App Store Improvements | Hacker News Reader

App Store Improvements

developer.apple.com

79 pointsjefflinwood64 comments

This has been so desperately needed for years, but the conventional wisdom was Apple cared more about being able to claim that they had 12 million apps (or whatever) than 2 million decent apps.

I've searched in the last few months and found apps that had screenshots that were clearly from iOS 4 or 5.

David Smith said he had been working on a piece before this was announced (1) and believed about 50% of apps never got updated.

Also the fixes to stop things from being named "Candy Soul Saga Crush Game Match Three Slots For The Win Pokemon Insurance Dating Fun Free Time" is a serious improvement too.

Random idea based on other stuff I saw app developers talking about on Twitter the other day: is this the first steps in going 64-bit only next year? If the apps haven't been updated they can be pulled before iOS 11 comes out and then OS update wouldn't get blamed.

1) https://twitter.com/_DavidSmith/status/771405838607089665

I've had an app in there since there were less than 1,000 apps in the entire store. It still works, but I haven't updated it. Been waiting for Apple to pull it...surprised it's taken this long.

Can you not request that they pull it?

Yes, you can remove it from the store. Past purchasers can still download it but only from their Purchases page.

Guess now they'll have to settle for just "Candy Soul Saga Crush Game Match Three Slots FTW"

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple also followed this up with some more manual vetting of app names. I'm not sure if this part of the review guidelines is new, but it seems relevant:

> 2.3.7 Choose a unique app name, assign keywords that accurately describe your app, and don’t try to pack any of your metadata with trademarked terms, popular app names, or other irrelevant phrases just to game the system. App names must be limited to 50 characters and should not include terms or descriptions that are not the name of the app. Apple may modify inappropriate keywords at any time.

This is one of those rules that has had basically zero enforcement for years. I hope it changes with the rest of this.

The app store, if you follow all the rules, could be such a great place. But they haven't bothered to enforce so many of their rules (except in capricious cases where they wanted to get rid of something) that there is a TON of junk in there and the store is almost unusable.

The 50 character limit is new. To quote an email from Apple about 9 hours ago: "App names you submit in iTunes Connect for new apps and updates will now be limited to no longer than 50 characters."

There are still apps in the store I made years ago for a company that no longer exists. They still kinda work, but not very well since the company's servers went offline.

It seems like these things might resolve themselves in a lot of cases if Apple charged something small like a $1 every year to keep an app in the store.

Who pays the the dev program license?

I thought they were pulled from the App Store if the developer account hosting them was not renewed? Or did that change?

They are. It's pretty much the only reason I keep renewing my certificate.

It would be nice if there were some kind of per-app charge because some of the spam app houses (who just churn out junk trying to trick people) must have TONS of apps and adding that little cost (maybe $10 to publish the first time, $5 a year) might be enough to cut down own it.

I remember running into a developer who made an app to track inventory for a thing. Then I saw that he had the same app, with a different color, title, and icon, replicated over and over in the store charging ~$5 for each one. So, one app for Lego, one app for Magic the Gathering, and a few more for a few different things. Just change the name, color and title and resubmit. Boom, new app, new revenue stream.

It might be an unpopular opinion but I still have apps from iOS 4 that works perfectly fine on my iPhone running iOS 9. To me this is a testament of the great engineering that allows this iOS 4 app to be binary compatible with iOS 9. Sure the apps won't use the latest APIs and they look a little blurry (because screens have gotten larger) but they still work fine and I don't want apple to kill them, making a cloud backup restore impossible.

You, as a user, will still be able to see the app in your purchased list and download the latest version, according to the FAQ. I think this is only removing them from the app store for new sales.

But if the developer has, for whatever reason, chosen not to update the app to support retina displays, larger screens, and anything else that would benefit the user, isn't that an indication that the app is abandoned? Even if the functionality doesn't fundamentally change, it's not a good sign if the look of the app has been neglected.

I'm sure the vast majority of apps this affects are mostly rotting away with broken functionality. Worse still, there are many apps that could definitely benefit from newer APIs. There's no doubt that this new ruling is going to have some edge cases where old, but perfectly functional, apps are lost - but there is a grace period that developers of these older apps can work in to update them and keep them listed.

This is a good compromise - Apple issues a store-wide ultimatum to developers and any that are still interested in keeping their apps listed will update them. Those that aren't will need to do nothing. If any of your apps disappear, it stands to reason the developer has abandoned it.

I think his point was that "developer has abandoned it" doesn't imply the app has no value.

Maybe they should keep the app in the store, but de-list it and don't include it in search? Require a direct URL or invite for those. It would remove the clutter, but still allow people to get legacy apps that still function, but that you don't want showing up randomly to app store users.

That's almost what they're doing. If you already have it you'll still be able to download it after it's de-listed (as has always been the case), but no new users will be able to find/buy it even with a special URL.

If the developers don't want to do basic updates every few years, I'm not sure Apple should bother giving them special magic URLs for the 2 new people each year who might want it.

An extreme example of a dev abandoning an app would be the Monster Hunter app by Capcom. Back when iOS 9 dropped, it introduced a bug where Monster Hunter just wouldn't launch at all. Unfortunately, I can't find an archived version of their release notes (the only one thats been archived is from 2014 [0]), but Capcom basically said "This app does not, and will never work, on iOS 9". Under Apples old rules, this was cool. No worries. But under the new rules, this app would be removed immediately.

I don't think apps should be removed for having non-retina assets, or not supporting 4.7" or 5.5" displays. But if the app truly doesn't work anymore, and hasn't for a while, then I would consider that being abandoned. Even then, Apple will be working with devs to try and get the issues sorted

>"We are implementing an ongoing process of evaluating apps for these issues, notifying their developers, and removing problematic and abandoned apps from the App Store. " (from the email sent to developers)

[0]https://web.archive.org/web/20140923001007/https://itunes.ap...

Which apps? Just curious!

I don't think this is really what Apple is concerned about or rather what you mention falls into a grey area.

There are a large number of apps which just don't work. They crash, depend on web applications that don't exist anymore or they've been questionable from the very beginning.

Apple can and should clean up apps that don't fall into a grey area without creating an inconvenience for users like you.

If you've downloaded it, it's still going to be available to you. It's just not going to be listed in the store for others who haven't downloaded it.

This is great and is something that should be done to the Play store (or maybe it is but it's ineffective?). I can't tell you how many times I redownload an app I had on an old phone and apparently it hasn't been updated since like 2012 and it simply crashes on start on the newer versions of Android and yet it still let's me download and install it. Very frustrating.

FWIW, the same situation would exist on iOS, at least to some degree. The removed apps will no longer show up in the store, but will still be available to users who had previously downloaded them.

Really? I was under the impression once an app was removed from the iOS App Store it was unavailable for download even to those who previously had it.

No, except in extraordinary circumstances users can get it if they had it.

What used to happen is someone would sneak a GameBoy emulator into and app and people would RUSH to download it, because it would be pulled in hours. Maybe they didn't want a GameBoy emulator but if they ever did they'd be able to download it later.

There are a few cases where Apple has pulled an app TOTALLY so even existing users can't get it, but I don't think it's ever been done more than once or twice.

My favorite guitar tuner app no longer works, sadly, as of this or last version.

I paid for it originally, which is not -really- a sore spot, but also sort of a quirky thing. Paying for something that just doesn't work at some point in software because of how upgrade cycles work is interesting.

Do wish I could find a simple guitar tuner that doesn't spam me with ads these days though. =(

I'm using Guitar Toolkit, it's pretty good.

> Paying for something that just doesn't work at some point in software because of how upgrade cycles work is interesting.

Isn't this just the nature of software though? I mean, my DOS and Win 3.1 software no longer works either...

>I mean, my DOS and Win 3.1 software no longer works either...

Don't know about Windows 3.1 but I'm guessing you could install DOS in a VM with associated software. (I've had DOS running on relatively modern machines but it's been a while.)

Let me introduce you to this thing called DOSBOX, it's quite awesome: https://www.dosbox.com/

The sad thing is that, the way the appstore works, we will likely never get a "iosbox".

While DOSBox is indeed neat, I think the underlying point is that it's probably not reasonable to expect a piece of software written in a particular era for a particular operating system to be supported indefinitely.

Supported =/= working. A 1956 car is obviously not "supported" by the manufacturer or even by road laws of most countries, but it can still work if you make an effort. With iOs apps you don't even get the chance.

Sure you do. If you want to run an iOS app written for iOS 5 you can go dig up your old iPhone out of the closet (or eBay), put iOS 5 on it, and run it again.

If you want to run that same app on iOS 10 on your iPhone 7, well, that's an entirely different set of expectations.

> you can go dig up your old iPhone out of the closet

Yeah, but the point is, I don't have to do that with old DOS programs. I get an emulator, whip out my old binaries, and it runs on my shiny new PC.

On iOS, strictly speaking, there is no such option -- you will have to go to a non-iOS device to run an emulator - and this assuming either Apple is still hosting iOS5 apps (which probably won't be the case for long), or I have some backup (again on non-iOS) that I can somehow leverage.

It would be very kind of Our Betters At Apple to allow some sort of iOS-on-iOS emulator, if they're at all serious with the "iPad for work" concept. Companies already struggle with Microsoft upgrade policies that are much more conservative...

> On iOS, strictly speaking, there is no such option

And more importantly, apple would shut down such an option.

There is a certain amount of updates in iOS that can change the way things were before so it may no longer work.

Among other things Apple is going all 64-bit with their devices, it's not hard to believe the day will come soon (maybe iOS 11 or 12) that they say "we're not going to bother with 32-bit software compatibility" and software that was never recompiled will stop working.

As it is some software from iOS 2 or 3 still works, some has been broken horribly for years. Apple does a surprisingly good job with backwards compatibility, but it has it's limits.

Not ideal, but in case you haven't seen it, Apple's Music Memos app has a built-in tuner.

If I don't have my nice Petersen handy, I use Pitchlab on my iPhone. It has pre-sets for just about anything with strings, and I just looked to see how much the paid version is: there isn't one (really? 'cuz if he'd take my money I'd happily give it). Free, and I don't recall ever seeing an ad.

FWIW, I use Cleartune [0]. I think I bought it around iOS 5 or 6 and it's been continually updated. It's current $4US.

[0] https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/cleartune-chromatic-tuner/id...

I would like A flag that tells me whether the app contains ads or not.

It really sucks to download and install an app just to find out that it displays ads. I don't use apps that have ads.

So, you mostly use premium/paid apps?

Not original commenter, but yes. And I agree with his position.

Back on topic, does this mean that this new policy, Apps will get delisted, or will I no longer be able to download the binary?

Isn't it a bit displaced to bitch about ads in apps in a thread which is about a topic which is about how developers need time and effort just to keep apps in the store.

If you have so much problem with ads than just use only apps which cost money. The free ones are to 99% funded by ads or by using your personal data. There is nothing like a free lunch in a store.

The problem is there are a TON of low-effort apps that are free and have ads. So if you want a good app you have to trudge through a ton of them in search results to find an app that isn't effectively a tool to trick people into ads.

If you could choose to see only paid apps or those with IAPs you'd have an easier time finding apps that weren't trying to shove an ad in your face.

Some apps do ads very well. Some acceptably. MANY do not. AT ALL.

Well, the thread is about "App Store Improvements". That's the title of the post. Also, I AM a mobile developer... I mostly browse the web on my iPad. I use very few premium apps. Procreate was the last one that I purchased.

Anyway - please explain to me why should I pay $4.99 for a simple network utility that lets me do PING, NSLOOKUP, TRACEROUTE, etc? Do you really have a problem if I spend my time searching for a free app that doesn't have ads before I decide to buy one? And why do you think I should be responsible for supporting developers who spent a whole week building some low-hanging-fruit app?

As a matter of fact, I know how to build both native and hybrid iOS apps, so sometimes if I can't find an app I just build it myself. I can't imagine anyone having a problem with that.

Well, except for Apple. I don't like Apple very much so I avoid giving them any money at all if I can. I always buy used or refurbished Apple hardware from Amazon, Ebay and other places and I think long and hard before purchasing any iOS app since Apple gets 30%.

I concur. They have flags for which apps have in-app purchases. If it's anything more than "get rid of ads" I don't buy it. I would love a flag that says, "ad supported" or something similar. Great idea!

Agree. I think it's useful being able to see the names of IAP items before downloading an app. A flag for "Includes ads" would be easy to add and useful. It's very rare that an ad-supported app won't be quite ugly, so it'd be a reasonable filter.

In some ways, it's actually an improvement to the offerings of the App Store and less a direct improvement to the App Store itself, from the consumer's perspective.

It's a good step, but the store experience is still a bit busted, IMHO.

The email announcement also said they're restricting app names to 50 characters.

Nice to see some changes.

> don’t follow current review guidelines

Will this culling apply to the Mac App Store? What's going to happen to the many grandfathered non-sandboxed Mac apps?

Can't say for sure, but if they follow their past patterns, then I would guess that they will continue to work fine. And if you delete and want to re-install they will be available under Previous Purchases. But of course would not be available to you on a different apple id which had not downloaded it prior to it being pulled from the store.

Yeah, I'm wondering if they're now going to be pulled from the store for "violating" the sandbox guideline (despite previously being grandfathered in).

There are 2 million apps on the App Store... they are going to review every single app? From my experience the app review team is very inefficient and dealing with them is a very unpleasant experience.

I would imagine that crash on launch culling can be completely automated.

They can run them in simulators for that, easily search their metadata for those that haven't been updated since date X or were compiled for iOS 6 or 7 or some other OS that they decide to use as a cutoff point.

I wonder if this had anything to do with the jailbreak app recently going live on the App Store for a few hours. There might be some renewed emphasis on store content after that slipped through.

Unlikely...a jailbreak app makes it to the store at least once or twice a year.

Do you have any source for that? I believe this was the first occurrence of a jailbreaking app that was available from the App Store itself.

If that was the case I don't think they'd be focusing on old and non-updated apps as well. The fact this is announced 1 week before an event says they're probably trying to get some info out without wasting time in the conference, the way they announced the app subscription stuff the week before WWDC.

This is probably just (LONG) needed cleanup that they're starting to do.

Does Apple have metrics on which apps are used and how frequently or they only have metrics on installations and updates? That would be an easy way to filter which apps deserve another review.

I'm almost positive they have those metrics if you opt-in, they may have basic versions of it if you don't.

At a minimum they know what you purchased and when updates are made to apps. Plus they have some sorts of automated testing they could run.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com