We’re using the Apple Developer Enterprise Program for internal app distribution. The Apple ID is a generic one using our domain email, but the Account Holder is a real person with authority in the organization. For the payment method, we plan to use a corporate credit card — but it is issued under a different staff name (e.g. card under Chief, but Account Holder is IT Head). Just want to check: • Is this setup acceptable? • Will Apple reject the enrollment/renewal if the card name doesn’t match the Account Holder? • What’s the best practice in this case to avoid delays or verification issues? Appreciate any guidance or experience from the community. Thanks!

May I know the checking mechanism for the ios Provisioning profile? Is my Apple app distributed by MDM inside the organisation? If the Provisioning profile is expired , what is the behaviour when user run the App and how to perform the checking mechanism , is it performed at user client side device or Apple server via online access.

Im trying to make my own iOS MDM Server with SCEP. I cant send a response to the PKIOperation without the iPad rejecting it. Can someone post the PKIOperation response structure

We are experiencing a critical issue where VPP app installations are consistently taking an excessive amount of time, leading to significant delays in asset association. We are deployionThis is a systemic problem that affects all VPP apps, not just an isolated case. Apps: 39470db7-e475-4269-9709-c80641657027 => com.zimride.instant d0876900-2579-463e-99f1-b7c85ef5c5e8 com.microsoft.azureauthenticator Troubleshooting: We have performed extensive troubleshooting and can confirm the following: VPP Token: The VPP token has been successfully renewed and is currently active and valid. License Availability: We've verified that there are sufficient VPP licenses available for the apps being deployed. Device Status: We've attempted the following on the affected devices: Restarted the devices. Switched to different Wi-Fi networks. Uninstalled and re-installed the apps. App Status: The issue is not limited to a single app; all VPP apps are failing to install. License Revocation: We attempted to revoke and reassign licenses for some devices, but this did not resolve the issue. The app was not pushed, and the pending status remained. Troubleshooting: Through our internal investigation, we have determined that the core issue is that the Asset Association Status is consistently taking excessive time. This seems to be preventing the app installation queue from processing. We have observed a significant delay in the processing of events within the Notification Channel. The time between the event being created and a response being received is excessively long, indicating a potential backlog or issue. We have included a few recent examples below for your reference: Event ID: 39470db7-e475-4269-9709-c80641657027 com.zimride.instant Created Time: 2025-08-26 01:02:04 Response Time: 2025-08-26 01:34:05 Event ID: d0876900-2579-463e-99f1-b7c85ef5c5e8 com.microsoft.azureauthenticator Created Time: 2025-08-25 21:16:29 Response Time: 2025-08-25 22:21:07 We would appreciate your help in the following areas: Resolution: Could you provide any known solutions or workarounds for an asset association status that is taking excessive amount of time'? Best Practices: Are there any recommended best practices or additional parameters we should be checking with the MDM that might influence the queueing of VPP app assignments? Queueing Parameters: Could you provide insight into the parameters or conditions that can affect the queueing and processing of VPP app installations on Apple's servers? Please let us know if there is any additional information or logs we can provide.

short version question: why some users after deleting and downloading back my in-house app, cannot start the new process for approving developer, but instead it tries to start and then crashes immediately? long question version I am maintaining an in-house distributed enterprise app. due to update in iOS 18 update here users need to trust the developer via a new procedure that involves restarting device and inserting the phone code. after thousands (more or less 30.000) of users with no issue at all, some of them has this problem, the old (expired)trust seems to be persistent and never updated. Standard events a user deletes the app via settings > general > VPN & device management or via classic persistent touch procedure checks no other presence of the app is on the device via spotlight. since it is the only app with "MyDeveloperName" on the phone, if users goe back to VPN & device management screen, no app or developer will be present. user downloads new version of the app. If taps directly on the icon there is a system alert with says the developer must be trusted. a this point in settings > general > VPN & device management you can find a line with developer name, tapping on it we find a screen where user finds a white button with BLUE message "authorize MyDeveloperName" and follows procedure. My issue is that some users get following different behavior, and I do not understand why: ❌ tapping on downloaded app icon: no alert, but app tries to start then crashes. ❌ going in VPN & device management screen there is only RED write button "delete app" in both paths, working and not working, the app results "verified" in VPN & device management screen (Apple says old authorizations are preserved.)

I'm the IT Admin in my company. We use Microsoft Intune, which is a Mobile Device Management tool, to manage our devices and apps. I created an app protection policy, restricting the data can only be shared between the allowed apps. For example, if our user want to copy the content in Outlook for iOS to WeChat or personal memo, the action will be blocked. However, may be it's too strict, here is the scenario that we need to hadle: A user selected the content in the Outlook for iOS mail, and wanted to use the "translate" function to do translation. Before the app protection policy was deployed, he can do the translation successfully. And now, it's blocked. Therefore, we need to find a way to exempt the app "Translate" so that users can do the translation successfully. We put the value "com.apple.Translate"(this is a package ID listed in the official document of Apple) to the exemption, but it's not working. May I know what is the correct "value" for the iOS native Translate APP? I need to put this value to our app protection policy to exempt Translate app. Thank you so much.

Hi Apple Community, At WWDC25, introduced a native device migration feature with iOS/macOS 26 and Apple Business Manager that promises seamless migration from one MDM to another without wiping devices or manual re-enrollment. That said, while testing this in iOS/macOS 26 beta, we ran into an issue: the Wi-Fi settings deployed by the old MDM aren’t retained during the migration. This means devices lose Wi-Fi connectivity partway through, and users have to manually reconnect before the migration to the new MDM can continue. This interrupts what should be a smooth, hands-off process. We wanted to ask if this is a known issue or limitation with the current beta? Are there any recommended ways to avoid losing Wi-Fi profiles during this migration window? Will this improve in future updates so that the Wi-Fi connection is preserved or seamlessly handed off to the new MDM? Any tips, workarounds, or official guidance Apple can share on best practices for handling Wi-Fi profiles during ABM-native device migrations would be hugely appreciated. Added Feedback with FeedBackAssistant ID : FB20150763 Thanks in advance.

I originally posted here & was referred to post in developer forumsn. https://discussions.apple.com/thread/256036430?login=true&sortBy=rank&answerId=261319559022 There has to be someone else out here that's gone through this. I've tried everything I can think of, forums, reddit, Microsoft documentation.... just can't find any clear cut method of doing this. I'm working on an InTune Mobile App Protection Policy. I know there are going to be some VPs out there asking why they can't use native iOS Apps, especially Apple Calendar, Contacts & Mail. I have not been able to get anywhere, I always end up with this error. Things I've tried: Allow sync of native apps with work account Putting in app exemptions (But I don't truly know if I know if I have the right values for this and there's no simple way of getting it from what I've seen. Having to download app to PC, finding config files, finding specific values.... that people say are hit or miss). Allow data transfer of ALL Apps What am I missing here? I'm pretty much giving up and just going to say sorry, you can't use Native apps.. Period! Anyone have any experience with this, especially for Mail, Calendar & Contacts? Thank you for anyone that can offer advice on this.

Hello, We have an internal enterprise app. After the provisioning profile (certificate) expired, some employees' iPhones still retained the old certificate when updating the app, causing the app to fail to open. We’ve tried restarting and reinstalling the app, but the issue persists. Having each employee manually reset network or device settings would be too operationally costly. Since this involves a large number of devices, we cannot use Apple Configurator to remove and reinstall certificates one by one. Therefore, we’d like to ask if there is a more efficient, batch-oriented solution to quickly resolve the certificate residue issue. We’d appreciate any suggestions for large-scale deployment methods. Thank you very much!

Details: Device: iPhone 12 Pro Max System: iOS 26.1 beta 2 Issue Description: When testing MDM device restriction capabilities on iOS 26.1 beta 2, I found that the allowCamera restriction does not work as expected. Observed Behavior: • On a BYOD device: When allowCamera is set to false, the Camera and FaceTime apps disappear from the Home Screen, as expected. However, third-party apps (such as WeChat) can still access the camera and take photos. • On earlier versions (e.g. iOS 26.0.1): Setting allowCamera to false correctly blocks all apps, including third-party apps, from accessing the camera. Initially, I assumed Apple might have changed this restriction behavior so that allowCamera only applies to supervised devices. However, after testing on supervised devices, I found that even there, when allowCamera is set to false, the Camera and FaceTime apps are hidden, but third-party apps can still use the camera. This indicates that the restriction is not functioning correctly in iOS 26.1 beta 2. Expectation: When allowCamera is set to false, all camera access — including third-party apps — should be blocked. Request: Could someone from Apple’s development or MDM team confirm whether this is an expected behavior change or a potential bug in iOS 26.1 beta 2?

We have couple of devices that are registered into Platform SSO, and we have been noticing an issue when the user tried to login. After the users enters the password and hit the return key nothing happens, they need to hit the return key probably 10-15 times in order for the login to happen, the password entered is the correct one and it's just that hitting the return key doesn't invoke the login. On checking the log of the device one unusual thing that we noticed as compared to a different device where the login is working in a single go is that the AppSSOAgent or AppSSODaemon process were not getting invoked

I've been running the betas fine for a while, now, where do you want to go??

Target Device: iPhone 13, iOS 18.5, enroll to MDM by enrollment profile Command: Response: Anyone could help?

How to test ManagedAppConfigurationProvider without MDM ? Task { /* Configuration provider task */ for await configuration in configurationProvider.configurations(MyAppConfiguration.self) { self.configuration = configuration ?? MyAppConfiguration.defaultConfiguration } } Can the existence of a configuration be simulated, e.g. by storing a mocked configuration in UserDefaults? The UserDefaults key "com.apple.configuration.managed" seems not relevant here.

Hello, I would like to ask a question regarding documentation related to app sales. Currently, I’m researching the sales process for an app and realized that I lack sufficient understanding when it comes to creating official documents such as estimates, invoices, and receipts — especially when dealing with corporate clients. In our company’s case, we can issue documents based on the net revenue (after platform fees are deducted). However, when issuing these documents to a client, would it be more appropriate to include a breakdown showing both the platform fee and the app usage fee? I would greatly appreciate any insights or examples of how others have handled similar situations. Thank you in advance.

Hello Developers, We are encountering a consistent Kernel Panic issue on an iPhone device after sending a "Clear Passcode" command via our MDM solution. We're looking for insights or confirmation if others have experienced similar behavior. Device & Environment Details: Device: iPhone13,2 (iPhone 12 Pro) OS Version: iPhone OS 18.3.2 (Build 22D82) (Please note this appears to be a future/beta build identifier) Action Triggering Panic: Sending MDM ClearPasscode command. Roots Installed: 0 (Device is not jailbroken) Incident ID: 4B41C0AE-EE93-4051-BEE4-AB98438C10F0 Panic Log Summary: The kernel panic log clearly indicates the issue originates from the Secure Enclave Processor (SEP). The key panic string is: panic(cpu 3 caller 0xfffffff02357bc1c): SEP Panic: :sks /sks : 0x1000b15fc 0x0003ad60 0x0003ad44 0x100028698 0x10002cae4 0x10002a908 0x10002bc10 0x100045330 [hgggrhlvs] Panic app vers: 1827.80.10 Panic app UUID: 4C066E88-EB93-33C3-BCA7-C5F5474831CC ... Root task vers: AppleSEPOS-2772.80.2 Root task UUID: A39D6C5D-D07D-33EE-85A3-9105A8D93CE2 ... sks /sks 0x329cc/0x326e0/0x1314131413141314 ert/BOOT Use code with caution. The SEP Panic and reference to :sks /sks strongly suggest an issue within the Secure Key Store subsystem of the SEP. The panic occurred on CPU core 3. The kernel backtrace points to the com.apple.driver.AppleSEPManager kernel extension as the immediate caller in the main kernel that initiated the panic process after receiving the signal from the SEP. Analysis/Interpretation: Based on the log, it appears that the MDM ClearPasscode command, which necessarily interacts with the SEP's Secure Key Store via the AppleSEPManager driver, triggered an internal fault or bug within the SEP firmware (AppleSEPOS). This SEP-level panic subsequently caused the main iOS kernel to panic. Questions: Has anyone else encountered similar SEP panics, specifically involving the SKS subsystem, particularly after issuing MDM commands like ClearPasscode on iOS 18.x builds (especially 18.3.2 / 22D82)? Is this a known issue in this specific iOS/SEP firmware version? Are there any suggested workarounds for clearing passcodes via MDM on affected devices/OS versions, or any further diagnostic steps recommended? We appreciate any insights or shared experiences the community might have on this issue. Thank you.

Hi,team: I need to distribute an mdm configuration file containing the "ServiceManagementManagedLoginItems" service to a large number of company-supervised computers, where com.apple.servicemanagement only supports macOS 13.0+. However, I cannot effectively distinguish whether the device system where the mdm configuration file needs to be installed is greater than 13. Can I directly install the mdm configuration file on all devices? Will installing the mdm configuration file on devices less than 13 have any impact on the system or other configuration items in mdm? The description link of ServiceManagementManagedLoginItems is: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/devicemanagement/servicemanagementmanagedloginitems

Hello, I’d like to clarify the technical limitations around app updates in an Apple School Manager (ASM) + MDM environment. Environment • iOS/iPadOS devices supervised and managed via Apple School Manager • Apps are distributed via ASM (VPP / Custom App) and managed by MDM • Apps are App Store–signed (not Enterprise/In-House) • Some apps include NetworkExtension (VPN) functionality • Automatic app updates are enabled in MDM Question From a technical and platform-design perspective, is it possible to: Deploy app updates for ASM/MDM-distributed App Store apps via a separate/custom update server, and trigger updates simultaneously across all managed devices, bypassing or supplementing the App Store update mechanism? In other words: • Can an organization operate its own update server to push a new app version to all devices at once? • Or is App Store + iOS always the sole execution path for installing updated app binaries? ⸻ My current understanding (please correct if wrong) Based on Apple documentation, it seems that: 1. App Store–distributed apps cannot self-update • Apps cannot download and install new binaries or replace themselves. • All executable code must be Apple-signed and installed by the system. 2. MDM can manage distribution and enable auto-update, but: • MDM cannot reliably trigger an immediate update for App Store apps. • Actual download/install timing is decided by iOS (device locked, charging, Wi-Fi, etc.). 3. Custom update servers • May be used for policy decisions (minimum allowed version, feature blocking), • But cannot be used to distribute or install updated app binaries on iOS. 4. For ASM-managed devices: • The only supported update execution path is: App Store → iOS → Managed App Update • Any “forced update” behavior must be implemented at the app logic level, not the installation level. ⸻ What I’m trying to confirm • Is there any supported MDM command, API, or mechanism that allows: • Centralized, immediate, one-shot updates of App Store apps across all ASM-managed devices? • Or is the above limitation fundamental by design, meaning: • Organizations must rely on iOS’s periodic auto-update behavior • And enforce version compliance only via app-side logic? ⸻ Why this matters In large school deployments, delayed updates (due to device conditions or OS scheduling) can cause: • Version fragmentation • Inconsistent behavior across classrooms • Operational issues for VPN / security-related apps Understanding whether this limitation is absolute or if there is a recommended Apple-supported workaround would be extremely helpful. Thanks in advance for any clarification

Dear Apple Developer Team, Following the rollout of iOS 26.x and the introduction of the iPhone 17, we have identified a critical issue affecting Mobile Device Management (MDM) enrolment and restore operations. The issue appears to stem from the Device Management Profile configuration 'do_not_use_profile_from_backup' within Apple Business Manager (ABM), which currently defaults to False. This setting should be modified to True to ensure proper functionality. When the profile remains set to False, organisations leveraging MDM encounter repeated failures during device backup and restore operations. Specifically, restoring a supervised or managed device triggers a persistent MDM registration loop, effectively preventing deployment of iPhone 17 devices in managed environments. We recommend that Apple review and adjust the default Device Management Profile property within ABM to address this issue and restore full MDM compatibility for iOS 26.x and later.

We are managing VPP license switching operations using Apple's VPP Manage Licenses API. License information is managed by matching the “clientUserIdStr” data with the VPP account ID information managed on the server side. We received an inquiry stating that a VPP license did not activate despite the activation process being performed. Upon checking the API results, the update API returned a success status during execution. However, the “clientUserIdStr” information was missing from the license information field in the response of the information retrieval API. We kindly request your guidance on the reason why the “clientUserIdStr” information is missing when retrieving license information, and the steps to ensure this information is reliably returned. VPPAccoountId:0123456789abcdef0123456789abcdef adamIdStr:521974902 *Some details have been altered from the actual data to protect personal information.