I cannot find anything on Device check Api in iOS over here. However, let me draw your attention to the fact that, I wanna use and pass Unique ID from my iPhone app to the server always with the pretty much the same ID even after reinstalling the App. Eventually, I got to know that, Device Check Api is well suited for this purpose for the simple reason of Access per-device, per-developer. But I'm bit confused how to use it properly and can anyone help me with the proper and clear-cut guidelines including both front end and back end parts. It would be great if you help me with it. The Apple documentation link is provided here below for the reference, https://developer.apple.com/documentation/devicecheck.
Have you checked this? https://fluffy.es/devicecheck-tutorial/
It explains the whole thing and gives an example.
Edit: But as suggested by #Paulw11 DeviceCheck does not provide a Unique ID, it only gives you access to 2 bits of information (2 booleans really) by device by developper (not by app).
Related
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.
There is an App out there that can 'intercept' pictures from snapchat. I'm not sure what low level witch craft they are using to accomplish this, but I want to learn more about how to do it and I don't know what to search!
Can someone please help me? This is the app I am referring to:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/snapbox-save-snapchat-snaps/id727651340?mt=8
I just read the app description you are referring, and I don't think intercept could be the right word to use. You will need to read more about Terms of Service from SnapShat and probably try to read if they provide any official api so you can use it.
What this app does, is actually consuming in someway the posts you are receiving and then saving it to your iPhone. That's not a hard task tough.
In this case, you're providing your snapchat login to this app and they're using it to pretend they're you to communicate with Snapchat.
No actual "intercepting" is happening, and the app likely works without Snapchat installed.
see: http://blog.snapchat.com/post/99998266095/third-party-applications-and-the-snapchat-api
This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
UIDevice uniqueIdentifier Deprecated - What To Do Now?
I know there have been quite a few questions on SO about this, but I think that because Apple is moving ahead of schedule and actively denying applications that make use of UDIDs (http://pulse.me/s/7mzKE), us developers need to take an active approach and discuss this matter in bulk.
So the question is - what is a good, stable and correct alternative for unique device identification, other than accessing it's UDID property?
This depends on your needs...if you're looking for a simple device identifier for your application to use, then the documentation on the deprecated uniqueIdentifier method pretty much provides your answer:
Do not use the uniqueIdentifier property. To create a unique identifier specific to your app, you can call the CFUUIDCreate function to create a UUID, and write it to the defaults database using the NSUserDefaults class.
CFUUIDCreate will return a unique handset identifier that is unique to your application. You need to store it in NSUserDefaults because it will change if you make subsequent calls. For most uses this will suffice, and it's not as if Apple didn't provide enough warning of this change (iOS 5 has been out for over six months now, and the developer docs for longer).
The other scenario is where you need to share your device identifier across applications (ie, mobile advertising networks). That's a more complex problem, with a number of alternative options (there's also no guarantee they'll remain around in the future: Apple's primary reason for deprecating the UDID API is presumably to stop cross application user tracking).
My personal favorite is OpenUDID.
You can grab the GitHub here.
I've summarized my thoughts and put a brief description of it here.
SecureUDID, based on OpenUDID but more secure, accessible by domain only (and salt)
More info.
One of a devices 2 or 3 MAC address is already exposed by the protocol specification during any wireless communication.
While I think this is not a typical "how do I overcome this particular technical challenge" I agree it is wildly important and could be well discussed in SO somehow (not sure - wiki? Forum?). I'd be interested to know whether there are discussions in how Flurry beat this.
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.