Just noticed that this is also happening with XCode 13.4.1 on an Intel chip. So this looks like an "old" bug in the simulator...

Hi @alexshepard, first of all, cool app! I'm one of your users! Apple has been suggesting to replace custom made pickers by PHPickerViewController. In your situation, I think it makes sense. Your user can use off the shelf filters like animals or flowers to help finding images. Then you can use file or data representation as previously mentioned to access exif data. Although it is a noble idea, limited access mode can force an awkward flow for the user. If you can avoid it, just do it! Because date taken is super important for your app, if you don't have exif data, you should not trust on the date of the file at all. If you don't have exif, accessing creation date either through PhotoKit or PHPickerViewController can have completely wrong dates. If your user has a camera, copies files to a computer and then sends them to iCloud, there is a high likeliness of having a file with an incorrect date. In this situation, It makes sense to request it to be manually added. It is also important to note that accessing raw data, may force your user to pull it from the cloud (iCloud). If your user selects 4 or 5 images, that can be something like 10 MB to be downloaded. Your UI should be prepared for it accordingly. The good thing is that you then can use those bytes to upload the images to your server. cheers

FB8050290

Sure we will file a feedback request. Not going deeper into the details of the app, we can say that the user will have huge benefits from giving access to the camera roll. The craziness for the user comes with limited access mode. This thing of having the user granting permission to the photos will be really hard to be understood. The photoKit picker looks like a picker and it is quite similar to the PHPicker that will be usually seen by the users. The only time users will understand it is the first time when they see "Select photos" and tap it. After seeing "Select more photos"... You guys know well that users don't read that much introductory messages. For most of the users they will see it as a path to select photos and, in reality, they are granting permission to photos. I've been trying to explain this to my wife that is an iOS user for years and she did not totally understand it yet. Guys, I perfectly understand your concern with the access to the camera roll. The way this is designed looks like something done by engineers only. Don't take me wrong, but this does not look a design made by Apple. This is like giving a command line tool for an iOS user... At least you could let apps opt-out this limited access mode and make it harder on the review process of the app.

According to the answer in thread 650911, it is not possible to opt-out limited access mode. When you ask camera roll access, the user will have the possibility to tap "Select Photos...", "Allow access to all photos" and "Don't allow". Your app has to handle the old 2 possibilities and this new one with limited access to the camera roll. When you test it in beta 1 (at least on simulator) it seems that Apple has a few bugs to correct, but this seems to be the new reality.

Sorry for jump into this thread started  and keep hammering on the local identifier. As mentioned by Will Loew-Blosser, local identifier was reported as being unique. Now let's taking iMovie as an example. This app, as many other video apps, do have the concept of project and a project is a configuration that can reference assets that were unique. The only thing that you had to handle was the possibility for an asset to be deleted when the project was used between sessions. If the asset does not have a unique identifier anymore, how to handle a scenario in an app that uses the concept of projects referencing assets?

So, if the user does not give a name to a person, she / he will not be searchable. Any particular reason for this? With this picker I was expecting something quite similar to what is available in Photos App.

What do you mean with "it’s not recommended to persist the local identifiers, since they may change under certain circumstances"? Can you go a little deeper on "certain circumstances"?