The latest TOP 10 reasons for IOS review rejection!

At present, the machine review mechanism is becoming more and more perfect, and it is also receiving more and more attention. Compared with the previous few months, the recent Apple review time has gradually shortened, with an average review time of 23.9 hours.

Apple's review is generally divided into three parts: preliminary review, machine review and manual review. Currently, the entire application review process is roughly divided into five stages: Prepare For Upload, Waiting For Review, In Review, Pending Developer Release, and Ready For Sale.

After the APP is uploaded, it will enter the Wait for Review status, and then enter the In Review status. In Review, it will usually be reviewed and approved or rejected in about 2 days.

• After the package is uploaded, it will first enter the pre-screening, where the API will be scanned, etc. After passing the pre-screening, it will appear in iTC, and then it can be submitted to Waiting;
• In the Waiting For Review stage, the review is usually done by machines. The machine review is mainly to review the code and check whether the APP is used repeatedly. The "2.1 Apple Year of the Dog Gift Package" incident relied more on automatic machine review to reduce labor costs.
• After passing, it will enter the In Review stage, which is the manual review stage. This stage mainly looks at the metadata of the App, such as the App cover, functions, experience, etc., and focuses on user experience .

Top 10 recent audit rejections

2.1 App Completion

The main bugs include application crashes, loading failures and other very obvious bugs, the application does not support use under IPv6 networks, test accounts, hidden switches, etc.

Solution: Test the product in advance to see if it has bugs, and whether it can be used under the IPV6 network. According to the email provided, check whether your own product information is in compliance one by one. If appropriate, you can send screenshots and videos to Apple officials to prove your innocence.

2.3 Accurate metadata

The main problem is that the app title , description, screenshots, etc. are seriously inconsistent with the app functions.

Solution: Replace the screenshots to ensure that the entire APP functions and processes look consistent. Remove the hidden function module code or confuse the code that needs to hide the function and the directional jump link URL, and appropriately increase the logic complexity.

3.2.1 Acceptable business models

Mainly because of lack of qualifications.

Solution: The best solution is to obtain the qualifications. If you really do not have the qualifications, it is recommended that you send as much evidence of your company's compliance as possible to Apple. You can try operations such as shelling, changing to a new account and trying your luck to get it on the shelves if you have no choice.

5.1.1 Data Collection and Storage

The main problem is that the App forces users to register and secretly collects/shares users' personal information based on functions that do not require user information.

Solution: Negotiate with the user first and get the user's consent before registering. If there is a "forced login" function, it must be modified to a version that prompts for login.

4.3 Duplicate App

The main target is duplicate apps, which are disguised apps.

Solution: This can be solved by modifying the name, icon, main color, code, etc., and note that the submission of the same vest package should be at least one day apart.

4.2 Minimum functional requirements

The main problem is that Apple believes that some developers upload apps that are not functional enough or do not have their own core functions.

Solution: You can add some feature-rich products. If you feel that the functions are complete but have not passed the review, you can explain to Apple the user needs that the product solves and the specific functions presented.

3.1.1 Purchase Items

Mainly connecting to third-party payment.

Solution: Use IAP payment method and in-app purchases. There are certain risks if you hide virtual products or change the payment method after approval.

2.5 Software Requirements

Mainly because the product adds illegal codes

Solution: It is very likely that the third-party library contains SDK. You can update all third-party libraries, or decompile the submitted IP A, check whether there are any illegal strings in the document, and delete them if there are any.

5.1.5 Location Services

The main problem is that the App shares the collected user data with third parties without permission , and does not explain the purpose of use, such as location, account number, etc.

Solution: If you want to collect user data, you need to prompt the user and obtain their permission, or set it as optional and clearly inform Apple of the purpose of collecting user data.

5.2 Intellectual Property

The main ones are unauthorized use of copyrighted third-party materials, and the App not being similar to Apple's existing products.

Solution: Make sure your app only contains content that you created or have a license to use, and use written evidence from third parties with copyright protection when submitting your product, or hide any unauthorized content in your product.

The above are the main rejection issues and solutions of Apple in the past month. It is recommended that developers remove all functions that may pose risks before resubmitting the App for review to avoid multiple rejections... After the review is successfully passed, it is relatively safer to upgrade and update the App again. Otherwise, the review will be delayed if it fails multiple reviews.

How do you deal with the rejection of the review?

Recently, we have been discussing the issue of review rejection in our promotion group, and many friends have shared the reasons for their rejection and solutions to different problems.

We have selected several real rejection experiences of our circle friends to share with you here. If you encounter similar problems, you are welcome to share your tips in the comment section. We believe that your sharing will definitely help our friends in the same industry.

1. Sharer: Song Bufan Product Operation Financial Management APP

(The rough experience of being rejected 8 times)

a. Reasons for rejection and solutions:

At the end of October 2017, we developed a new financial product. Two days after the new product was launched, we received news that Apple had rejected it. At that time, it was rejected based on item 3.2.2. The general meaning at that time was that some business models in software were not allowed to be launched on the Apple Store. Apple sent us four screenshots with the words "up" and "down" on them. Our product was mistakenly considered by Apple to be a binary option (the Apple Store does not accept such products). Later, we modified all the illegal parts of the four pictures according to Apple’s requirements and submitted them. At the same time, a very unprofessional email in Chinese was attached, which roughly meant to explain what similar platforms there are in the Apple App Store, explain that we are not the business you think we are, and guarantee to strictly abide by the requirements of the Apple Store, and express the determination to contribute to the Apple Store in the future.

Two days later, I was rejected again for the same reason 3.2.2. The general meaning of the email was that your software has some binary options transactions and is not suitable for the App Store . There was a picture attached to the email, which was a trading product page. Apple still thinks we are a binary options business. But to be honest, we are not, so we changed all the buying and selling prices of this picture. Apple believes that all two-way transactions are binary options. The second time I submitted, I didn’t reply to the email and just clicked submit.

Two days later, our product was rejected again due to the same issue (3.2.2). This time, Apple’s email was a bit angry. They said that we had not changed our product and asked us to review the concept of our own application. They also attached a picture showing another interface with a two-way transaction icon. So we changed all the pages where this icon appeared to other text descriptions. A fourth submission was made.

6 days later, it was rejected again (3.2.2). Apple simply copied the previous email and did not explain what needed to be modified. This time I did not modify the submitted app, but directly replied to Apple with an English email, which said the same thing as before: we are not a binary option company, and we promise to abide by your requirements. I did get a reply from Apple in English, which was just a simple sentence in English: Thank you for your response.

Then the problem still arises as (3.2.2) . This time I felt that I should explain to Apple in detail the difference between our product and binary options, so I wrote a long email in English, which roughly meant that we had carefully modified some of our UI designs and explained what binary options and our products were. We also quoted two Baidu Encyclopedia entries in the email, explained our business cooperation with a formal company, and attached relevant licenses and authorization letters. We made our fifth submission.

7 days later, as expected, we were rejected again. Fortunately, I was not rejected because of question (3.2.2). I was very happy. However, we have a new problem (5.2.1), which is a classic intellectual property issue . Apple said that our product does not reflect the metadata and application of the partner's product, and cannot prove that your product is related to the partner. It requires us to publish the partner's company name on the application or put our application in the partner's Apple developer account . Therefore, we displayed a few small icons of our partners in the app, marked them out in emails, and attached a letter of authorization from the partner company. We made our sixth submission.

13 days later, I received the same issue with 5.2.1, and the content of the email was the content of the copy rule. Later, I sent an email to the Apple review team at [email protected], explaining all the problems in detail, attached all our current certificates and our company's business license, and made the 7th submission.

8 days later, what excited me was not the rejection of issue 5.2.1, but the information required by guideline 2.1. The email said that the review team had started a re-examination of us, and because the resolution of the business license we uploaded was too low, they asked us to re-upload it. Hearing this, I thought there was hope this time, and quickly uploaded the high-definition and uncensored business license. The 8th commit was made.

8 days later, it was rejected again due to issue 5.2.1. This time Apple’s email reply was very detailed, listing 7 requirements: 1. Micro-loan license. 2. Financial license. 3. ICP Value Added Telecommunications License 4. Terms and Conditions of Application and Services. 5. In case of disputes, what resolution mechanisms do your applications and services provide? 6. What are your responsibilities in this situation? Are these responsibilities clear in the terms and conditions? 7. How do the parties involved trace each other?

b. Rejection summary:

After a month and a half of fighting with the Apple review team, I thought of a problem. We have always been led by the Apple review team, so this time I want to say NO to them. We decided to abandon this product because the above seven problems are basically a death sentence for small Internet financial companies. We remade a product and made the real-time entry configurable. Then the entire software was modified into simulated trading, highlighting that this is a platform for investment education and practice, so that it can pass the first online launch, and then configure real trading after passing, and then gradually transition to other products.

The eight rejections have made me no longer afraid of the Apple review team. Sometimes you need to take a more wild approach and not let the Apple review team lead you.

2. Sharer: Dantart product promotion financial management APP

a. Reasons for rejection and solutions:

We are a financial management CP. Since we do not have a financial license, we have been undergoing a lengthy Apple review since December 18, 2017, and we have still not passed the review. The following is the process of every time we were rejected and every time we communicated. I hope it will be helpful to everyone. If there are experts who have good solutions, I hope they can help.

• December 18, 2017, rejection reason: 5.2.1 - Legal intellectual property. We have started a review of your app, but we are unable to continue because we require more information about your app. So we sorted out the existing information: business license, icp, and replied to Apple softly.
• On December 22, 2017, I received a reply from Apple and was rejected for the second time. Reason for rejection: 3.2.1 - Business - Other business model issues - Acceptable. The two rejections were both due to qualification issues, so we responded and resubmitted. Since we did not have a financial license, we submitted a bank deposit agreement, a third-party payment platform agreement, software, business license, and icp and replied to Apple.
• On January 16, 2018, we received a response from Apple: 3.2.1 Business: Other Business Model Issues – Acceptable. So we marked the key points of our reply to Apple, but since it involves product content, it is not convenient to disclose. During this period, Apple has not passed the review.
• On February 5, 2018, we sent an email to Apple and submitted it for accelerated review , citing a major bug in the version. We hoped that Apple would review it quickly and attached all the qualification documents.
• On February 26, 2018, it was rejected again, the legendary gift package: Guide 2.1 - Required Information. Apps of this type have been identified as potentially violating one or more of the following App Store Review Guidelines. We have carefully checked our products and have not violated the above agreement. We have responded to Apple.

• On March 5, 2018, we responded to Apple again that we had not violated any terms stipulated by Apple and hoped that Apple would give us a quick review and approval, and then we submitted the product.

• On April 9, 2018, I was rejected again, this time due to the qualification issue in 3.2.1. We responded again as required, pasted all the qualification query URLs, responded one by one according to the above requirements, and continued to wait for Apple's response.

b. Feeling of being rejected: After being rejected 5 times, I no longer feel anything.

3. Shared by: Huihui Currently unemployed Chess and card game APP

a. Reasons for rejection and solutions:

1. Account correlation issues.

It turns out that: each first-level account authorizes the same account to upload products and authorizes the same batch of accounts to test products.

Modification: Each first-level account is authorized to upload products to different accounts, and to test products to different accounts.

2. Code association and familiarity

Without affecting the products, reduce the code similarity between products. (For example: adding junk code and other technical means to make the binary code different)

3. Product related

External elements of the background (priority of my ideas)

• Package ID, SKU.
• In-app purchase items (add in-app purchase content, add different quota billing points for different products)
• Text introduction (written for different regions, templates are not allowed)
• Game advertising images (must be clearly different, not just the illustrations)
• Keywords
• Developer Contact
• Contact Address
• Product Release Area
• Game Category
• Test account (involving whitelist, prepare 3~4 test accounts)
• Notes (software, filing, version number information)
• Other notes (introduction and description of relevant product information)

Internal UI and interface

Lobby UI adjustment, startup page, lobby background page.

4. Packaging machine, application upload machine

• No additional packaging machines will be added for the time being
• When uploading and submitting products, please use the 4G network on your mobile phone.

b. The feeling of being rejected: Apple Dad, you can only give in and change.

4. Sharer: There is a girl product operation knowledge sharing APP

a. Reasons for rejection and solutions:

Involving clauses 3.2, 1.1, 1.2, and 5.2. It is mainly the user-posted content that causes a series of problems. The IOS review lasted a full 4 months and was rejected 6 times in total. The rejected app is a knowledge and skills sharing app, where users sell their skills and services on the platform.

The first time was when we were reminded that we had violated clause 3.2.2, saying that the platform incentivized users to download apps, and included a screenshot in the attachment. We only processed the message that the review team screenshotted and did not filter it across the entire platform. To be specific, a user posted a message on the platform saying "You will be given 1 yuan if you download a certain app". Because this message was sent by the user, we did not review the entire platform at the time and only deleted the relevant content on our own platform. The second rejection was that our platform contained illegal information. After seeing the screenshots, we discovered that they were messages such as "game leveling" posted by users. We simply deleted the message in the screenshot and did not filter it for the entire platform. It was rejected for the third and fourth time, which means that there is still prohibited information on the platform. Then we deleted all the information on the platform such as application downloads, play companionship, training, and game guidance.

I submitted it again for the fifth time and it was rejected again. It is a question of clauses 1.1 and 1.2. This means that there is no mechanism to deal with users posting information on the platform. We are required to have a filtering mechanism for bad information posted by users, a mechanism for users to mark offensive content, and developers must handle reports of offensive content by removing the content within 24 hours and ejecting the user who provided the content. Because I had no experience at the time and didn't know how to deal with it, I deleted the negative information and continued to communicate with Apple's review department via email.

After a long time, we finally made a function that allows users to block entry information, and then submitted it. The sixth time, it was rejected again, still due to issue 1.2, and many reasons were found. I also left a phone number with Apple's review team, and only then did I find out that the function of "users can blacklist others" was missing. The final submission was finally put online. There were a total of 6 rejections, involving a mixture of the four types of clauses mentioned above. We have tried urging the review, expediting the review, and making phone calls. Finally, the review team probably got fed up and asked us to leave our phone number and called us. It was finally put on the shelves after making 2 phone calls.

b. Rejection summary:

To summarize, apps that allow users to publish information must have mechanisms in place to target user publishing behaviors. There must be terms and conditions for user publishing behavior; there must be a mechanism to filter out bad information; if a browsing user does not like a piece of information, it should be able to be blocked; if a browsing user does not like someone, he or she can be blacklisted; information such as game leveling and playing on behalf of others must have proof of authorization from the game party, otherwise it must not appear. If the review is rejected again and again, your review time will become longer and longer, and the wait will be a long and desperate process. Anyway, I ended up waiting for the review results at two or three in the morning.

5. Shared by: Momo de Changda Product Operation Education APP

a. Reasons for rejection and solutions:

5.1.1 Data collection and storage; Add a privacy statement address in the background; Because it is a small account, I use a personal account and publish the content in my personal blog in advance. The address of the personal blog is added in the privacy position of the background

Reasons for rejection and solutions:

5.1.5 Location Services; Modified the pop-up window scheme for address acquisition, and clearly stated that the address is needed to recommend personalized activities to students

b. Rejection summary:

The previous instructions for obtaining permissions were very vague, and they just required obtaining your address. Because this was rejected, I found all the content that required user authorization and rewrote each one, and only popped up a page to ask the user for authorization when it was currently in use.

This article was compiled and published by @鸟哥笔记美元 (Qinggua Media) by the author @鸟哥笔记美元. Please indicate the author information and source when reprinting!

Product promotion services: APP promotion services, advertising platform, Longyou Games