Since IOS 13 came to live old 3 party APIs stopped working, In my app i needed to fix few because of that so i needed to fit it to IOS 13.
Since then Apple keeps rejecting my app because of Bluetooth user notification is not correct.
I just don't know what to write there, It is so annoying. I have to add it because of AdMobs and there is nowhere to say what to write over there.
I don't user BT in my app, it is just the AdMobs beacons that needs it probably.
I've tried:
and
And i will probably will have the same issue with the calendar message also.
When i try to remove it they demand it and then not approving it.... I understand maybe the first one but what wrong with the the second one? why is that no clear enough for them?
10x
see apple docs below: https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guidelines/ios/app-architecture/requesting-permission/
Explain why your app needs the information. Provide custom text (known
as a purpose string or usage description string) for display in the
system's permission request alert, and include an example. Keep the
text short and specific, use sentence case, and be polite so people
don't feel pressured. There’s no need to include your app name—the
system already identifies your app. For developer guidance, see
Protecting the User's Privacy.
you're not explaining exactly why you need access to bluetooth. you must be specific. saying, "XYZ app needs access to bluetooth to interact with beacons to serve you location based advertisements"
something like that should do. no cutting corners, no trying to put it off on Google, just say it like it is and you'll likely pass through app approval without a problem.
Related
I have just started getting a warning message in AdMob for my iOS game with ads:
"Some apps haven’t been configured to use SKAdNetwork"
And that I may not be getting some advert credits. It looks easy to fix according to this:
https://developers.google.com/admob/ios/ios14
I just add a key to Info.plist
But on that link it also mentions App Tracking Transparency authorization and I’m unsure what to do about that. I know what ATT is - it presents an alert asking for permission track and affects access to the IDFA. But it’s a bit strange that Google says “If you decide to include ATT”. It’s like Google doesn’t really want you to do it.
Also, as far as I can see, the IDFA is still accessible without adding the ATT alert even in iOS 14.4. So some questions:
Does anyone know when (or if) Apple will enforce requiring the ATT alert? They used to say early 2021 - is there a firmer date or specific version number? It does not seem to be enforced yet (my game update without it was approved this week), and the IDFA seems perfectly accessible on iOS 14.4 without the alert. I can print it out with:
Console.WriteLine("AdvertisingIdentifier={0}", AdSupport.ASIdentifierManager.SharedManager.AdvertisingIdentifier);
And it’s not all zeros.
Am I really losing ad revenue without the SKAdNetwork key when the IDFA is still accessible anyway?
Is SKAdNetwork the future and is IDFA being sort of phased out? So in the future, AdMob will not use IDFA at all?
Should I go ahead and implement the ATT alert or wait (I’m worried most people will deny tracking, or it may put them off installing the game at all). Am I losing anything by not having the alert (I don’t think so, yet).
they will never enforce it, because if you do not show it that means that your app does not track users directly.
Note: I recommend not using ATT because most users ask you not track them anyway.
Yes, if a user gave you a permission to track them then they will get more personalized ads which usually translate into more revenue but as I stated in the note above, most of users will not let you track them.
Yes it seems that way, SKAdNetwork is needed to measure the success of ad campaigns while maintaining user privacy.
No, I think this is not needed
A few days ago, Apple rejected my app, indicating that it didn't have IPV6 support, however I don't need that support since my app does not require internet access.
I asked the following:
Hi, my app does not need any internet connection yet.
So, why it's required to have support to IPV6?
They said:
Thank you for your response and for your question. In order to bring your app into compliance with Guideline 2.1 it would be appropriate for your app not to crash when logging in.
end
So, why do I need that Support?
If is necessarily, how do I can do it?
Please I need help
Test your app extensively and fix the crash. Enter wrong values, don't enter anything at all, intentionally try to break your app and get it to crash. Then you will find your error and you can fix.
EDIT BASED ON COMMENT BELOW
"My app don`t need conect with external database, because I got the information inside" - in this case, no, you do not need to add IPv6 support because you are not communicating with the internet for logging in purposes.
You can keep the login given it is only going to be 2 people using the app, just resolve the crash when logging in.
To test, enter a variety of incorrect passwords and usernames to ensure that there is no crash on incorrect entries, and confirm that correct entries do not crash the app.
Original Answer
Apple indicated that because there is a login feature, they think it is trying to communicate with an external database (ie a database that is not on the device). If there is no external database, just fix the crash is what they are asking.
Based on your question, you have eluded to the app not communicating externally for logging in. While some may find this odd, it is not uncommon. An example for those wondering would be a childrens app for iPad. The iPad might be shared amongst several children and as such each child might complete different sections or features of the app so an account local to the device is a good idea if there is no cloud support.
If there is external communication, you need to handle the case for no internet access. The question has been answered extensively, however this was the first result I found:
Detect Internet Connection and display UIAlertview Swift 3
Update: Why do I need to Support the case for no internet connection?
A use case:
John has just downloaded your app. He has just walked through the steps to create an account, but he has accidentally set his device to Aeroplane Mode.
John hits the "Create Now" button but nothing is happening. There is no error or success alert appearing, the screen has not changed, he can't see a loading icon. John is confused and getting frustrated because he's certain that he has completed everything in the form.
John doesn't understand that he needs internet connectivity to successfully submit a request to create an account. John decides to delete your app from his device and leaves a bad review.
John really could have used an alert saying "You need internet connection to sign up to this app. Please check you are connected and try again". This would have made John a whole lot happier and he probably would have continued to use your app with all of it's amazing features.
More information can be found in the guidelines that Apple mentioned, and further to this, the Apple Design Principles Guide is an invaluable resource.
I hope this makes sense.
Is is possible to dynamically figure out the position of an app's icon on the home screen of an iphone/ipad?
Sorry I don't have enough credit to comment yet so I'm posting here.
To my knowledge no you cannot natively or easily do this. I know of no open source or other libraries. The reason being that your app exists in its own world, it is not in touch per say with the rest of the device. It can get permissions to read and write data but it doesn't know of itself.
Does that make sense?
When you open a website it cannot know which tab it is in the browser. Instead it knows how it was accessed and what device (physically) is using it. It knows the user-agent, the time, the browser, etc because that is information sent to it in the request. In turn the phone on launch gives data to the app in how to handle it but not for example how many other apps are running, or where it is on the screen. It's not normally considered relevant to run time. In addition it's a security feature in preventing an app from deleting or altering other apps, as well as itself. If you have an iPhone you will notice that SIRI cannot turn off google maps navigation or any other non-apple specific app. Only apps natively comparable and private party ones (ex apples) are accessible because Apple did that intentionally. They all know of their own existence and each others. However non-native in the sense of apps that do not come preinstalled and manufactured by the company creating the device are less trustworthy, in addition there are no guarantees about how they will be run by the device, where they will be, or what other apps will be there.
It is true that an app can request for another app it may be comparable with but it is up the user to handle that information.
May I ask for curiosities sake why you are trying to do this? Are there any other workarounds?
However in terms of it being physically possible, yes. I doubt that apple allows independent developers to do this however. But an example of this occurring may be gridlock where a user can move their apps around differently on the screen. The app in this case has the ability to access app position. But I believe in this case app position is about the UI and not about nested files. apps cannot to my knowledge modify information outside of their own file. Imagine if you had an app that could edit other games scores.
It is not possible to dynamically find out the position of an app's icon on the Home Screen (even for jailbreak apps). Apple wants you to respect the user's privacy settings.
Extra Info - There is popular JavaScript library that adds a promo bubble to the bottom of your mobile web application, inviting users to bookmark the app to their device's home screen.
I'm quite new at iOS app development.
I'm starting to work on an app that should in somehow be able to count the missing calls that the iPhone has registered since the app is running.
I've read that in no way Apple is going to let me intercept incoming calls, answer them, reject them, or "whatever" them, but I wonder if we are allowed to count them.
I've found some people that say it can be done (well, I knew it is possible, cause LockInfo does, for instance), but I don't know if it's attached to jailbroken iPhones only.
Anyway, as far as I have seen, it must be done with some methods related to kCTCallStatusChangeNotification from CoreTelephony.h if I'm right (as seen in http://blogs.oreilly.com/digitalmedia/2008/02/when-it-comes-to-the.html), but I coudln't find much more info about it.
Hello and welcome to iPhone Development! :) As you have already pointed out, you can be informed through a notification if a call is happening. Great! But here comes the dark side of iPhone Development:
That's the end of the road. 95% of the "Phone Functionality" of the iPhone is private API and you don't technically have access to it.
Of course, you could header-dump the private frameworks and use them anyway, but that will get your app instantly rejected from the AppStore, which wouldn't be fun for anyone.
LockInfo is an extension for jailbroken devices - those guys are known for not caring too much about Apple nor Private APIs ;) Also, as you may have seen, LockInfo isn't on the AppStore because it would've never made it that far.
So Apple, why is there CoreTelephony?
Well, it's there for some very specific reasons. I personally use it to obtain the carrier name of the device for certain country specific restrictions in my application. The notification you talked about, along with others, tend to be used by developers to prepare your app for going into an inactive state (when the call comes in, your app is put in the background), so its used to pause tasks etc... CoreTelephony has never been intended for any deep level access to the telephone system of the iPhone.
So sorry, you can't obtain the information you're looking for using public APIs.
There is a newly introduced issue with iPhone 3.0 SDK and how it deals with the NSURL method for automatically making phone calls. It used to be that you could call a method (NSURL), pass in a string with a URL prefix (tel://, sms, etc...) and the iPhone OS would dispatch the message to the device, such as iTunes, App Store, Phone, SMS, Mail, Safari, etc... The code goes something like this:
[openURL:[NSURL URLWithString:#"tel://8005551212"]];
When the method was called the phone call would be placed automatically. With the iPhone OS 3.0 when the method is called the app pops up a dialogue box asking for confirm the phone call. This breaks several existing apps as well as one that we just pushed into the App Store for review.
Can anyone think of a fix to this issue? I'm currently at a loss for what to do and trying to decide what other ways to handle this new wrench in the works.
I blogged about this and suggested that people contact Apple and make them aware of this issue. I also recommend a fix that a friend and I were thinking about - and that is to use the same "authorization" that location aware apps have; an app knows it's location aware and asks the user if it's okay to use their location.
Again, if anyone has a fix for this issue (and that is within the realm of the iPhone SDK as to not be rejected by Apple) please let me know; I would be greatly appreciative.
Update: Julian Romero Nieto has a good description of the bug and cites the (updated) Apple documentation and shows the issue at hand. You can read his posting to Oper Radar here.
I believe this is included as a security feature - imagine an app that called a 900 number at 3am every day for 10 minutes. If you compare it to the new 'In-App Purchase' API - it's much the same.
The location API comparison is a bad example - getting the users location is a privacy concern, not a financial one.
You can't fix this issue as this is what is intended - anything you do to "fix" the issue will result in an app that won't be approved.
The user experience is considered not to be good when an app can choose to dial a number without the user's consent. It would be possible for software to dial "premium" numbers that cost the user a lot of money without them realising.
This is standard across all mobile software platforms and OS - if it just changed in OS 3.0 then this shows that it must have been an issue that initially Apple thought they could get around. However I think that Mobile Operators will have put pressure on Apple to introduce this as often then end up having to refund the user - but will have already paid out the money to the "premium" number.
I am not sure if "premium" numbers exist in the US as much as they do in Europe and that maybe the reason this is hard to understand.
The RFC for tel:// says to NOT allow autodialing of numbers via the tel: scheme.
So they have to chose between RFC compliance and breaking these few apps.
I hope the chose to ignore the RFC, at least to allow apps to keep dialing if they allow it.
I question whether this is intentional on Apple's part to push users to purchase a new iPhone if they want voice dialing - this problem breaks all of the 3rd party voice dialing apps, making them unsafe and basically useless.
Let's keep up the pressure on Apple to make this a user-configurable setting.
Perhaps you meant newly introduced feature instead of issue?
I don't think you will get Apple to remove the confirmation popup, especially if it is RFC compliance.
Lemmy quote Joel (http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2009/06/10c.html) regarding broken apps:
A good platform always has
opportunities for applications that
aren’t just gap-fillers. These are the
kind of application that the vendor is
unlikely ever to consider a core
feature, usually because it’s vertical
— it’s not something everyone is going
to want. There is exactly zero chance
that Apple is ever going to add a
feature to the iPhone for dentists.
Zero.
I would not want some application to make calls, send sms or even connect to internet (living in a country where unlimited mobile data plans are still far in the future) without my consent.
Certainly operator's headache when customers complain about unknown calls on bills.