I am unable to sign in to a Sandbox Apple Account, where this issue occurs only via Simulator. Under Settings > Developer, I tap "Sign In" under Sandbox Apple Account. I enter my account credentials, and after bringing me back to the Developer page, the Sign In button briefly appears as disabled, before being re-enabled, without signing in to the account. (The account credentials are also recognized as correct, as I will receive an alert popup if incorrect.) See screenshots below: After signing in, Sign In button appears disabled... ... then is re-enabled without actually signing in to the account. I have now tried setting up multiple sandbox accounts via App Store Connect with various permutations (no confirmation of Apple Account email, confirming Apple Account email, logging in to iCloud and accepting terms of service), running different device simulators, running simulators on different Mac computers... none of which yield a different result. By contrast, I can sign in to the Sandbox Apple Account without issue on a physical device. The problem occurs only via Simulator.

Hi, we had a case where one of our users wanted us to stop renewing his subscription in our app since he was unable to do it himself. Is there a way for us to stop the auto renewal? Kind regards Ondřej Leitmančík

Hello is there a way to only allow credit card that is from a certain country to access in-app subscription in my app? Lets say I will only allow credit card from Singapore. I don't think its possible with In-App purchase but my colleague wanted to know and I just wanted to double check here.

For V1 used for internal purchase verification, when will the exclusive shared key regenerated after transfer be replaced? Will it affect in-app purchases and subscriptions by online users? The V2 used for internal purchase verification uses the key ID instead of the dedicated shared key. In this case, what should we pay attention to before and after the transfer? Do I need to regenerate the key ID for the new account? Is the private shared key still useful? Do I need to generate a dedicated shared key again in the transferred App? What will be the impact on existing subscriptions after the transfer? What do I need to do with the current existing subscriptions? We have used universalLink, do we need to add a new TeamId to the apple-app-site-assn. txt file? { "applinks": { "apps": [], "details": [ { "appID": “TeamIdA.com.***.***”, "paths": [""] }, { "appID": “TeamIdB.com.***.***”, "paths": [""] } ] } } We have stored the login information in Keychain Sharing, is there no way to get the original stored information after transfer? Is there a reasonable solution?

Hi, all! I am wondering about something about App Receipts. I'm using App Receipt hash to key some information server-side. I'm curious however, if that doesn't actually have a possible flaw. Is it possible to get a new receipt that would yield a different hash for the same transaction? Reinstalling the app, perhaps? Installing the app on a new phone? Basically, I want to make sure this hash is something I can rely on. If the user can get a new hash for the same purchase, that's obviously problematic. Thanks!

We have not been receiving notifications for Apple's recurring monthly charges and user refunds since 4 PM on October 10th. apple Id:1325419855 server notification endpoint: https://xyks-open.yuanfudao.com/leo-cm-third-pay/api/apple-iap/pay-sub-notify/2 Server notification version: version1 Additionally, we have another app, which is also using server notification version1, and it is able to receive notifications.

Currently, I have an app running locally on my computer, and there is also a web app. To create an account, users need to pay through the web app, which handles the payment process smoothly. My question is: Do I need to implement In-App Purchases (IAP) if the payment is only for account creation? Let me elaborate on my question. I know the typical answer is yes, but what if users in the mobile app cannot create an account or pay within the app itself? Instead, account creation is only possible via the web app, and only users who have paid outside the mobile platform can access and join the mobile app. This approach is similar to what Netflix and Spotify do – they do not allow account creation inside their mobile apps and do not provide any redirects or buttons indicating alternative payment methods (they do not have IAP).

Sorry but I'm not good at English. Is the originalTransactionId received for the same subscription by the same user the same in Store Kit v1 and Store Kit 2? Also, will the originalTransactionId be the same even if the subscription price is changed?

Domain=NSURLErrorDomain Code=-1202 "The certificate for this server is invalid. You may be connecting to a server masquerading as a "auth-sandbox.itunes.apple.com", which threatens the security of your confidential information. "

I set both production and sandbox App Store Notification server. In sandbox, my server can receive all kinds of app store notification, including subscription and non-consumable in-app-purchase. But in production, my server only receive subscription notification. I can see some non-consumable in-app-purchase done in log, but the server didn't receive expected notification. Anyone know why? I really need the notification cause I need to know who made refund.

Hello, Apple App Store Server API Team! I have one questions about the identifiers provided by Apple App Store Server API. Could you please answer? We are running an iOS App. In our app, the transactionId we get from Apple App Store Server API is called T1. (Example) Q1. Is it correct that other iOS apps cannot get T1 for transactionId from Apple App Store Server API? (I'm wondering if the transactionId is globally unique across apps.) Thank you!

Hi, I've migrated my app to another developer account more than half a year ago, but I'm still receiving a few transaction payments in the old developer account, which currently has no app. The payment date shown in the report is last month. I'm wondering how could this happen. Is it possible for users to initiate a transaction half a year ago and only successfully pay it now?

The in-app payment system is confusing. In-app payment is initially reviewed without being attached (however, in-app purchase is applied) Once the review is complete (up to in-app payment), the in-app payment module is attached for testing It is reviewed with the attached module Isn't this the logic? If there is another logic, please let me know. Thank you.

代码块 让购买结果=尝试等待购买（产品，选项：[选项]） //处理支付结果 开关购买结果{ 案例让.success（验证结果）： 如果案例让.verified（交易）=验证结果{ await transaction.finish()case .userCancelled: 自我.取消回调？（） 案例.pending： /// 交易可能在未来成功，通过Transaction.updates进行通知。 打印（“苹果支付中待定”） 默认： 打破 } } 抓住 { 自我失败回电话？（”产品购买失败：\(错误)") 打印（“产品购买失败：\（错误）”） } 凭证相关信息如下： transactionid：1230000065994257 appAccountToken：D613C126-4142-4BFF-9960-00AE3F5A6F83 "jwsInfo": ["header": "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***5UmhIRkQvM21lb3locG12T3dnUFVuUFdUeG5TNGF0K3FJeFVDTUcxbWloREsxQTNVVDgyTlF6NjBpbU9sTTI3amJkb1h0MlFmeUZNbStZaGlkRGtMRjF2TFVhZ002QmdENTZLeUtBPT0iXX0", "payload": "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", "signature": "SXieZGabBt6xHoSaBsZ1k4AexqkNYzwZel0BEhGqc3mxrd4kzOR5wERRATXySqbqfT3WJzkDAsr9jmCdoz_7-g"], "status": "normal", "transactionId": "1230000065994257"]","Band_Phone_Num":"18653588566","Platform":"124","Oper_Time":"1745823519","verification_time":"1745823519115"},"ISP":"移动","OETM":"1745823519116","CLIENTID":"","CPURATE":"0.257","AMBERUDID":"1f72113ecc704ce4a4cc135e8af71ee6","ANAME":"","MEMRATE":"0.02346919","CITY":"北京","PROMOTION":"\\","CLIENTIP":"192.168.31.74","CLIENTIPV6":"fe80::4e3:40a8:51c3:dbf5","DB":"Apple","APN":"com.migu.cloudavp","ETM":"2025-04-28 14:58:39 116"} 请帮我查一下 是这个订单没关闭成功吗？为什么出现购买新的产品 返回的永远是这个支付凭证。

Our macOS app has one in-app purchase (IAP) implemented using StoreKit 1. It works for us and beta testers but App Review get SKErrorDomain Error Code 0 / ASDErrorDomain Code 500 / AMSErrorDomain 305 on first attempt to make the in-app purchase. However, the purchase succeeds at second attempt. We've looked through our entire IAP related code and App Store Connect setup but can’t find the reason. It's a standard implementation: LegacyPaymentQueueObserver for SKPaymentQueue observation. AppDelegate for initiation of payment queue observation on app launch LegacyStoreKitPurchasableProduct for initiating a purchase and listening for the result LegacyStoreKitProductsRequester for how we load the product before user can make in-app purchase. It happens this way: PreviewResultsViewModelcalls loadProducts()on an instance of StoreKitPurchaseManager, which asks an instance of LegacyStoreKitProductsRequesterto requestProducts(forIdentifiers:) Any guidance to resolve this would be appreciated.

My app calls Product.SubscriptionInfo.status(for:) to get the subscription status when the app starts. Users with multiple Apple IDs have reported that every few days they get an unpurchased status, and when I checked that, the Product.SubscriptionInfo.status(for:) result array was empty. (When the app is restarted, Product.SubscriptionInfo.status(for:) gives the correct result.) StoreKit.Transaction.currentEntitlements, which is executed immediately after Product.SubscriptionInfo.status(for:), seems to be getting the correct result, so I am trying to check the subscription status with this result. Is it a bug that Product.SubscriptionInfo.status(for:) returns an empty result for the purchaser? There is a mismatch between Product.SubscriptionInfo.status(for:) and StoreKit.Transaction.currentEntitlements. Is it possible for a mismatch to occur?　 And In such a case, which result should be adopted?

In the sandbox environment, when I quickly and repeatedly purchase an item, Transaction.id will be repeated. Will there be duplication in the production environment? func pay(productId: String, orderId: String) async { guard !productId.isEmpty, !orderId.isEmpty else { return } let orderObj = ApplePayOrderModel.init(orderId: orderId, productId: productId) do { let result = try await Product.products(for: [productId]) guard let product = result.first else { return } let purchaseResult = try await product.purchase() switch purchaseResult { case .success(let verification): switch verification { case .verified(let transaction): orderObj.transactionId = String(transaction.id) await transaction.finish() case .unverified(let transaction, let error): await transaction.finish() } case .userCancelled: break case .pending: break @unknown default: break } } catch { print("error \(error.localizedDescription)") } }

I am looking to move from paid app to fremium without upsetting my existing users. I see WWDC2022 session where new fields introduced in iOS 16 are used to extract original application version user used to purchase the app. While my app supports iOS 14 and above, I am willing to sacrifice iOS 14 and go iOS 15 and above as StoreKit2 requires iOS 15 at the minimum. The code below is however only valid for iOS 16. I need to know what is the best way out for iOS 15 devices if I am using StoreKit2? If it is not possible in StoreKit2, then how much is the work involved in original StoreKit API(because in that case I can handle for iOS 14 as well)?

Hello Apple Dev Team, I’m seeking guidance on how to ensure full compliance with the App Store Review Guidelines, specifically section 3.1.1 (In-App Purchase). In-App Purchase Mechanisms: I want to verify that my app is correctly using in-app purchases to unlock premium content, rather than alternative mechanisms. The guidelines outline various restrictions on unlocking content (e.g., license keys, QR codes, cryptocurrency). If I follow all of these restrictions, would Apple require anything else specific to prove compliance? Subscription Handling Across Platforms: Our app plans to offer a subscription service where users could subscribe on Android and then access the content on iOS with the same credentials (similar to Netflix). Users should also have the option to manage (including canceling) their subscription directly from their iOS device. Are there any specific requirements or precautions I should take to facilitate this cross-platform subscription access while remaining compliant? Restoring Purchases: I see that in-app purchases must have a restore mechanism. Could you confirm if Apple expects any specific UX or technical standards here, particularly if there are multiple types of IAPs? I’d appreciate any insights or examples from other apps that meet these requirements successfully. Thanks in advance! This should help clarify your approach, ensuring alignment with Apple’s guidelines.

Hello, I have an app where the users can connect their vehicles to an API and record trips and so on. Currently I have one subscription, where the user can add as many vehicles as he wants. But now I want (need) to change this to one vehicle per subscription. So if the user want to add two vehicles, he need to subscribe two times to the same product. How can I handle this? Thanks, Arangoool