The Delisting of BIGO LIVE and LiveMe: Expanding on the Random Risks Facing Social Apps

on 5 days ago

Last Friday, April 18, 2025 (the date might be slightly off but generally accurate), it was observed that LiveMe had been delisted globally. Around the same time, BIGO LIVE, which had previously been reinstated, was once again removed from app stores.

Of course, we can only confirm the delisting from the platforms; the exact reasons remain unknown. Generally, app removals fall into a few categories:

Voluntary delisting by the developer:
- Due to business needs.
- Preemptive action after an Apple warning to avoid risks and make adjustments.
Forced delisting by Apple:
- Temporary removal pending fixes.
- Permanent ban under Guideline 3.2(f).

There might be other well-known social apps delisted overseas that I’m unaware of—feel free to mention them in the comments.

When top-tier products suddenly vanish, developers inevitably speculate. Here, I’ll share insights about mid-tier social apps.

Currently, more mid-tier social apps are being delisted, mostly due to:

3.2(f) account bans without warning.
30-day Pending Termination Notices.

The primary reasons for these actions include:

Adult content: Reports of pornographic marketing or material.
Shell apps or perceived clones: Even with thematic differences, the core product fails to demonstrate uniqueness.
Payment switching: Bans often target backend-controlled payment flow alterations.
A/B masking to bypass review: Using server-side controls to deceive reviewers, with penalties applied even after removing such features.

This year, Apple has clearly intensified its crackdown on social apps. The 4.3 rejection rate for this category has surged, and misjudgments have even impacted non-social apps.

Many developers debate how to avoid these pitfalls—whether simply avoiding adult content, clones, payment switching, and review bypassing guarantees safety.

But here’s a stark reality: nearly all social app teams will eventually face repercussions. No evasion tactic can overcome human nature.

Human nature is greedy, shortsighted, and arrogant—true for users, developers, and even myself. The best we can do is acknowledge these flaws and impose objective constraints to mitigate them.

Imagine an app as a balloon. The bigger it grows (i.e., the more profit it generates), the higher the chance it bursts. Developers are the ones inflating it. We know staying below 90 is safe, while 90–100 carries increasing but unpredictable risks. At 90, developers ask: "Will 91 pop it? I’ve seen others hit 92 unscathed." The temptation to push to 92 arises, and the cycle continues. The only solution? Enforce a hard stop at 90—but is that feasible?

One team used a method I once shared to temporarily resolve a 4.3 issue, only to have multiple accounts banned a year later. Why? They reused the same "template" dozens of times, ignoring shifting policies and the diminishing returns of static solutions.

To conclude: The road ahead for social apps is tough. Trade-offs are messy, especially with Apple’s stricter enforcement and the randomness of penalties. Misjudgments or disproportionate punishments are inevitable—sometimes, it’s just bad luck. But by resisting human nature, you might emerge as a lucky outlier.

As one developer aptly put it:

"Let others chase profit maximization. We’re content with profit sustainability—and it’s working just fine for us."