Review is less mechanical than it looks
Submitting a video chat or matching-focused app makes it clear the process is not “upload build, wait, publish.” Automated checks run first, but a human reviewer often decides the outcome. For developers in Turkey, user agreements, privacy policy, age rating, and TR/EN copy consistency are scrutinized just as closely as features. In social, video, and finance categories these details are critical — metadata and policy gaps can reject an otherwise working build.
The most common rejection reasons
Privacy policy URL broken or unreachable from inside the app. App description does not match what reviewers see on device. Demo account or test flow missing from review notes. Unclear moderation plan for video chat, matching, or user-generated content — Guideline 1.2 and related rules apply. Sign in with Apple combined incorrectly with third-party login. In-app purchase or subscription flows that conflict with App Store rules, or external payment for digital goods. These issues recur across categories; fixing code alone does not resolve them.
Checklist before resubmitting
Use the same framework after every rejection. Put test credentials, step-by-step flows, and reasons for disabled features in review notes. Confirm screenshots match the actual review build UI — marketing assets that diverge from the binary erode trust. If backend feature flags exist, state explicitly which features are enabled in the review build. Video infrastructure (LiveKit, Agora, etc.) with separate test and prod environments can confuse reviewers — clarify which environment the build uses. Address the cited guideline number directly; unrelated changes can trigger new rejections.
Field notes: rejection does not mean the project failed
Most rejections stem from metadata, policy, and review communication — not product quality. Planning for this early saves weeks at launch. Treat policy documents, demo flows, and review notes as seriously as architecture. In newer or sensitive categories — video, matching, finance — Apple applies pattern expectations from prior apps; claims of uniqueness do not substitute for demonstrable compliance.
Build review into the project plan
Do not promise “code done plus one week” for App Store launch. Buffer time for policy prep, test builds, rejection cycles, and metadata work — especially for fintech, dating, and video chat. Discuss review risk in discovery so client expectations stay realistic. Code delivery and store approval are different milestones; conflating them frustrates both teams. Treat review as a project phase, not an afterthought.