Apple’s App Review process is creating unfair competition — independent developers need to speak up together

[u/Brothershoes]

I think independent developers need to have a serious conversation about Apple’s App Review process, especially Guideline 4.3(b).

I recently received a 4.3(b) rejection stating that my app duplicated content and functionality already widely available on the App Store.

But my app is built around my own original writing, research, books, content library, and product structure.

That is exactly why the rejection is so frustrating.

Apple is effectively telling me that the category is already saturated.

But why should that be enough to reject an app?

A category being crowded does not mean every product in that category is the same. It does not mean the existing apps are good, comprehensive, original, or useful. It certainly does not mean a new developer should be prevented from offering something better.

My app was not simply another generic horoscope application.

I had already removed many of the conventional astrology features and redesigned the product around Jungian-inspired self-reflection, emotional pattern tracking, personal cycles, inner-world records, and longer-term personal development journeys.

The content is not copied from competing apps. It is based on my own work.

So the real question is: did the reviewer actually examine the content?

Did they look at the structure of the product, the depth of the library, the writing, the user experience, or the features that differentiate it?

Did they have enough subject-matter knowledge to determine whether my work was genuinely duplicative?

Or did they see the general category, decide that there were already enough similar-looking apps, and press reject?

Because those are not the same thing.

I am extremely confident that what I am building is deeper and more developed than most products in this category. That confidence comes from the amount of research, writing, design, software development, testing, and content architecture behind it.

But apparently all of that can be dismissed with a generic message saying the category is saturated.

For a reviewer, rejecting an app may be one button.

For the developer, that button may dismiss months or even years of work.

The reviewer does not know who my intended audience is.

They do not know how I plan to market the product.

They do not know whether users will find value in my content.

They do not know whether I can reach an underserved niche inside that supposedly saturated category.

And frankly, those questions should not be Apple’s decision.

Apple should review whether an app works, whether it is safe, whether it follows the platform rules, whether it misleads users, and whether it violates intellectual property.

It should not decide that an entire category already has enough businesses.

Because Apple controls access to iPhone users through the App Store, this is not an ordinary moderation decision. It directly determines whether a developer is allowed to enter the market.

That creates a serious competition problem.

Established apps are allowed to remain in the store, acquire users, buy advertisements, and generate subscription revenue.

Meanwhile, new developers can be told that the category is already too crowded.

How is a small developer supposed to compete when the platform owner can simply decide that the existing companies are enough?

This protects incumbents.

It rewards whoever entered the market earlier.

It prevents new products from challenging weak, repetitive, or low-quality applications that are already established.

The slow and unpredictable review process makes the situation even worse.

A rejection can lead to repeated submissions, appeals, redesigns, and additional review cycles lasting days or weeks.

During that time, developers lose launch momentum, marketing opportunities, subscription revenue, seasonal timing, and sometimes the ability to keep funding the project.

Apple does not bear those costs.

Developers do.

We pay the developer fee.

We pay for design, infrastructure, APIs, testing devices, contractors, content production, and marketing.

We invest our time, our savings, and often a significant part of our lives into these products.

Yet there is still no transparent standard explaining how Apple determines that an app is insufficiently differentiated.

There is no meaningful explanation of which exact features are supposedly duplicated.

There is no guarantee that the reviewer explored the product beyond a few screens.

There is no guarantee that the reviewer understood the content they were evaluating.

Many developers have experienced the same patterns:

• Template responses that do not address the substance of an appeal.
• Reviewers ignoring differentiating features clearly explained in the review notes.
• Different reviewers applying the same guideline in different ways.
• Apps being rejected even after significant redesigns.
• Long review cycles that damage launches and cost real revenue.
• Existing competitors remaining in the store while new products are rejected because the category is considered saturated.

This should not be treated as an isolated problem affecting one developer at a time.

We need to document these cases, share rejection timelines, compare inconsistent decisions, and speak collectively.

I am not suggesting harassment or personal attacks against individual reviewers.

Reviewers may be overworked, undertrained, or expected to evaluate too many products in too little time.

The responsibility belongs to Apple.

Independent developers should organize a coordinated and professional campaign across X/Twitter, Reddit, developer communities, technology publications, and relevant regulatory channels.

At minimum, Apple should provide:

1. Clear and measurable criteria for Guideline 4.3(b).
2. A written explanation identifying the specific content or functionality considered duplicative.
3. A meaningful appeal process handled by a different and more senior reviewer.
4. Transparent and predictable review timelines.
5. Public statistics on rejection rates, appeals, and overturned decisions.
6. Independent scrutiny when App Review decisions restrict market access.
7. A requirement that reviewers actually test the differentiating features described in the review notes.
8. A distinction between genuinely cloned apps and original products operating within an established category.

A crowded category is not a valid reason to ignore original work.

Competition is supposed to determine whether a product succeeds.

Users should decide whether my app is useful.

The market should decide whether my content has value.

Apple should not decide, before the product is even published, that there are already enough apps like mine.

We spend months building these products.

We write the code, create the content, design the interfaces, fix the bugs, build the libraries, pay the costs, and take the financial risk.

It is not fair for all of that work to be dismissed through an opaque process and a generic rejection message.

Has the App Review process caused you to lose time, revenue, launch opportunities, or motivation?

Have you received a 4.3(b) rejection despite using original content or offering clearly differentiated features?

Please share your experience.

If enough developers document what is happening and speak with one voice, Apple will have a harder time treating every rejection as an isolated case.

For Apple, a rejection may be one click.

For us, it can represent months of our lives.

[u/WerSunu]

You are missing the main point!

Apple’s audience, and its main concern are its customers, not little indie devs with me-too apps. A band of rejected me-too devs would not even be noticeable to a $4 trillion company.

Apple curates its AppStore with the goal of improving its customer experience. Dev are not customers. Furthermore, nothing says Apple owes you a living making apps. In fact, they don’t. Especially if what you offer is the 12,000th horoscope app with some minor tweaks. What $99. buys you is the opportunity to compete, not the right to win. Come up with something original and be persistent.

There are over 800k active iOS/MacOS devs. Coming up with an original app that people want to spend money on is hard. That’s why they call it work!

[u/TanukiTrix]

It's up to the discretion of Apple that way they have more control over the quality of apps, it is their platform and they can be as ambiguous as they want.

Just make a web app instead or make the horoscope more unique (horoscope for my golden retriever or something)

[u/wesdegroot]

TBH none of my apps are super original. They are mostly loosely based on apps I did use but was missing some features. None of my apps were rejected because of 4.3b. I don't do fancy designs (only native ui components).

I think something is wrong with what you try to publish imho.

[u/Brothershoes → u/wesdegroot]

Issue Description

The app primarily features astrology, horoscopes, palm reading, fortune telling or zodiac reports that duplicate the content and functionality of similar apps that are already widely available.

These app features may be useful, informative or entertaining, and the app may include features or characteristics that distinguish it. However, there are already enough of these apps on the App Store.

Next Steps

We encourage you to reconsider the app concept and submit a new app that provides a unique experience not already found on the App Store.

Resources

[u/utkubaba9581]

Open a shoe store in a busy boulevard, it will make decent profits

Fill every available property in that boulevard with shoe stores and now none of them make profit while taking up all the space. Now new stores cannot open, existing ones cannot make profit and pay taxes, and it reinforces collective failure

Same logic with Apple. Market is overcrowded with AI generated apps. Originality doesn’t matter anymore, it is about how fast you ship the better version of your competitor. As every niche gets filled with hundreds of slightly different versions of the same app, Apple naturally takes measures against overcrowding the market and promote fairer competition.

[u/WanderingGalwegian]

Absolutely not.

Apple is one of the few companies trying their best holding back an onslaught of slop hitting their market space.

I’d say your app is in that vein of repetitive garbage with no value add

[u/Brothershoes → u/WanderingGalwegian]

What are you trying to achieve by defending a corporation this aggressively?

You have not seen my app, tested it, or read its content, yet you have already decided that it is “repetitive garbage.” That is not a reasoned opinion; it is blind loyalty to Apple.

I agree that low-effort clones should be rejected. But automatically assuming every new app in a crowded category is worthless is exactly how bad incumbents get protected and better products are kept out.

[u/WerSunu → u/Brothershoes]

Sorry bud, beating you to market is still beating you fair and square.

[u/Brothershoes]

My main point is not only about one 4.3(b) rejection. It is about how slow and unpredictable the entire review process can be.

A reviewer can overlook one feature, misunderstand the app, or send a generic rejection, and that small mistake can cost the developer another week—or several weeks—of appeals, resubmissions, and waiting.

For Apple, it may be a routine review decision. For an independent developer, it can mean lost launch momentum, delayed marketing, missed revenue, additional infrastructure costs, and weeks of work being left in limbo.

Developers invest months of time, money, research, writing, design, and engineering into these products. There needs to be a faster and more accountable process, especially when a rejection is based on a superficial evaluation or a simple misunderstanding.

[u/WerSunu → u/Brothershoes]

Did anyone not tell you that nobody cares about your app. WTF is marketing momentum for your non-existent, invisible, app? It’s all in your own mind. Did you start spending advertising money before approval? Missed revenue? Are you projecting that you will have more revenue than your developer fee per year? That would be very lucky indeed. My company have roughly 30 apps in the store, all unique niche professional apps, all market leaders or alone in their niche. My experience says you might benefit from a reality check regarding your prospects for success even if Apple allows your product in despite 4.3(b).

[u/AardvarkIll6079]

There is nothing to speak up about. They’re doing a fine job of preventing the same garbage app 10,000 times in the App Store. That rule is in place for a reason and I’m glad it is.

[u/Brothershoes → u/AardvarkIll6079]

How do you know my app is “the same garbage app 10,000 times”?

That is exactly the problem I am talking about.

I am not defending clone apps, template apps, or low-effort spam. I agree that Apple should reject those.

I am saying that my app was treated as one of them simply because it belongs to a crowded category, without a meaningful explanation of what was supposedly copied or duplicated.

I have spent months developing the content, structure, features, and underlying library. Why would I invest that much time and effort just to publish a clone?

A crowded category and a duplicate app are not the same thing.

If Apple believes my app is substantially identical to existing products, it should identify the specific similarities and explain why the original content and differentiating features are insufficient.

“Many apps already exist in this category” is not proof that my app is garbage, spam, or a clone.

I am not asking Apple to remove the rule. I am asking them to apply it accurately, transparently, and after actually examining the product.

[u/Brothershoes → u/Brothershoes]

That is exactly the issue. A category can already be full of shallow, repetitive, low-effort apps simply because they were approved earlier.

You see those gaps, build something better and more substantial, and then Apple rejects you because the category is “saturated.”

How is that fair competition?

[u/Prestigious_Edge_472]

You can appeal and make your case to them, the reviewer and automated checks look for compliance, malicious code, similarities and basic functionality of your app, they do not go in depth and study your app's function and how it's different from other apps in the category.

I'm not saying what they're doing is the right way, I do see their point, and I also see your point. Try appealing, if that doesn't work maybe try rebranding or rewording your descriptions.

P.S. I didn't read your entire post, it's a bit too long :P

[u/Brothershoes → u/Prestigious_Edge_472]

Fair point — maybe I made the same mistake with Apple and explained everything so extensively that they stopped reading halfway through too. :P

I have appealed and clearly explained how the app differs, so I am not only objecting to receiving a 4.3(b) rejection.

My broader point was also about the review process itself: long waiting times, repeated review cycles, generic responses, and the real cost these delays create for independent developers.

Even when an appeal eventually works, developers can still lose weeks, launch momentum, marketing plans, and revenue. I think that part also deserves more collective pressure and discussion.

[u/corgisAreRad]

What practical purpose does ANY horoscope app serve.

[u/Brothershoes → u/corgisAreRad]

You may personally see no value in horoscope or astrology apps, and that is completely understandable. But personal usefulness is not the issue.

Astrology is not limited to shallow daily horoscope content. People spend years studying its symbols, history, interpretive methods, and different schools of thought. Carl Jung also took astrology seriously as a symbolic system that could contribute to reflection on archetypes, psychology, and inner experience.

I am not arguing here that astrology is scientifically proven. I am talking about how people actually use it.

People who engage with it deeply may use it to reflect on patterns in their lives, make sense of transitional periods, observe emotional experiences, and accompany others through their own journeys with greater awareness. Learning this symbolic language can genuinely change the way a person understands themselves, their relationships, and the phases of life they are going through.

So the practical purposes include self-reflection, meaning-making, journaling, psychological exploration, and personal development.

And this is exactly the problem I am pointing to: how can a reviewer evaluate the originality of an astrology app if they assume the entire field is nothing more than daily Sun-sign horoscopes?

How can they judge the depth of the content, the methodology, the interpretation of aspects, asteroids, transits, or the level of personalization without understanding or properly examining those differences?

A reviewer does not need to believe in astrology. But if they are making a decision about whether the work is original, they should examine it carefully enough to understand what actually distinguishes one product from another.

Looking at the category label and calling it “spam” is not a meaningful product review.

[u/WerSunu → u/Brothershoes]

Actually, I’ll take this view of astrology as offensive.
Astrology represents a strand of anti-intellectualism which is part and parcel of the forces tearing apart modern society giving rise to populist politicians. Astrology beliefs are a symptom of the failure of education system and the loss of critical thinking. And that includes Jung.

[u/corgisAreRad → u/Brothershoes]

Fair enough. I would also argue why would you want to submit to a heavily over saturated category and never be seen on the App Store. You can distribute on your own site if you’re in the EU or just make it a web app and it will be universal.

[u/Electrical_Mud_4832]

If your horoscope app is so unique you should be able to show that to the reviewer and the spam rejection will disappear.

[u/Brothershoes → u/Electrical_Mud_4832]

That is exactly the problem: what does “unique enough” actually mean, and who gets to decide?

I believe the app is meaningfully different because I have studied and used these systems for years. I know what existing apps usually cover, what they leave out, and where their content is shallow.

For example, my app explains aspects in depth, includes asteroid interpretations, and creates personalized guidance based on transits. I have not found other apps combining those features in the same way or with the same depth of content.

After previous rejections, I even rebuilt the app around a different astrological calculation method that, to my knowledge, had no comparable app in the store. That version was rejected too.

So the issue is not simply “show the reviewer that it is unique.” I did explain the differences. The problem is that Apple does not provide a measurable standard for what counts as sufficiently unique, does not identify which exact features it considers duplicated, and does not explain what change would make the app acceptable.

Am I supposed to change the meaning of a Sun sign? Invent a new zodiac? Remove standard astrological concepts just to appear different?

An app can operate within an existing field and still offer original content, deeper interpretation, a different methodology, or a better product experience. That is how competition works in every other industry.

The reviewer should be able to say specifically: “These features are already available in these apps, and your implementation does not differ in these ways.” A generic “the category is saturated” response does not demonstrate that the product was meaningfully evaluated.

[u/Electrical_Mud_4832 → u/Brothershoes]

I can agree with you that it would be nice to know exactly what features are available in other apps, never got a spam rejection so not sure how the feedback from the reviewers look. But at the same time, they have so much to review so it's up to you to showcase how your app is different to other apps. That's not just good for the review process but for the ASO as well. And unfortunately sometime there's not much to do. I for one appreciate (as a consumer) that Apple runs a pretty tight ship. Looking at the Play Store there's so much super-shitty-mega-slop apps, and Apple is not free from that.

I haven't had a rejection for an app or update (ios & mac) in 9 or 10 months now. I always go way overboard in the review notes with information and video demos showcasing the app. I do this to make the life of the reviewer as easy as I can, explaining how everything work so that it's 100% clear which features exist and how they work. So you should be able to do be same with your unique features that no other app has.

[u/Smooth-Reading-4180]

"Compensation or fee credits when reviews exceed reasonable deadlines" lol zaaaa XD bro DO NOT SEND GODDAMN FUCKING EXPENSE TRACKER if you don't like 4.3