More time to update is good for the developers!! 90 days is good.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Gives Developers More Time to Update 'Outdated' Apps Before Removal
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yep, this might simply be a bean counting effort of sales + dev fees - server space costs.
In a few months there won’t be hardly any apps available for the Apple TV because most haven’t been updated in years.
So be it.
Nope, you are already paying the fee to be in the store.
And you don’t need a new Mac to submit a new build. Any mac from the last 5 years could submit a build.
Professionals should keep their tools up to date.
Also, developers are doing business together with Apple. It wouldn't be loyal to a business partner if that partner didn't get any money.
Last edited:
This is a very narrow way of looking at it. Like not every app needs update. Why should developers update something which is working fine? Also many of these apps are probably free. If you want the developers to update the app frequently, then they will have to start charging the money. Also what's up what that minimum threshold for downloads? If the app has less download then it dosen't mean it is not useful. It is just that it is not noticed by many people yet.
Or maybe I am missing something about Apple store. Comming from Android, where there are no restrictions like that.
Or maybe I am missing something about Apple store. Comming from Android, where there are no restrictions like that.
Last edited:
The App Store is a commercial store, not a library or museum.
If the apps can't generate money or value for a large number of users, it shouldn't exist.
It makes perfect sense.
Apple could have deleted the word 'not':
"New or modified Program Requirements will retroactively apply to Applications already in distribution via the App Store or Custom App Distribution"
This would have made developers legally required to update the app.
The provision which is in the agreement lets developers of the hook for updating as long as they allow Apple do remove it.
It's a store, not a library or museum.
If the app isn't getting any significant use in several years, it shouldn't be in a store. No profitable store will stock goods for several years if they don't sell.
Yeah but that store is used by users who owns the apple devices. Even if one person is using the app, apple shouldn't remove that. Without apps there is not much use for apple hardwares. They should be looking at the users for that app and not the number of downloads and they shouldn't be deciding themselves what is useful for user or what is not.
I think it’s a good thing that EU is trying to remove the Apple's monopoly on app store. If there are more stores who charges less commission on sales, it will be beneficial for developers.
There are a lot of useful apps out there, which are completely free. They to it in there spare time, because the want to share something. How dare you, to call those developers lazy!
Huh? Removing the word "not" reverses the meaning of that sentence in the legal agreement. Are you saying the inclusion of the word "not" was a typo on Apple's part?
There’s a human review process to let apps into the App Store; there should be a human review before kicking apps out.
This may be a well-intentioned attempt by Apple to remove low-quality abondonware from their store, but it’s a lazy one. The frequency of updates tells you nothing about the quality of an app.
This may be a well-intentioned attempt by Apple to remove low-quality abondonware from their store, but it’s a lazy one. The frequency of updates tells you nothing about the quality of an app.
Except... where are the online museums (filled with ancient stuff over 3 years old - jeepers!) and libraries for iOS software? The App Store is the only (realistic) way to install software on iOS devices. What this policy is saying is that any app that falls foul of:
"apps that have not been updated within the last three years and fail to meet a minimal download threshold — meaning the app has not been downloaded at all or extremely few times [I guess Apple get to decide what 'extremely few' means] during a rolling 12 month period [so have a slow year and bye-bye]"
...will cease to exist - or, at least, die as soon as you upgrade your iDevice.
I don't necessary agree with Apple being forced by law to allow sideloading - but this sort of jerk move by Apple makes me wonder - the lack of alternatives makes the App Store something other than "a commercial store" and Apple should take some responsibility for providing a home for non-commercial offerings and "mature" software.
Although I don't expect long-term support for under $5, I've already given up on buying any software for iOS that costs more than a beer, or hardware that depends on an iOS App, after buying several more expensive items that vanished from the App store after a year or two: blame to be shared between publishers not supporting software even when they charge a reasonable price and Apple for breaking the API so frequently.
There's also some problems with the App Store that have probably contributed to the "clutter" issue: primarily, downwards pressure on prices (as I said, $5 or less isn't enough to really pay for support unless the App goes viral) combined with the lack of paid upgrades in the App store - making it more profitable to abandon an old app and produce something superficially "new" to get money from existing users. That's also pushing developers to subscription model, leading to the absurd dichotomy of users expecting lifetime support for a one-off $5 vs. some developers who think their fiddly little utility is worth $5 a month.
Removing it from the App Store doesn’t mean it’s removed from people who have bought/obtained the app. People will almost certainly be able to peruse their previously obtained apps and still get it.
Being a developer my entire professional career I can tell you there are plenty of lazy devs out there.
Even if an app is “done” it is still good practice to recompile to newer SDKs now and then to keep it up to date. That’s not exactly a time consuming activity. And as devices change it creates a suboptimal experience for the user if the app hasn’t kept up.
After all, why pay to stay in the App Store if you aren’t going to do anything with your apps? Just to have access to dev betas? Not worth it.
Abandoned apps do not necessarily equate to vintage apps. Devs can still update vintage apps. It’s my guess apple wants a living and breathing App Store, so to speak. Not a garbage heap of abandoned apps.
This is still dumb. I have several old apps that haven't been updated in years that still work just fine. Not sure if the devs are still even active, some are paid.
Just proves that in this freakin "cloud" world you don't own anything even if you paid for it.
Just proves that in this freakin "cloud" world you don't own anything even if you paid for it.
And now you cannot even build app for yourself, even if you pay every year, this will require updates without any good (security or api) reasons. No way to install personal apps more than a week is so silly on user level.
No, not until they buy a new phone or have to reset it. No longer does a backup contain the app files. Those are all redone loaded.
Professionals? how about the casuals that do it on their free time but don't have the time at the moment? 90 days is a short notice.
The dev pays $99 yearly so that "partner" already gets money.
Maybe Apple can unlist them from search but still allow download through direct link or something.
Last edited:
This is great news for the developers of the Phone app. It's an app I use everyday, but hasn't been updated in years. I really hope the developers take this extra time and develop some amazing new features for all of their users. Fingers crossed that Apple doesn't boot this amazing, albeit outdated app, from the App Store!