distribution. In App Store Connect, In App review - IOS submission, the build shows Approved. However, when returning to the main Distribution page, the app version is still displayed as In Review, and I do not yet see a “Ready for Distribution” or release option. In previous submissions, once review was completed, the status usually transitioned to “Ready for Distribution” or “Pending Developer Release” fairly quickly, so this behavior seems unusual. I have tried refreshing the page and logging out/in, but the status has not changed so far. I just wanted to ask if this is a known synchronization delay between App Review and Distribution, or if there is anything else I should check on my side. Thank you very much for your time and assistance.

Or, can we consider the response completes once the prompt disappears? I will write down the sequence of events in order. A prompt appeared on our app's page asking us to respond to the survey. However, likely because the app hadn't been updated for many years, the “Edit” option for age restrictions was not displayed; instead, “View” was shown. After creating a page for the new app version, “Edit” appeared. We hadn't planned to release the new version to the App Store at this time, but we only created the new page to respond to this survey. After entering “edit” and answering the age restriction survey, the prompt disappeared. I contacted Apple Support to find out if just answering would suffice, but they told me to submit the app for review. However, as mentioned above, we have no plans to modify and release this app. Since it's an old app, I updated the environment, built it, and submitted it, but issues were pointed out. (I think it's because it's an old app.) When I asked the Apple Review team the same question as at the beginning, they suggested I post it here. Many thanks!