[fasteddie]

I once used a very dumb feature flag set up to get around a rule an Apple reviewer told us were breaking, just for review period. The supposed rule violation was around for a year and no one had flagged it except for this one reviewer, and they were clearly interpreting the policy wrong. Easier to make a flag to appease then try and work up the management review chain.

This wasn't malware or anything like that, but goes to show limits of automated review.

[ottermax8]

That's so great--when you do 100 submissions, you're sure to get some really bad reviewer who is just trying to improve their metrics. We had to take out a bunch of functionality to get it approved... didn't want to spend time fighting up the chain and the upper folks don't even care.

[dawnerd]

Almost had to do this too. Luckily the part of the app that was in violation was just a web view and the plan was to just hide that part of the page until after it went live. And with OTA updates apps can get a surprisingly large amount around the review process. Although you risk being banned if they catch you!

[jrochkind1]

> And with OTA updates apps can get a surprisingly large amount around the review process.

Right, which is exactly why the OP's suggestion would not work, that Apple should always tell you in advance when they plan to do post-release review.

[cptskippy]

It doesn't seem like there's a single reviewer involved. Whenever we've encountered this behavior with reviewers blocking, simply resubmitting seems to "fix" the issue.

[tantalor]

That's unethical.

[Decker87]

It's as unethical as blowing through a broken traffic light stuck on red.