"Massive" reasons
Recently, I heard that many developers have encountered the problem of title ban. I thought it was just an individual phenomenon. It was not until more and more people around me were recruited that I realized that it was really a group phenomenon. Most of the titles are related to the accounts that have already been banned, and the other part is because the product similarity problem has been hit by 4.3/2.3.1, and has been bitten by the reviewers.
In response to this problem, many people say that Apple is targeting Chinese developers, but I have seen from foreign forums that everyone is facing similar problems. There are also many banned posts abroad, and the nature of the products they make is also very similar.
In this regard, I can only think that there are too many Chinese developers, and the proportion of actual violations is definitely not low . Just because there are only a few types of profitable products, and the most profitable products are often on the gray edge, the Chinese Internet has always liked to swarm, and it is not surprising that they have been banned in batches. The hardest ones are those responsible developers who have been implicated.
Category hardest hit area
4.3/2.3.1 category hardest hit areas, currently there are several categories (including but not limited to):
- social contact. Mainly shows, making friends in the same city.
- Supply e-commerce. Mainly OEM supply and marketing.
- Puzzle games. Eliminate class and number class.
- Simple tool categories, such as emoticons, wallpapers, etc.
Among the above categories, the first three categories are very profitable in themselves, and most companies will not be satisfied with just selling a bag to earn a share of money, and will work hard to make a bag. The result of this volume is that this kind of package is getting harder and harder to use, especially when everyone is getting more and more similar in product design and interface.
Among the first three categories, puzzle games are better. These two categories, such as social networking and supply, are the hardest-hit areas of gray products (shows, OEM fakes), and are more likely to be targeted by Apple. Generally, except for 4.3, there are still many Easy to be served by 2.3.1 (hidden feature) at the same time.
The fourth category (simple categories such as emoticons, wallpapers, etc.), the biggest problem is that they are the hardest hit areas for many skin-changing vest packages. It is no surprise that Apple has been repeatedly manipulated.
Commonality of most recent 4.3 issues
The most common 4.3 are the following templates:
We noticed that your app provides the same feature set as other apps submitted to the App Store; it simply varies in content or language, which is considered a form of spam.
If you encounter this problem, it is generally because the products you make are too similar to those on the market. A few years ago, the practice of "change the color and change the button to pass" is no longer realistic. Whether it is function or vision, differences must be made to pass the level.
Another possibility that everyone knows well is that they made their own vest bags, so "I am the same as myself". There are many ways to circumvent it, but writing it out is a bit too encouraging, so let's stop.
What's more serious is that the copywriting says "similar to the product of the developer who has been banned", which means that not only the vest bag has been captured, but also a product that has been banned and taken off the shelves.
Specifically, this app appears to be identical to another app previously submitted under a terminated Apple Developer Program account.
This kind of situation is often seen when the developer re-uploads the package after being banned, but does not carefully isolate and refactor. 4.3 like this is the most difficult, and only by carefully adopting coping strategies can it be exchanged for the possibility of passing the review.
2.3.1 Problems
Most of the recent 2.3.1 releases are not just about code.
Let me talk about the situation related to the code first. Part of the product related to the code is because the developer has hidden it, such as switching payment, dynamic scripts, and webpage switching functions. Another part of the developers who were "manslaughter" because of some suspicious code behaviors, here is a list of behaviors that are easy to be killed by mistake, and try not to do as much as possible.
First, try not to insert local html in the code. If it must be inserted, then try not to insert js script. There is no good reason, and do not engage in logical interaction between the web page and the native code part.
The second point is to scan the key keywords of the whole project (not code scanning, but all file texts). For example aliplay etc.
The third point is that unused codes generated during the development process, especially classes such as UIView or its subclasses, should be removed from the project as completely as possible. Because it may be scanned by the machine and considered to hide other interfaces but not easily seen by users.
The fourth point, which is most likely to be overlooked by most developers, is the product content issue, that is, whether the product title, logo, and content copy in the product contain marketing words that confuse Apple's review. I have encountered many cases. They've all fallen here before.
If you encounter 2.3.1 unfortunately, the first and most important thing is to look at the specifically in the copy , and you should spend your limited energy on this key point. For example:
specifically, this app contains functionality to load a webview of external content within the app.
The reasons for specifically are really varied, and there is no way to single them out here. We can only analyze specific problems in detail.
If Apple's review does not give a specific specific , then you should not act rashly, but should take the initiative to seek communication and strive to get this specific . Then prescribe the right medicine to solve the problem.
For more interpretation of the 4.3 and 2.3.1 issues, my previous article has a special introduction, although there are some places that need to be supplemented in this article as time goes by. But the general solution is still valid.
More
Remember a customs clearance experience of iOS audit rejection regulations 4.1 and 2.3.7
Apple review rejected 4.3 Summary