Developers who have been engaged in app operations have probably heard of Apple Store’ vest packages. And for entrepreneurs engaged in the chess and card game industry, the importance of the this is self-evident. Especially last year, the mass downgrading of board game’ vest packs have caused many operators to suffer great losses. In this case, is there any way to solve the problem of vest package audit? Before that, we need to understand the rules of Apple Store’ audit first.
1. Machine audit and manual audit
Similar to the mechanism of many platforms, there are two parts of Apple Store's review: mechanical review and manual review. After the package is uploaded, it will first enter the pre-review process, and will be scanned for APIs, etc. If there is no problem, it will appear in the iTC.
In the early stage of the audit, that is, waiting for review, is generally machine review. If does not pass machine review, will be directly rejected, on the contrary, will enter the manual review. This stage mainly looks at the metadata of the App, such as title, description, screenshot, etc., and detects the use of the App's functions, and the commonly encountered ipv6 is also detected here.
2. The audit time is gradually shortened, but the phenomenon of delayed audit is increased
Although people have been complaining about Apple Store's audit time, compared with the previous ones, such as 7~8 days stage and 3~4 days stage, it has been improved a lot now. And through the comparison of the audit data in the past three months, the cycle of App audit has a trend of further shortening. But now there is another phenomenon or a way of punishment - deferred review.
The delayed review is generally for a large number of apps of the same kind, such as board games in key card mode (landlord, mahjong type), and apps involving sensitive subjects, such as finance, lottery, VPN, etc. Especially for board games, Apple Store has figured out the way of such App developers (vest package, hidden payment, etc.). However, because some developers do a good job of hiding payment function and Apple Store can't get conclusive evidence, therefore they can only deliberately delay. If it is delayed lightly, it will take ten days, and for some heavy situation, it will be delayed 1 month or even several months.
What is the best solution for the delay? Actually, if there is no obvious violation of the APP, in addition to call, click【Contact Us】 in the iTC background, there are some slightly risky ways, that is, appeal or accelerate the review. If these two ways still cannot, and you don’t want to wait anymore, decisively change the account to re-package!
3. Review focus of Apple Store is constantly changing, and new reasons for rejection keep cropping up
Honestly, Changes such constantly the review focus of Apple Store, “New reasons for rejection keeping cropping up’’ may be the best description for recent audit of Apple Store.
This phenomenon can be seen from the list of rejected terms in the last three months. Certainly, some of the "new reasons for rejection" mentioned here have always existed, but the review before has not focused on this aspect or the review before has not been upgraded to this point. The following passages, we will combine the relative data to analyze.
(1) As shown in the figure below, metadata problem accounted for nearly a quarter of all sample data collected in December 2017. The second was mainly about privacy problem, accounting for about 16.88%. The problem of application completion, before the rejected packages appeared in large numbers, ranked third with 577 cases. In addition, the intellectual property problem was also in the Top5.
And for intellectual property problem, among the apps rejected due to this Clause, financial apps account for a large proportion. Generally, the handling method is to put the app on behalf of other people's accounts, and then transfer it online, change the surface design, and then use different login methods to avoid risks. However, with more and more people using, and the strengthening of supervision, the chance of passing the examination of these ways is not as high as before.
(2) In the ranking of rejected Clauses in January 2018, metadata problem continues to top the list, followed by the problem of application completion, which originally ranked second in December 2017. The newcomer Clause 3.2.1, the applicable commercial mode problem, is in fourth place with 231 cases and 7.15% proportion.
Among the apps that were rejected due to the applicable commercial mode problem, many people received the following content, asking for 7 items such as business license and financial license. There are already some reviewed App or App in process of pending operation, in the following passages, we will briefly introduce what the reviewed App has generally done.
The licenses required in Articles 1-3 are uploaded directly or placed in the attachment. Then, when providing a business license, the business scope is marked in the business license, such as proving that there are online lending information intermediary services in the business scope.
You can inquiry the business license’ information in the national Enterprise Credit Information Publicity System. As for value-added telecommunications service license, local Ministry of Industry and Information Technology will offer it.
In addition, although the other 4 points are not as important as the first 3 points, they are also replied to one by one.
Article 4 is required to give the service agreement and terms of the platform. Section 5 is what kind of resolution mechanism, the Application and Services provide in the event of a dispute. Article 6 needs to clarify what the responsibilities are in this case and whether these responsibilities are expressly provided for in the articles. Article 7 deals with how the responsible parties are traced. Submit all of this content as required and indicate the key points in the screenshot.
In addition, it provides product introductions and cooperation agreements with payment companies. Everyone else can explore more information by yourselves. And a hint: as much official material as possible.
(3) In the most recent ranking of rejected Clauses in February, Clause 2.1, the problem of application completion, occupies the top spot with 28.48% proportion. This is followed by Clause 2.3, the problem of metadata. New Clause 4.2, the problem of minimum functional requirements, ranked fifth with 147 cases, or 5.94% proportion.
Most of the apps rejected due to Clause 4.2, are because the functionality is too simple or missing, or the reviewers do not get the core functionality. In addition to adding small functions and optimizing details as required, you can also consider explaining product availability, such as user needs, and differences from other products.
There is another point that we would like to share with you. There were many apps were rejected by the reason of application completion that appeared on January 28 and made many people complain. Clause 1.1.6, Clause 2.3, Clause 2.3.1, Clause 3.1.1, Clause 4.3, etc. are listed, and the auditor's requirement is: Check it by yourself! Among the rejected apps, not only include finance apps, but also be related with e-commerce, games, etc.
The picture above contains some relatively common situations. Let's learn the usual solution of these rejection reasons!
1.1.6 – Undergo significant concept, feature, or misleading metadata
Generally, it means that your title, icon or screenshot are misleading. Some keywords are blacklisted by Apple, such as red envelopes, phone bills, etc. But the review terms are not clearly stated. Therefore, the solution to the above situation is to use conservative copy or materials.
2.3.0 – Have hidden or undocumented features, including hidden “switches” that redirect to a gambling or lottery website
In this case, you need to remove the hot-restart function, or do deep obfuscation of the hot-restart module code!
2.3.1 – Use payment mechanisms other than in-app purchase to unlock features of functionary in the app
Conventional solution: remove the code of the hidden function module or obfuscate the code and directional redirect link URL that need to be hidden to increase the logical complexity appropriately.
For third-party payments, avoid using the easy-to-scan SDK version as much as possible, and we recommend that you use the H5 version for payment. Pay for the redirect link to do the blocking obfuscation accordingly.
4.3.0 – Are a duplicate of another app or are conspicuously similar to another app
It is considered to be a duplicate app or vest package that changes the UI and name, be filling with useless code, etc., which will be discussed below.
5.2.1 – Were not submitted by the legal entity that owns and is responsible for offering any services provided by the app
Failure to provide the industry qualifications required for the app to be listed, such as financial business license, game version number, etc. For this situation, a bit of a conventional way have been described above.
5.3.4 – Do not have the necessary licensing and permissions for all the locations where the app is used
Same as above, provide qualifications, it is best not to check the China region or use overseas accounts when reviewing.
(1) If the App does not violate any of the above points, in fact, it is enough to reply directly that there is no violation!
Certainly, if you want to increase the chance of passing the review, you can also follow the review guidelines listed in the email to explain that your app does not have the problems in these rules, and describe it as much as possible. If there is no progress after the response, you can cooperate with the accelerated review or review appeal, but it should be noted that the number of accelerated reviews should not be used too much, and the review appeal may lead to a more rigorous review by the review team, which requires caution.
Note: When Clause 2.1, the problem of application completion, appeared first, even if the App had a violation and directly replied, it was possible to pass the review. However, it is currently a bit rotten, Apple reviewers possibly be sensitive, the current probability of passing the review is extremely low, and it may be delayed.
(2) If the App violates one of the above points, it is recommended to reply to Apple after careful modification, focusing on the last or historical rejection record, and determining the focus of the reply. If there is no progress after the response, you can also cooperate with the accelerated review or review appeal, but there is a risk of delay.
(3) In addition to these methods, someone has also used a way to pass the review, that is, to upload it with a new account, which said that "Apple reviewers should not have started the review, but only sent this email for the historical violation record of the app or the violation record of the developer's account." But this method is not suitable for all apps, and you may be found the new and the old account of the app, which will produce joint penalties as a result. Therefore, it mainly depends on luck."
Here are a few questions collected by the assistant, here are the replies:
A、Is there a solution to Clause 2.1, the problem of application completion? Yes, there is currently a generation review, the specific operation method is carried out privately. The same as Clause 5.2.1 and Clause 3.2.1, if everyone uses it, repeatedly stimulates Apple’ reviewers, and the review mechanism will be changed.
B. Only newer apps are likely to receive rejected packages? Actually, it’s misunderstanding. The app that received this email included both the newly submitted app and the app that needed to be updated.
C、Clause 2.1 is machine review? Presently, the data and the phenomenon of rejection are mainly machine review. The proportion of manual review is not high, most of them are email messages sent for code, App or developer account history violation records.
Both historical violations of application and illegal behavior of your account can result in delayed review or failure.
Certainly, in addition to the above reasons for rejection, Clause 4.3 (duplicate apps), IPv6, 3.2 (f), PLA1.2, etc. are still common reasons for rejection!
As for Clause 4.3, it is mainly aimed at duplicate apps, vest bags, which is mainly happens in the machine review stage, this problem is usually solved in the following steps:
A. Change the name;
B. Modify the material and UI color, such as modifying the icon, modifying the main color;
C. Modify the function interface, etc., and the function can be changed as a small switch;
D. Fill code (preferably more than 50%) or comment block;
In addition to the above steps, it is also important to note that the same vest package submissions should be submitted at least one day apart to avoid being seen by the same auditor. You can also cooperate with the upgrade routine: upgrade the version number, change the bundle ID, change the developer account and then submit it for review.
If that doesn't work, you can also try editing your app's price, release location, product category, and more. However, note that the price and release area of the App can be modified after it is put on the shelf, but the product classification is not allowed, and this is required to be used with caution!
For IPv6, if you confirm that the code is fine, it is good to resubmit it 1~2 times. Most of them are caused by the network environment where the reviewers are located, and if you are not at ease, you will take a screenshot or take a video when you resubmit it and put it in the attachment or directly appeal to Apple. If there is a problem with the app itself, such as IPv6 incompatibility, the best thing to do is to make the app IPv6 compatible or support IPv6 by upgrading the server. (To be continued) Our company, Foxuc, has been dedicated to chess and card game development for 15 years and has a large number of successful cases.
If you want to develop a rapidly profitable board game, welcome to consult the hotline: 400-000-7043