a I am submitting this appeal because we believe our app was misunderstood and the review outcome and follow-up communication have been unfair and mechanically handled. 1) What happened / Outcome we disagree with Our submission was rejected under Guideline 4.8 – Design – Login Services, with the reviewer stating that our app uses a third-party login service but does not provide an equivalent login option that meets Apple’s requirements (limited data collection, private email option, no advertising tracking without consent). However, our game does not require or force any third-party login. The feature being treated as “login” is not a login service at all—it is Mainland China real-name / anti-addiction compliance verification. 2) Why we believe we comply with the App Review Guidelines A. The feature in question is compliance verification, not login Players do not need to create or log into any in-game account to play. The flow exists solely to satisfy Mainland China real-name/anti-addiction compliance requirements. Verification can be completed by either: Using TapTap only as a real-name verification authorization option, or Manually entering a Chinese ID number + legal name to pass verification and play. Because this is verification, not an account login, Guideline 4.8 “Login Services” should not apply in the way the rejection message assumes. B. There is no “playable account” to provide After we clarified the above, we continued to receive repeated, template-like requests to provide a “playable account.” This request does not match our product design: there is no account system required for gameplay, so there is no “review account” to provide. We have already provided the information needed to complete the verification path (ID + name for the compliance flow), yet the responses remained repetitive and did not reflect that the reviewer checked our explanation. 3) Why we believe the handling was unfair Even after clearly explaining that this is not a login system, the review communication continued with mechanical responses that did not address the clarification. This caused significant delays to our release timeline and appears to be unfair treatment compared with many existing App Store apps that use similar compliance verification flows. 4) What we are requesting from the Appeals Team Please investigate and correct the misclassification of our real-name compliance verification as a “login service” under Guideline 4.8. If the team still believes Guideline 4.8 applies, please provide: The specific guideline rationale, and The exact screen/step in our app that is being interpreted as “login.” Please advise what specific materials you need to proceed efficiently (e.g., screen recording of the verification flow, step-by-step review instructions, configuration notes). We are ready to provide them immediately.

Our product includes a background sync process that synchronizes credentials between devices. We need to update ASCredentialIdentityStore when credentials are changed, we have noticed that the ASCredentialIdentityStore.shared.saveCredentialIdentities() fails to run when the device is locked. Is it possible to update ASCredentialIdentityStore when the device is locked?

Hi everyone, I'm developing an iOS app using the AppsFlyer SDK. I understand that starting with iOS 14.5, if a user denies the App Tracking Transparency (ATT) permission, we are not allowed to access the IDFA or perform cross-app tracking. However, I’d like to clarify which in-app events are still legally and technically safe to send when the user denies ATT permission. Specifically, I want to know: Is it acceptable to send events like onboarding_completed, paywall_viewed, subscription_started, subscribe, subscribe_price, or app_opened if they are not linked to IDFA or any form of user tracking? Would sending such internal behavioral events (used purely for SKAdNetwork performance tracking or in-app analytics) violate Apple’s privacy policy if no device identifiers are attached? Additionally, if these events are sent in fully anonymous form (i.e., not associated with IDFA, user ID, email, or any identifiable metadata), does Apple still consider this a privacy concern? In other words, can onboarding_completed, paywall_viewed, subsribe, subscribe_price, etc., be sent in anonymous format without violating ATT policies? Are there any official Apple guidelines or best practices that outline what types of events are considered compliant in the absence of ATT consent? My goal is to remain 100% compliant with Apple’s policies while still analyzing meaningful user behavior to improve the in-app experience. Any clarification or pointers to documentation would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!

I'm testing app transferring, before, I have migrate user from teamA to teamB, including subA->transferSub->subB process, now I'm transfer the app from teamB to teamC, after the transfer requested, I can't get transfer_id by /usermigrationinfo api, which response 400 invalid request. the question is I can still get transfer sub by the auth/token api(grant_type: authorization_code) with teamB parameters(teamIdB/clientIdB/appSecretB/redirectUrlB/subB)，but the value is same as first time transfer_id which get during teamA to teamB. when use parameters above with target(teamIdC) to request /usermigrationinfo, invalid request was responsed. im sure that all parameters is correct, dose it cause by teamB still in 60-days first transferring(sure already accepted)?

I have two applications, and I recently decided to add the Apple Sign In feature. Initially, I configured it for one of the apps as the Primary ID for this feature. Everything worked well, and I decided to add it to the second app. I made a mistake and used the First app as Primary ID using the "Group with an existing primary App ID" flag. Now, when I sign in using the second app, I don't see it in the list of apps in iPhone Settings for Apple Sign In; I only see the primary app. And with that, I no longer see a prompt for sharing/hiding email, and I am unable to revoke credentials correctly. I decided to change the Second app's Sign-in config and set it as the Primary ID for the feature. I was hoping to get two apps independent for the SignIn. However, it doesn't seem to make a difference. The second app behaves the same way, as long as the first app used SignIn, the second one always thinks that the user has already used that feature and never shows the correct prompt. Is there something I missed after changing the Configuration?

Hello, I am currently process of migrating an app from Team A to Team B and attempting to generate transfer identifiers using the migration endpoint: POST https://appleid.apple.com/auth/usermigrationinfo. Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded However, I am consistently receiving an { "error": "access_denied" } response. [Current Configuration] Team A (Source): Primary App ID: com.example.primary Grouped App IDs: com.example.service (Services ID for Web) com.example.app (App ID for iOS - The one being transferred) All identifiers are under the same App Group. Team B (Destination): New App ID and Key created. [Steps Taken] Created a Client Secret (JWT) using Team A's Key ID and Team ID. The sub (subject) in the JWT is set to the Primary App ID of Team A. Requesting with client_id (Primary App ID), client_secret (JWT), and user_token. [Questions] 1. App Group Impact: Does the fact that the App being transferred is a Grouped App ID (not the Primary) affect the usermigrationinfo request? Should I use the Primary App ID or the specific Grouped App ID as the client_id? 2. Ungrouping Safety: If I need to ungroup the App ID from the Primary App ID to resolve this: Will existing users still be able to sign in without issues? Is there any risk of changing the sub (user identifier) that the app receives from Apple? Will this cause any immediate service interruption for the live app? Any insights on why access_denied occurs in this Primary-Grouped configuration would be greatly appreciated.

When presenting a cookie banner for GDPR purposes, should ATT precede the cookie banner? It seems that showing a Cookie Banner and then showing the ATT permission prompt afterwards (if a user elects to allow cookies/tracking) would be more appropriate. Related question: Should the “Allow Tracking” toggle for an app in system settings serve as a master switch for any granular tracking that might be managed by a 3rd party Consent Management Platform? If ATT is intended to serve as a master switch for tracking consent, if the ATT prompt is presented before a cookie banner, should the banner even appear if a user declines tracking consent? I’m not finding any good resources that describe this flow in detail and I’m seeing implementations all over the place on this. Help! Thanks!!!

Estou compartilhando algumas observações técnicas sobre Crash Detection / Emergency SOS no ecossistema Apple, com base em eventos amplamente observados em 2022 e 2024, quando houve chamadas automáticas em massa para serviços de emergência. A ideia aqui não é discutir UX superficial ou “edge cases isolados”, mas sim comportamento sistêmico em escala, algo que acredito ser relevante para qualquer time que trabalhe com sistemas críticos orientados a eventos físicos. Contexto resumido A partir do iPhone 14, a Detecção de Acidente passou a correlacionar múltiplos sensores (acelerômetros de alta faixa, giroscópio, GPS, microfones) para inferir eventos de impacto severo e acionar automaticamente chamadas de emergência. Em 2022, isso resultou em um volume significativo de falsos positivos, especialmente em atividades com alta aceleração (esqui, snowboard, parques de diversão). Em 2024, apesar de ajustes, houve recorrência localizada do mesmo padrão. Ponto técnico central O problema não parece ser hardware, nem um “bug pontual”, mas sim o estado intermediário de decisão: Aceleração ≠ acidente Ruído ≠ impacto real Movimento extremo ≠ incapacidade humana Quando o classificador entra em estado ambíguo, o sistema depende de uma janela curta de confirmação humana (toque/voz). Em ambientes ruidosos, com o usuário em movimento ou fisicamente ativo, essa confirmação frequentemente falha. O sistema então assume incapacidade e executa a ação fail-safe: chamada automática. Do ponto de vista de engenharia de segurança, isso é compreensível. Do ponto de vista de escala, é explosivo. Papel da Siri A Siri não “decide” o acidente, mas é um elo sensível na cadeia humano–máquina. Falhas de compreensão por ruído, idioma, respiração ofegante ou ausência de resposta acabam sendo interpretadas como sinal de emergência real. Isso é funcionalmente equivalente ao que vemos em sistemas automotivos como o eCall europeu, quando a confirmação humana é inexistente ou degradada. O dilema estrutural Há um trade-off claro e inevitável: Reduzir falsos negativos (não perder um acidente real) Aumentar falsos positivos (chamadas indevidas) Para o usuário individual, errar “para mais” faz sentido. Para serviços públicos de emergência, milhões de dispositivos errando “para mais” criam ruído operacional real. Por que isso importa para developers A Apple hoje opera, na prática, um dos maiores sistemas privados de segurança pessoal automatizada do mundo, interagindo diretamente com infraestrutura pública crítica. Isso coloca Crash Detection / SOS na mesma categoria de sistemas safety-critical, onde: UX é parte da segurança Algoritmos precisam ser auditáveis “Human-in-the-loop” não pode ser apenas nominal Reflexões abertas Alguns pontos que, como developer, acho que merecem discussão: Janelas de confirmação humana adaptativas ao contexto (atividade física, ruído). Cancelamento visual mais agressivo em cenários de alto movimento. Perfis de sensibilidade por tipo de atividade, claramente comunicados. Critérios adicionais antes da chamada automática quando o risco de falso positivo é estatisticamente alto. Não é um problema simples, nem exclusivo da Apple. É um problema de software crítico em contato direto com o mundo físico, operando em escala planetária. Justamente por isso, acho que vale uma discussão técnica aberta, sem ruído emocional. Curioso para ouvir perspectivas de quem trabalha com sistemas similares (automotivo, wearables, safety-critical, ML embarcado). — Rafa

Is there a way (in code or on the OAuth2 server/webpage) to specify the desired window size when using ASWebAuthenticationSession on macOS? I haven't found anything, and we would prefer the window to be narrower. For one of our users, the window is even stretched to the full screen width which looks completely broken…

In these threads, it was clarified that Credential Provider Extensions must set both Backup Eligible (BE) and Backup State (BS) flags to 1 in authenticator data: https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/745605 https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/787629 However, I'm developing a passkey manager that intentionally stores credentials only on the local device. My implementation uses: kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlockedThisDeviceOnly for keychain items kSecAttrTokenIDSecureEnclave for private keys No iCloud sync or backup These credentials are, by definition, single-device credentials. According to the WebAuthn specification, they should be represented with BE=0, BS=0. Currently, I'm forced to set BE=1, BS=1 to make the extension work, which misrepresents the actual backup status to relying parties. This is problematic because: Servers using BE/BS flags for security policies will incorrectly classify these as synced passkeys Users who specifically want device-bound credentials for higher security cannot get accurate flag representation Request: Please allow Credential Provider Extensions to return credentials with BE=0, BS=0 for legitimate device-bound passkey implementations. Environment: macOS 26.2 (25C56), Xcode 26.2 (17C52)

When developing and testing using my phone I got prompted for allowing app tracking. I later uploaded a build to TestFlight, deleted the old testing app and installed the TestFlight build. I am now stuck in an infinite loop of not getting prompted for allowing app tracking for the app. When entering the app settings the toggle for tracking never appears which leaves me not able to enter the app's content. My guess is that the prompt can only be shown once for the app bundle, but there has to be a way for me to get prompted again without changing the app bundle id. Help is appreciated since this app is scheduled to be published in a week.

冷启动后我们读文件，发现："error_msg":"未能打开文件“FinishTasks.plist”，因为你没有查看它的权限。 是否有这些问题： 「iOS 26 iPhone 16,2 cold launch file access failure」） 核心内容：多名开发者反馈 iPhone 15 Pro（iOS 26.0/26.1）冷启动时读取 Documents 目录下的 plist 文件提示权限拒绝，切后台再切前台恢复，苹果员工回复「建议延迟文件操作至 applicationDidBecomeActive 后」。

I noticed, that even though my AutoFill Credential Provider Extension works with Safari for both Passwords and Passkeys, it doesn't work in context menus inside arbitrary textfields, meanwhile the same is true for the Apple Passwords app. This is a great hit to AutoFill productivity, as my extension is unable to fill textfields by just going to the context menu and clicking AutoFill > Passwords.. Is this a feature only available to Apple via private APIs, or is this something I can interface with? I checked and the Passwords app does use some undocumented but non-private entitlements: [Key] com.apple.authentication-services.access-credential-identities [Value] [Bool] true I also checked the responsible executable for some hints (AutoFillPanelService) however found nothing that would lead me to believe this is a public extension point. Another idea I had was trying to use a macOS Service for this, however Services in the "General" category won't show up in any context menu, only in the Application's Main Menu.

I'm experiencing a strange issue where ASWebAuthenticationSession works perfectly when running from Xcode (both Debug and Release), but fails on TestFlight builds. The setup: iOS app using ASWebAuthenticationSession for OIDC login (Keycloak) Custom URL scheme callback (myapp://) prefersEphemeralWebBrowserSession = false The issue: When using iOS Keychain autofill (with Face ID/Touch ID or normal iphone pw, that auto-submits the form) -> works perfectly When manually typing credentials and clicking the login button -> fails with white screen When it fails, the form POST from Keycloak back to my server (/signin-oidc) never reaches the server at all. The authentication session just shows a white screen. Reproduced on: Multiple devices (iPhone 15 Pro, etc.) iOS 18.x Xcode 16.x Multiple TestFlight testers confirmed same behavior What I've tried: Clearing Safari cookies/data prefersEphemeralWebBrowserSession = true and false Different SameSite cookie policies on server Verified custom URL scheme is registered and works (testing myapp://test in Safari opens the app) Why custom URL scheme instead of Universal Links: We couldn't get Universal Links to trigger from a js redirect (window.location.href) within ASWebAuthenticationSession. Only custom URL schemes seemed to be intercepted. If there's a way to make Universal Links work in this context, without a manual user-interaction we'd be happy to try. iOS Keychain autofill works The only working path is iOS Keychain autofill that requires iphone-authentication and auto-submits the form. Any manual form submission fails, but only on TestFlight - not Xcode builds. Has anyone encountered this or know a workaround?

We are currently trying to fix a bug when using SignIn with Apple. It appears that on some occasions we are not receiving a user's profile info (name, email) when a new account is created. After doing some investigation we believe this bug is due to the same Apple login being used as an already deleted account. ASF only appears to send profile info the very first time an Apple login is used. If that account is deleted and another is created with the same apple login we won't receive the profile info. As a result we are not in compliance with Apple's guidelines requiring that we use the provided profile info with Apple SigIn, and need to prompt users to enter it again. Is there a process in place to properly "clear" a user after their account is deleted in our system, so that the next time a user creates an account with the same Apple login, we receive their profile info again?

Recently I am trying to implement apple oauth in expo web version, I created the service id and other related info, i have issue @PostMapping("/callback") public ResponseEntity handleAppleCallback(@RequestParam Map<String, String> body) { String code = body.get("code"); String idToken = body.get("id_token"); if (code == null) { return ResponseEntity.badRequest().build(); } // Redirect to your Expo Web app with the code in query String frontendUrl = "https://mobile-dot-dev-epicportal.uc.r.appspot.com/apple-callback?code=" + code; return ResponseEntity.status(HttpStatus.FOUND) .header("Location", frontendUrl) .build(); } when i pass the code recived from apple to this route i am getting invalid_grant i am not sure what is wrong here

Hey folks, I'm seeing an issue where my iOS app is getting an "unknown" error when US users try to sign in with Apple. It works fine for users in other countries like the UK, Singapore, and Taiwan. Could it be related to my developer account not being based in the US? Or have I missed something in my settings? Thanks in advance!

I’ve explained this point many times on the forums, so I figured I’d write it up properly once and for all. If you have questions or comments, start a new thread in Privacy & Security > General and add the App Sandbox tag. That way I’ll be sure to see it. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com" The Case for Sandboxing a Directly Distributed App Many folks consider the App Sandbox to be a binary choice: “My app ships in the Mac App Store, so I must sandbox it.” “I directly distribute my app, so I’ll ignore the App Sandbox.” However, those are not your only options. In many cases it makes sense to sandbox a directly distributed app. Sandboxing your app has at least three benefits: It enables app container protection. See Trusted Execution Resources for a link to more info on that. If your app includes any app extensions, it simplifies your development experience because your app and its extensions run in a similar environment. It improves your app’s security (although the actual benefits vary based on the specifics of your app). Sandboxing some apps can be tricky because of the additional security limits applied by the sandbox. However, in a directly distributed app you have access to two techniques that are not available to Mac App Store apps: Temporary exception entitlements Non-sandboxed XPC services Temporary exception entitlements Use temporary exception entitlements to selectively disable specific sandbox security limits. Imagine, for example, that you’re creating a simple document-based app that’s generally compatible with the sandbox. However, that app needs to send an Apple event to Music to create a playlist. That Apple event is blocked by the sandbox. You don’t need to disable the entire App Sandbox just to get around this security limit. Instead, use the com.apple.security.temporary-exception.apple-events entitlement to open a small hole in the sandbox. There are temporary exception entitlements to disable most sandbox security limits. For more information about them, follow the link in App Sandbox Resources. IMPORTANT Don’t be alarmed by the temporary in temporary exception entitlements. That word makes sense when you view this from the Mac App Store perspective. Back in the early days of the Mac App Store, some apps were allowed to use temporary exception entitlements because of limitations in the App Sandbox. Once App Sandbox was sufficiently enhanced, these temporary exception entitlements were no longer allowed in the Mac App Store. However, there’s nothing temporary about the implementation of these entitlements. They work today and are expected to continue working in the future. Using them in a directly distributed app is not a problem. Non-sandboxed XPC services Not all sandbox security limits have a corresponding temporary exception entitlement. For example, the sandbox prevents you from sending a Unix signal to other processes, and there’s no temporary exception entitlement to allow that. If you run into such a limit, move that code to a non-sandboxed XPC service, then have the main app request that the XPC service perform the operation on its behalf. An XPC service can be useful even when there is a temporary exception entitlement to disable a specific sandbox security limit. Continuing the Apple event example from above, if you put the code that sends the Apple event into an XPC service, you only need to apply the temporary exception entitlement to that service, not to your app as a whole. Conclusion If you directly distribute your app, consider enabling the App Sandbox. It has some important benefits, and it might be more feasible than you think.

I've come across strange behavior with the userID property on the returned credential from a passkey attestation. When performing a cross-device passkey assertion between iOS and Android by scanning the generated QR code on my iPhone with an Android device the returned credential object contains an empty userID. This does not happen when performing an on device or cross-device assertion using two iPhones. Is this expected behavior, or is there something I'm missing here? I couldn't find any more information on this in the documentation. iOS Version: 26.0.1, Android Version: 13

News link: https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=12m75xbj If your app offers Sign in with Apple, you’ll need to use the Sign in with Apple REST API to revoke user tokens when deleting an account. I'm not good English. I'm confused about the above sentence Do I have to use REST API unconditionally or can I just delete to the account data?