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.

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?

ASO often feels like a constant uphill battle for indie iOS devs - the rules keep shifting, results are unpredictable, and competing with big-budget apps can be discouraging. Has anyone here actually figured out what truly works for indie apps, or is ASO just a never-ending grind we all face?

Responding to reviews helps ASO because it encourages better user sentiment, improves rating recovery, and builds trust for new users checking your app. Converting negative reviews into positive ones has a strong impact on ranking. Engaging consistently with users is one of the simplest ways to strengthen overall ASO performance.

Noticed a sudden drop in my keyword rankings recently and after some digging, it looks like Apple rolled out a major ASO update, which a lot of developers seem to be talking about. Curious if anyone has insights on what specifically changed - it seems like the app title may no longer hold the same weight in keyword rankings.

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 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 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!

I have an app that is stuck in "Waiting for review" since January 2nd. This will be one month tomorrow as I'm writing this. It's a totally new app, which I guess could take longer than an update to an existing app, but a month seems a bit much. What can I do about this? It seems weird that there isn't some kind of alarm inside the app review team that will catch some app being stuck for this long...

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.

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.

My app was submitted on 1/27/2026 and is still in "Waiting for Review" with no updates. I submitted a request to Support several days ago with no response to see if there was an issue that needed to be addressed, and my request to schedule an App Review session was denied.

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.

Hello everyone, We are the developer of PhotoMagic – AI Photo Editor, and we would appreciate guidance from the community regarding a pending enforcement case currently under review by the App Review Board. Case Information Case Number: 102812414888 App ID: 6746860005 Notice Date: January 25, 2026 Current Status: Pending review by the App Review Board Reason cited: Section 3.2(f) of the Apple Developer Program License Agreement The notice stated that our app submissions were considered to have “repeatedly violated the App Review Guidelines in an attempt to evade the review process.” Background & Acknowledgement Upon receiving the notice, we immediately conducted a comprehensive internal audit. During this process, we identified that certain user-uploaded template content (for example, templates involving concepts such as “kiss” or “hug”) posed potential policy risks. We would like to clearly state that we did not intentionally hide or disguise content to evade App Review. However, we fully acknowledge that our previous content moderation mechanisms were insufficient, and we take full responsibility for this oversight. Corrective Actions Taken Following the audit, we implemented the following remediation measures. Some items are already live, while others will take effect in the next app update once submission restrictions are lifted. Already Implemented 1.Expanded and strengthened our prohibited keyword library to prevent searching or generating sensitive content (e.g. “kiss”, “hug”, “nude”, etc.).(We can provide the keyword list if requested.) 2.Added detection and filtering mechanisms for public figures (including political figures and well-known individuals) to prevent potential deepfake misuse. 3.Raised AI model safety thresholds to prioritize risk prevention, even if this blocks borderline or otherwise normal content. 4.Fully restructured our content moderation team to ensure independence, accountability, and redundancy. 5.Implemented an in-app reporting mechanism allowing users to report any content, which is immediately reviewed and removed if found non-compliant. 6.Discontinued use of Grok and any other AI services deemed potentially risky; all AI generation capabilities have been migrated to Gemini. Pending Next App Update 7. Updated Terms of Use to restrict access to adults only and explicitly prohibit generating any prohibited content. Repeated violation attempts result in warnings and eventual denial of service. 8. Removed all user-uploaded custom templates. Only internally designed, fixed templates are provided, with no user-editable prompts. 9. Added both visible and invisible watermarks to all generated content to ensure clear AI attribution and traceability. Questions for the Community We would appreciate any guidance or shared experience regarding the following: Are there any additional steps that are appropriate or recommended to bring remediation details to the App Review Board’s attention while a case is under review? Is there any specific type of supporting documentation (e.g. technical architecture explanations, data cleanup confirmations, policy mappings) that has been helpful in similar situations? In general, once a case is under review by the App Review Board, is it best to wait for further instructions, or are proactive clarifications sometimes appropriate? We respect Apple’s review process and are fully committed to long-term compliance with the App Store Review Guidelines and the Apple Developer Program License Agreement. Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and support.

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!

App is repeatedly rejected under Guideline 2.5.1 for referencing the private API:_SecCertificateIsValid Reported custom framework CommonLibrary.framework. The SDK is written in Objective-C and uses only public Security APIs. It does not use any deprecated APIs. We have verified the framework binary using nm, otool, and strings, and _SecCertificateIsValid does not appear in exported or hidden symbols. Bitcode is disabled, dead-code stripping is enabled, and the Release build uses -Os. Despite this, App Store Connect continues to detect _SecCertificateIsValid. We have attached herewith screenshots of our analysis for the reference. Can Apple’s server-side analysis or Security.framework internals still surface _SecCertificateIsValid? Is there a recommended way for SDK authors to prevent this symbol from being flagged?

My app was submitted on 1/27/26 for review and is still in "Waiting for Review" status, with no updates. I thought there might be an issue and submitted a Support Request several days ago, but haven't heard back, and my request to schedule an App Review session was denied as well.

Hello, I’m seeking clarification on In-App Purchase requirements for a marketplace vendor app offering real-world, offline services. We plan to offer paid vendor listing plans (Free, Silver, Gold, etc.) that provide business benefits such as increased visibility, analytics, and also include feature limits like the number of images a vendor can upload to their business profile and enhanced dashboard views. These plans are intended to support vendors’ real-world businesses and do not provide digital content to consumers. Does gating vendor features such as image upload limits or dashboard capabilities require Apple In-App Purchase under App Store Review Guideline 3.1, or can such vendor plans be processed using a third-party payment gateway as account-based service tiers?

My app has been in the review queue since January 23, 2026. Is this normal? What’s more, I applied for an expedited review but haven’t received any feedback yet. Could it be that there’s an unusually large number of apps in the review queue right now?

I'm currently working on an OSX app that requires a user to have Spotify installed. (If the user doesn't have Spotify, the app will still run–it will just be useless) It seems like this sort of thing is allowed because I see plenty of apps in the Mac App Store that use Spotify, but do I need to make any special notes of this in my app submission to make sure it's approved?