5 ms·

Developer angry that App Store is removing game that hasn't been updated in 7 yr

42 points by ksec 1y ago

asdefghyk 1y ago
The game is https://apps.apple.com/us/app/wheels-of-aurelia/id1198170026 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/wheels-of-aurelia/id1198170026 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheels_of_Aurelia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheels_of_Aurelia Developer argues it does not ned an update. Mentions books do not need regular updates to stay in library , also states other reasons....
- mathgradthrow 1y ago
  Seems like a pretty strong argument.
  - SOLAR_FIELDS 1y ago
    As long as it continues to conform to the technical requirements of supported phones on the platform. I can see the reasoning behind wanting to remove it if it's using some API that is not supported in any of the OS's Apple supports, as it's bad UX for their users. That doesn't look like it's the case here though. The reasoning given by the authors of the article (who are weirdly pro apple and anti this dev) seems also a bit weird > There is no value to Apple recommending an app that no one else has downloaded for months, since the market has already demonstrated the app no longer has a perceived value to the App Store. Removing it is a better option for Apple than keeping it around and wasting consumer attention, with a high likelihood of it not being bought anyway. Usually the justification is far more stupidly malicious: Apple instigated a blanket policy that works for 90% of use cases, and this guy fell into the 10% of "Alive, not very popular, but still has value on the app store". Apple being apple, just decides the cost benefit of making exceptions is not worth it and tells the dev to f-off. Also the comments on that article are pretty rich: > I get the idea of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," but I also get that maintaining a level of security and quality in the App Store could require the vendor to provide evidence that they are giving the app a review at least once every three years. If there are no problems, change the date on the splash screen and submit it as an updated app. If that then passes Apple's review, the clock is reset for another three years. This doesn't seem like an unreasonable quality assurance measure. You mean like the $100 a year that this dev pays to have the developer account to keep the app on the store? What is that money going to, if not for re-review of stuff like this?
    - altairprime 1y ago
      The thing no one’s reporting here is that, on Apple mobile platforms, the way that Apple handles new device aspect ratios is to prebake some kind of shim or new ratio or whatever for it into a given release of Xcode, and then between WWDC and iPhone Launch Day, Apple goes on an App Store purge cycle threatening to evict apps that don’t rebuild with the new Xcode. So, this event is a very-high-likelihood signal that new device aspect ratios are due in the fall. None of this is intended to express favor or disfavor for their methods — I haven’t formed an opinion yet — but hopefully it provides the missing context that most folks don’t have.
      - SOLAR_FIELDS 1y ago
        That would be fine if they would communicate that to the dev. Doesn't sound like that's what happened here. > He says Apple "has not provided clear justification for this removal." Granted, Apple does have a history of not being great with developer communications, but this time it seems more clear-cut. This is especially true when that sentence continues to say that Apple cited "only" its policy for removing apps deemed "obsolete" or "outdated." This shouldn't apply to the game in question because it is still fully functional and compliant with current standards, Riva claims.
fracus 1y ago
How do you prune the ecosystem without having to do any real work? Just filter out apps that aren't updated in a specific time frame. I suppose they expect you to update the app even if it doesn't need it to prove it hasn't been abandoned. Seems like a really lazy and impersonal solution.
lxgr 1y ago
Is it time for a regulation requiring app stores (and while we're at it, all digital media "stores" selling DRM-ed media or claiming to only license, not sell, it in the fine print) to change the "buy" button to say "rent for a flat fee" instead?
- rolph 1y ago
  it is time for a regulation forbidding the practice of reaching into your hardware and modifying, without your consent.
  - duskwuff 1y ago
    How is that even relevant here? Apple is only delisting this app from the store, not removing it from users' devices.
- lacksconfidence 1y ago
  This is the law in California (https://www.sidley.com/en/insights/newsupdates/2024/11/californias-new-digital-goods-law-ab-2426-what-you-need-to-know https://www.sidley.com/en/insights/newsupdates/2024/11/calif...) as of January. Several games I use have recently changed their buttons from "buy" to "license" or similar as a result
- daveoc64 1y ago
  Is this a relevant topic? Anyone who has purchased the item would be able to download it again for free - it's just new purchases that would be discontinued.
  - benoau 1y ago
    That's only until Apple introduces an incompatibility, then it will be unavailable with a certain iOS update or new phone.
    - cellular 1y ago
      Google forces old apps off their playstore because newer apps all have ads! They make money on ads. They don't want those 2016 era games occupying screen time because they don't serve up ads! Have you tried playing a new game recently?! 1 minute of ads per minute of gameplay. I'm not exaggerating. And the games are awful...you can't lose on half of them. They don't want you to get frustrated by losing and stop ad-watching. RIP Android gaming.
nottorp 1y ago
I don't think there is anyone at Apple who understands gaming. I'm also sure they're proud of how many free to play grindfests they have in the app store, since those get weekly updates.
- mass_and_energy 1y ago
  Shoulda never sold Virtual Game Station, they'd hold the gaming market in their palm today
mikestew 1y ago
Ninja’ed (by a measly few minutes): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44573512 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44573512
- saubeidl 1y ago
  Note the different framing on the different sites. Biases in action.
  - teapot7 1y ago
    The comments on the apple insider piece are quite something - apple fans have the most amazing cases of Stockholm syndrome.
andrewmcwatters 1y ago
Another article for https://github.com/andrewmcwattersandco/app-store-rejections https://github.com/andrewmcwattersandco/app-store-rejections Thanks!
teapot7 1y ago
Yeah. Bloody Apple. Google too. Like (I'm sure) plenty of other people here I've written an app and put it up on the Apple and Google app stores. It does what it does with no problems and it amuses me. Occasionally someone buys it. It is as good or bad today as it was on the day I wrote it. It provably works as well on older phones as well as new. Every now and then I drag myself through the process of making new builds and putting them up on the net. This isn't as easy as it could be, as the tool I used to make it is now semi-dead and I no longer own a mac, but I'm stubborn.
kjkjadksj 1y ago
All my favorite apps on the app store are ancient. Maybe 5mb. You just don’t see stuff like that anymore. I wish filters were more powerful and you could sort by size on app store. That is the strongest signal for unix like software quality on the app store imo: does exactly what it does and nothing more sort of apps that seem to be a dead breed today in a world of 350mb safari wrappers.
- rawgreaze 1y ago
  What are some apps that fit this criterion that you use regularly and some that you wish existed. Would you pay for these apps?
  - kjkjadksj 1y ago
    I use this golf gps app SimpleGolfGps. Uses the native apple maps gps and allows me to tap around and get yardages. Comparable apps are absolutely bloated in the few hundred mb range sometimes. This one is 527 kb (!!!) and barely sips battery while out on the course. I’d pay a one time fee for it but no subscription.
pull_my_finger 1y ago
Sounds like their making developers pay "rent" on their apps. You need a apple developer account to publish apps, right? So they'd have to maintain that $99/year or whatever account to continue to resubmit the same app over and over.

42 points by ksec 1y ago

The game is https://apps.apple.com/us/app/wheels-of-aurelia/id1198170026 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/wheels-of-aurelia/id1198170026 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheels_of_Aurelia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheels_of_Aurelia Developer argues it does not ned an update. Mentions books do not need regular updates to stay in library , also states other reasons....

mathgradthrow 1y ago
Seems like a pretty strong argument.
- SOLAR_FIELDS 1y ago
  As long as it continues to conform to the technical requirements of supported phones on the platform. I can see the reasoning behind wanting to remove it if it's using some API that is not supported in any of the OS's Apple supports, as it's bad UX for their users. That doesn't look like it's the case here though. The reasoning given by the authors of the article (who are weirdly pro apple and anti this dev) seems also a bit weird > There is no value to Apple recommending an app that no one else has downloaded for months, since the market has already demonstrated the app no longer has a perceived value to the App Store. Removing it is a better option for Apple than keeping it around and wasting consumer attention, with a high likelihood of it not being bought anyway. Usually the justification is far more stupidly malicious: Apple instigated a blanket policy that works for 90% of use cases, and this guy fell into the 10% of "Alive, not very popular, but still has value on the app store". Apple being apple, just decides the cost benefit of making exceptions is not worth it and tells the dev to f-off. Also the comments on that article are pretty rich: > I get the idea of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," but I also get that maintaining a level of security and quality in the App Store could require the vendor to provide evidence that they are giving the app a review at least once every three years. If there are no problems, change the date on the splash screen and submit it as an updated app. If that then passes Apple's review, the clock is reset for another three years. This doesn't seem like an unreasonable quality assurance measure. You mean like the $100 a year that this dev pays to have the developer account to keep the app on the store? What is that money going to, if not for re-review of stuff like this?
  - altairprime 1y ago
    The thing no one’s reporting here is that, on Apple mobile platforms, the way that Apple handles new device aspect ratios is to prebake some kind of shim or new ratio or whatever for it into a given release of Xcode, and then between WWDC and iPhone Launch Day, Apple goes on an App Store purge cycle threatening to evict apps that don’t rebuild with the new Xcode. So, this event is a very-high-likelihood signal that new device aspect ratios are due in the fall. None of this is intended to express favor or disfavor for their methods — I haven’t formed an opinion yet — but hopefully it provides the missing context that most folks don’t have.
    - SOLAR_FIELDS 1y ago
      That would be fine if they would communicate that to the dev. Doesn't sound like that's what happened here. > He says Apple "has not provided clear justification for this removal." Granted, Apple does have a history of not being great with developer communications, but this time it seems more clear-cut. This is especially true when that sentence continues to say that Apple cited "only" its policy for removing apps deemed "obsolete" or "outdated." This shouldn't apply to the game in question because it is still fully functional and compliant with current standards, Riva claims.

fracus 1y ago

How do you prune the ecosystem without having to do any real work? Just filter out apps that aren't updated in a specific time frame. I suppose they expect you to update the app even if it doesn't need it to prove it hasn't been abandoned. Seems like a really lazy and impersonal solution.

lxgr 1y ago

Is it time for a regulation requiring app stores (and while we're at it, all digital media "stores" selling DRM-ed media or claiming to only license, not sell, it in the fine print) to change the "buy" button to say "rent for a flat fee" instead?

rolph 1y ago
it is time for a regulation forbidding the practice of reaching into your hardware and modifying, without your consent.
- duskwuff 1y ago
  How is that even relevant here? Apple is only delisting this app from the store, not removing it from users' devices.
lacksconfidence 1y ago
This is the law in California (https://www.sidley.com/en/insights/newsupdates/2024/11/californias-new-digital-goods-law-ab-2426-what-you-need-to-know https://www.sidley.com/en/insights/newsupdates/2024/11/calif...) as of January. Several games I use have recently changed their buttons from "buy" to "license" or similar as a result
daveoc64 1y ago
Is this a relevant topic? Anyone who has purchased the item would be able to download it again for free - it's just new purchases that would be discontinued.
- benoau 1y ago
  That's only until Apple introduces an incompatibility, then it will be unavailable with a certain iOS update or new phone.
  - cellular 1y ago
    Google forces old apps off their playstore because newer apps all have ads! They make money on ads. They don't want those 2016 era games occupying screen time because they don't serve up ads! Have you tried playing a new game recently?! 1 minute of ads per minute of gameplay. I'm not exaggerating. And the games are awful...you can't lose on half of them. They don't want you to get frustrated by losing and stop ad-watching. RIP Android gaming.

nottorp 1y ago

I don't think there is anyone at Apple who understands gaming. I'm also sure they're proud of how many free to play grindfests they have in the app store, since those get weekly updates.

mass_and_energy 1y ago
Shoulda never sold Virtual Game Station, they'd hold the gaming market in their palm today

mikestew 1y ago

Ninja’ed (by a measly few minutes): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44573512 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44573512

saubeidl 1y ago
Note the different framing on the different sites. Biases in action.
- teapot7 1y ago
  The comments on the apple insider piece are quite something - apple fans have the most amazing cases of Stockholm syndrome.

andrewmcwatters 1y ago

Another article for https://github.com/andrewmcwattersandco/app-store-rejections https://github.com/andrewmcwattersandco/app-store-rejections Thanks!

teapot7 1y ago

Yeah. Bloody Apple. Google too. Like (I'm sure) plenty of other people here I've written an app and put it up on the Apple and Google app stores. It does what it does with no problems and it amuses me. Occasionally someone buys it. It is as good or bad today as it was on the day I wrote it. It provably works as well on older phones as well as new. Every now and then I drag myself through the process of making new builds and putting them up on the net. This isn't as easy as it could be, as the tool I used to make it is now semi-dead and I no longer own a mac, but I'm stubborn.

kjkjadksj 1y ago

All my favorite apps on the app store are ancient. Maybe 5mb. You just don’t see stuff like that anymore. I wish filters were more powerful and you could sort by size on app store. That is the strongest signal for unix like software quality on the app store imo: does exactly what it does and nothing more sort of apps that seem to be a dead breed today in a world of 350mb safari wrappers.

rawgreaze 1y ago
What are some apps that fit this criterion that you use regularly and some that you wish existed. Would you pay for these apps?
- kjkjadksj 1y ago
  I use this golf gps app SimpleGolfGps. Uses the native apple maps gps and allows me to tap around and get yardages. Comparable apps are absolutely bloated in the few hundred mb range sometimes. This one is 527 kb (!!!) and barely sips battery while out on the course. I’d pay a one time fee for it but no subscription.

pull_my_finger 1y ago

Sounds like their making developers pay "rent" on their apps. You need a apple developer account to publish apps, right? So they'd have to maintain that $99/year or whatever account to continue to resubmit the same app over and over.