Mark Gurman (tweet, 9To5Mac, MacRumors):
Behind the scenes, though, Ternus has delivered a different message, knowing full well that Apple remains far behind rivals. In recent weeks, Ternus held a closed-door meeting with Craig Federighi, who became Apple’s AI czar following last year’s dismissal of its former AI leader. Desiring more and frustrated by what he sees as a reluctance to embrace AI with the same urgency as competitors, Ternus pushed his software chief to accelerate the company’s road map and move quickly beyond merely making necessary improvements to Siri.
[…]
Apple is already deep into work on next year’s operating systems, Bell (iOS 28 and iPadOS 28) and Poppy (macOS 28), but has changed up its process, I’m told. Apple traditionally separates development of each year’s new OSs into three major milestones known as M1, M2 and M3. Development of each stage runs for eight weeks and is split between four weeks of coding and four weeks of convergence, meaning integrating the features into the operating system.
For this cycle, though, Apple has done things differently for the M1 milestone. Instead of the normal split between two four-week efforts, Apple engineers were tasked with six weeks of coding, exploration and feature development, and then only two weeks of convergence. Employees say they like the change, indicating that it creates more time for coming up with ideas and exploring them before needing to lock things in.
I don’t think Federighi’s problem is that he’s going too slow. Less time for integration sounds like a recipe for even more bugs.
Previously:
Apple Software Quality Artificial Intelligence Craig Federighi iOS iOS 27 iOS 28 John Ternus Mac macOS 28 Siri
Matt Burgess:
A WIRED investigation found the app is part of a network of more than 400 connected domains and apps that, like Viefur, often claim to be everyday services—such as language tuition or AI workout coaches. When accessed under certain conditions, however, apps in the network stealthily load a web interface allowing the generation of explicit AI sexual images and videos using photos users upload. The apps include AI scenes such as “bedroom rape” and “threatening knife,” where a man holds a knife to a woman’s neck.
[…]
In each case, the ads linked out to the deceptive apps in Apple and Google’s app stores—allowing people to generate explicit images and make payments using Apple and Google Pay. The network behind the nudify apps appears to have been publishing them for around a year, at times publishing dozens per week. This is despite Google, Apple, and Meta saying they enforce their policies that do not allow harmful deepfake content on their platforms.
[…]
“Each time the application is downloaded, there is a call to the server with some information, such as where the user is coming from, the language, some unique identifier, and then the server replies whether or not to show the explicit or the non-explicit version of it,” explains Bouchaud, who reverse engineered the apps’ and associated websites’ code. They say there’s no clear list of reasons why one user may be shown the explicit version of an app, but one trigger appears to be downloading it after clicking an associated ad on Meta’s platforms.
Apple:
As outlined in our App Review Guidelines, pornographic material has long been prohibited on the App Store — this includes apps that generate nudity or sexually explicit imagery, such as “nudification” apps that create sexually explicit images of real individuals without their consent. Apps that host user-generated content are required to filter objectionable material, give users a way to report offensive content, and let users block abusive accounts. Apps containing hidden or undocumented features are also prohibited on the App Store, including apps that misrepresent their purpose during review and only reveal harmful capabilities — such as “nudification” — after approval, a tactic commonly known as bait-and-switch.
We want great apps and the innovative developers behind them to succeed on the App Store, and as new risks and novel user experiences emerge, we evolve our App Review Guidelines to maintain the trust of users and developers alike. Today we’re publishing updates that strengthen and extend the existing App Store protections, continuing to build on our long-held standards for privacy, quality, and safety.
It says it all that Apple admits this was already against the guidelines, yet their solution is “strengthening” the guidelines. As I keep saying, App Review is not actually capable of defending against bait-and-switch; they can only police deceptive behavior after the fact. Legitimate apps get bogged down in the review process, anyway. Or, worse, have their accounts banned.
Phillip Shoemaker (tweet):
I know why the guidelines read this way. I wrote them, and I kept them gray on purpose. Reviewers needed room to judge new kinds of apps in the interest of users and Apple, without a rulebook bad actors could lawyer around. The porn rule ran on a “we know it when we see it” standard.
That flexibility only works if the reviewer then tells the developer what they saw. When the guidance is vague and the penalty for misreading it is losing every app you own, the gray area becomes a trap.
[…]
Read the rest of the 3.2(f) notice. After the line about a pattern of manipulative or misleading behavior, Apple lists what those behaviors can include[…] The AI Photo developer did none of those. The letter doesn’t say which one Apple thinks applies. It names no app, no build, no date, and no screenshot.
[…]
When I ran App Review, 3.2(f) terminations came from the Fraud team, and only for real fraud: payment fraud, ratings and review manipulation, and schemes like them.
[…]
Since around the middle of this year, I’ve watched App Review itself issue 3.2(f) terminations with no apparent oversight.
Previously:
Update (2026-11-10): Phillip Shoemaker:
App Review is now the judge of its own grievances
Under the old system, the team that felt the pain of a difficult developer wasn’t the team that decided the punishment. Fraud had no stake in a reviewer’s queue. Its job was evidence.
When App Review issues 3.2(f) terminations directly, the people annoyed by a developer’s tenth resubmission are the same people deciding whether that developer was dishonest. I see no sign that anyone outside App Review checks the work before the account is gone.
The effect is that App Review appears to be terminating developers for making it work too hard.
App Review App Store App Store Scams Apple Developer Account iOS iOS 27
Viktor Seraleev (Hacker News):
On August 21, 2023, Apple removed our Reely application during the update review. Along with the removal, we received a notification citing a violation of section 3.2(f) of the Apple Developer Program License Agreement[…]
[…]
Again, this reason does not specify which particular application the claim pertains to. What are we accused of? Review manipulation or some violations on the payment screen?
[…]
We are convinced that our account has been deliberately targeted[…] On Instagram, we encountered an advertisement for our Rolly application. It turned out that our creatives were stolen and used to promote another application in the same niche. […] Our Rolly application was entirely copied by the developer NIGII Technologies LTD. […] We are confident that the purchase of fake reviews led to the account being blocked and all applications being removed.
They appealed to Apple, but the account was closed, and they were told the decision was final.
metalzero24:
I created my developer account about 2 years ago, I develop game engines in my free time, so I only used my account to read documentation and download Metal resources. Nothing else. I do not even log in to the app store / testflight page. I have no app store listings and I haven’t tried to send any.
2 weeks ago, I got an email about my developer account being terminated.
Previously:
Update (2026-11-10): Andy Ibanez:
Having suffered this before, and now having received a 4.3 Spam of an app with Apple leaving me on read when it comes to my appeal, it is seriously time to start considering leaving the App Store. If Apple cannot provide developers with the experience they deserve, they need to either open up the App Store or hire more people. The current situation with the App Store is an extreme disappointment, and I’m sure developers are getting tired of getting treated like trash.
App Store Apple Developer Account iOS
