Apple Updates App Store Guidelines to Relax Restrictive Rules on Template Apps

[MacRumors]

Apple in June tweaked its App Store Review guidelines to add a new rule banning apps created from a commercialized template or app generation service, a move that ended up impacting small businesses without the resources to independently develop an app.

Many niche template-created apps for small restaurants, retailers, and other businesses were not allowed under the new rule, which also affected the companies that build those sorts of apps. Following media attention and feedback from small business owners, Apple today amended the rule to make it less restrictive, reports TechCrunch.

An example of a restaurant app created using a ChowNow template​

The original rule, in section 4.2.6 of the App Store guidelines, read "Apps created from a commercialized template or app generation service will be rejected." The new wording of the rule, located below, is more expansive and clarifies exactly what's allowed and what's not.

Apps created from a commercialized template or app generation service will be rejected unless they are submitted directly by the provider of the app's content. These services should not submit apps on behalf of their clients and should offer tools that let their clients create customized, innovative apps that provide unique customer experiences. Another acceptable option for template providers is to create a single binary to host all client content in an aggregated or "picker" model, for example as a restaurant finder app with separate customized entries or pages for each client restaurant, or as an event app with separate entries for each client event.

Under the revised guidelines, small businesses that use template-style apps can continue to use them, but those apps must be submitted by the business itself rather than the template provider. Apple also suggests template providers can create something like a restaurant finder app, with the ability to search for all client restaurants rather than creating individual cookie cutter apps for each restaurant.

All apps published on the App Store going forward will need to be handled by the business or organization behind the app, and to make the transition simple, Apple is going to waive its $99 developer fee for government and nonprofit apps in the U.S. in early 2018.

In addition to changing its template app guidelines, Apple today tweaked a few other rules. Apps that offer in-app purchase "loot boxes" or other mechanisms that include randomized virtual items are now required to disclose the odds of receiving each type of item.

Apple has also clarified that virtual currency apps offering Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs), cryptocurrency futures trading, and other crypto-securities or quasi-securities trading must come from established banks, securities firms, futures commission merchants, or other approved financial institutions.

One last rule applies to VPN apps. Apps that offer VPN services are required to use the NEVPNManager API and must make it clear what user data is collected and how it is used. VPN apps must also follow local laws, and VPN apps in a territory where a VPN license is required must provide license information in the App Review Notes field when submitting an app.

Apple's full App Store review guidelines are available on its developer website.

Article Link: Apple Updates App Store Guidelines to Relax Restrictive Rules on Template Apps

 

[vkt57]

Apple in June tweaked its App Store Review guidelines to add a new rule banning apps created from a commercialized template or app generation service, a move that ended up impacting small businesses without the resources to independently develop an app.

Many niche template-created apps for small restaurants, retailers, and other businesses were not allowed under the new rule, which also affected the companies that build those sorts of apps. Following media attention and feedback from small business owners, Apple today amended the rule to make it less restrictive, reports TechCrunch.

An example of a restaurant app created using a ChowNow template​

The original rule, in section 4.2.6 of the App Store guidelines, read "Apps created from a commercialized template or app generation service will be rejected." The new wording of the rule, located below, is more expansive and clarifies exactly what's allowed and what's not.Under the revised guidelines, small businesses that use template-style apps can continue to use them, but those apps must be submitted by the business itself rather than the template provider. Apple also suggests template providers can create something like a restaurant finder app, with the ability to search for all client restaurants rather than creating individual cookie cutter apps for each restaurant.

All apps published on the App Store going forward will need to be handled by the business or organization behind the app, and to make the transition simple, Apple is going to waive its $99 developer fee for government and nonprofit apps in the U.S. in early 2018.

In addition to changing its template app guidelines, Apple today tweaked a few other rules. Apps that offer in-app purchase "loot boxes" or other mechanisms that include randomized virtual items are now required to disclose the odds of receiving each type of item.

Apple has also clarified that virtual currency apps offering Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs), cryptocurrency futures trading, and other crypto-securities or quasi-securities trading must come from established banks, securities firms, futures commission merchants, or other approved financial institutions.

One last rule applies to VPN apps. Apps that offer VPN services are required to use the NEVPNManager API and must make it clear what user data is collected and how it is used. VPN apps must also follow local laws, and VPN apps in a territory where a VPN license is required must provide license information in the App Review Notes field when submitting an app.

Apple's full App Store review guidelines are available on its developer website.

Article Link: Apple Updates App Store Guidelines to Relax Restrictive Rules on Template Apps

[doublepost=1513819416][/doublepost]Sweet.

 

[bmauter]

Thanks for listening to reason, Apple.

 

[Seoras]

This "template" app rule ties in with the iOS11 update to the iTunes store for in-app promotion in iTunes App Store.
I have an app that sells art work bundles in-app, it's a sort of sub-store.
A rival developer publishes each art collection as a separate app using their own template.
So now my app can be found by users searching the store for the art, not the app.
I've been wondering if Apple would come down on my rival for templating.
Apple has also had a policy for some years now of "all in one app" being preferable to cluttering up the store with lots of apps. A cluttered store makes search/discovery difficult for users.

 

[alphaod]

I’m guessing the last one is probably applying to a country like China.

 

[Macaholic868]

These changes aren’t well thought out. I understand what Apple is trying to do here but what Apple doesn’t understand is how many small business owners exist out there who don’t posses a great deal of IT related knowledge. I deal with them all day, everyday.

Our typical clients are small businesses, non-profits and local government entities with 10 - 100 employees. The majority are small business across a range of vertical markets including architecture, construction, legal, manufacturing, medical, dental, vision, retail sales, commercial sales, etc. You name it and we’ve likely got one or more clients in most major vertical markets.

Bar none the owners of these business, non-profits or leaders of local government entities come to us because they don’t have the in-house IT knowledge required for things like this.

When a client who uses us for their day-to-day IT needs approaches us and want an app 95% of them don’t have the money required to hire a firm that will produce a custom app for them from the ground up. We find a reputable customizable app template provider who provides apps for their line of business and send our clients their way. That firm then takes care of everything for them and everybody is happy.

Now our company will be tasked with being the official app middleman. The firm we pass the business to needs us, acting on our mutual clients behalf as if we’re their in-house IT department, to create the Apple Developer account, submit the app and revisions and deal with rejections, etc.

We’d much rather focus on delivering the core services we provide in-house and putting clients in touch with reputable firms that handle things we don’t deal with like developing and maintaining websites, mobile websites, apps on iOS and Android, etc.

Apple should implement a registration process for legitimate firms that want to publish template apps or slightly customized template apps on behalf of small businesses. That way Apple knows who the firm is and which apps they are handling on behalf of small businesses without the means to handle things in-house. If a firm is engaging in conduct detrimental to its clients, the App Store or violating developer guidelines then the onus would be on Apple to shut them down. Firms acting in this manor should be required to upload source code for the apps so that if a firm is shut down the small businesses the firm was representing will have the ability to pull down the source code and pass it onto another firm or an in-house developer to make whatever changes are required to address the underlying issues with the app.

Instead Apple is taking the lazy/cheap route to addressing issues that stem from these business relationships and putting the onus and costs on the small businesses in question. Bad form Apple. You’ve got hundred of billions of dollars sitting in the bank. Spend a tiny fraction of it on helping to create a better experience for small businesses that have to subcontract these things to other firms.

 

[mariusignorello]

I’m actually glad they changed it so the business must submit the template-based app, that way they are forced to send me the binary and I can modify (and remove branding) to my linking.

 

[FloatingBones]

You’ve got hundred of billions of dollars sitting in the bank. Spend a tiny fraction of it on helping to create a better experience for small businesses that have to subcontract these things to other firms.

The "you've got gobs of money" argument doesn't cut it. Each business unit has to be viable on its own. The only exception is real charities.

"Now our company will be tasked with being the official app middleman. The firm we pass the business to needs us, acting on our mutual clients behalf as if we’re their in-house IT department, to create the Apple Developer account, submit the app and revisions and deal with rejections, etc."

This sounds perfectly fine to me. Obviously, you will have to raise your prices a bit to deal with that. If your company is not up for the task, I'm sure there will be other companies who are willing to do it. Businesses should be able to afford it. App costs for these apps should far less than what Yellow Page advertisements cost in a pre-App age.

Every developer out there has to deal with some restrictions they don't like. Now, the template-makers do, too. Oh, well.

 

[friednoodles]

Apps that offer in-app purchase "loot boxes" or other mechanisms that include randomized virtual items are now required to disclose the odds of receiving each type of item.

Let’s see if Apple actively enforces this, because there are a huge number of “games” doing dodgy things and making a ton of cash by exploiting addicted “players”. Not just small games either, mega games like Sony’s Fate/Grand Order that has regularly ranked at the top of the top grossing list on the Japanese App Store, and which had long been suspected of not being honest about the odds of receiving certain items.

It’s surprising to me that Apple hasn’t cracked down on what are ostensibly gambling apps like they have with other categories they feel don’t provide a wholesome experience for the store (e.g. porn).

 

[Cosmosent]

RE: "... customized, innovative apps that provide unique customer experiences."


WOW !, that's a first coming from Apple !

If Apple had that in-place from the Get-Go of the iOS App Store (circa 2008), then today there would be about 1K total apps in it !

But all 1K would be Unique & Innovative !

 

[ouimetnick]

3 local banks in my area all use the same app. Just a different color scheme, add the bank's branding and logo, and you are all set. Except they are different apps (same developer though)

 

[lincolntran]

Apple is going to waive its $99 developer fee for government and nonprofit apps in the U.S. in early 2018.

Why would Apple waive government $99 while we pay tax to the government on every single cent we earn. Surely they have more than $99 to pay for the fee....Individuals and companies have to pay but not the government? WTF?

 

[adamjackson]

Great news on requiring transparency in VPN. A lot of people are jumping on the VPN band-wagon without realizing what they're signing up for.

 

[miniyou64]

Their so self righteous. Give me a break. These archaic rules only make things difficult for small businesses. The people that need services like this have no clue to submit binaries to Apple. Apple needs to get off its high horse snd fix its own house.

 

[bmauter]

These changes aren’t well thought out. I understand what Apple is trying to do here but what Apple doesn’t understand is how many small business owners exist out there who don’t posses a great deal of IT related knowledge. I deal with them all day, everyday.

The original change wasn't well thought out. At least now businesses like I'm in aren't shut down.

They were trying to crack down on me-too apps. Stuff like the Flappy Bird clones only existed to ride the wave of profitability that was Flappy Bird. Now we're left with clutter. Apple made the rule change a bit too broad back in June.

It got us too. Our app is a what I'd consider to be a pretty large app and no, it doesn't simply wrap a UIWebView.

Apple should implement a registration process for legitimate firms that want to publish template apps or slightly customized template apps on behalf of small businesses. That way Apple knows who the firm is and which apps they are handling on behalf of small businesses without the means to handle things in-house. If a firm is engaging in conduct detrimental to its clients, the App Store or violating developer guidelines then the onus would be on Apple to shut them down. Firms acting in this manor should be required to upload source code for the apps so that if a firm is shut down the small businesses the firm was representing will have the ability to pull down the source code and pass it onto another firm or an in-house developer to make whatever changes are required to address the underlying issues with the app.

That sounds like a nightmare.

We'll assist our customers in getting their developer account setup and most likely they'll disclose the password to us so we can deal with the hoops in the App Store. It sounds like your customers may do the same thing with your third-party app developers.

 

[thisisnotmyname]

Glad to see the loot box clause, those are becoming a plague.

 

[DesertDog]

These changes aren’t well thought out. I understand what Apple is trying to do here but what Apple doesn’t understand is how many small business owners exist out there who don’t posses a great deal of IT related knowledge. I deal with them all day, everyday.

...

Now our company will be tasked with being the official app middleman. The firm we pass the business to needs us, acting on our mutual clients behalf as if we’re their in-house IT department, to create the Apple Developer account, submit the app and revisions and deal with rejections, etc.

Not necessarily. Usually when I do an app for a non-tech company I handle all of this for them. It's completely turn-key for them. Usually the only time I get them involved is if there's an issue that requires their input, like recently one require content ownership proof. But for submitting, setting things up, dealing with tech rejection, etc., I handle all of it. I don't see why the template companies couldn't offer the same thing. It's generally pretty lucrative since it's just a bit of busy work but I still charge my normal rate.

 

[Macaholic868]

The "you've got gobs of money" argument doesn't cut it. Each business unit has to be viable on its own. The only exception is real charities.

You don’t get it. Apple is taking the cheap way out of solving a problem by implementing a half-assed, not well thought out, solution instead of solving the problem the right way without unloading additional burden onto a segment of its customer base that can least afford it.

It’s a bad look for Apple in addition to being a bad solution to the underlying problem. So yeah, the fact that they have a boat load of money available to solve the problem the right way but have chosen not to do so is disappointing and those adversely affected have every right to complain.

 

[FloatingBones]

You don’t get it. Apple is taking the cheap way out of solving a problem by implementing a half-assed, not well thought out, solution

Or maybe you're just wrong. Did you ever think of that?

You point of view is biased: you want it to be as easy as possible to make money with your business. But that's not Apple's priority. In case you didn't know it, every single App Store developer has hoops to jump through to do their business.

If you're not up to the challenge, then get out. Leave the business. There are plenty of other developers who will work with restaurants and other small business to create and register their apps. But -- one way or the other -- please stop complaining.

[...] customer base that can least afford it.

Nonsense. This claim has already been refuted. In the pre-App era, these businesses had to purchase Yellow Pages advertising to promote their operation. The YP supplier had a monopoly, and they charged massive sums for those advertisements. Today, there is competition from third-party coders like you. Apple now requires a fee for businesses to release their app(s), but it is reasonable. It costs far less than the extortion the YP companies were able to charge just a few years ago.

It’s a bad look for Apple in addition to being a bad solution to the underlying problem. [SNIP]

No. It is not. Repeating yourself does not make it true. You are not in a position to give us an unbiased perspective on this issue.

If you said, "From my point of view, it's a bad look for Apple," that would be an acceptable comment. Do you get the difference?

If you're unable to change your business model to accommodate Apple's new rules, then get out of the business. There are plenty of developers who are ready and willing to work inside the box. Simple.

BTW: You messed up your attributions in your message above. Please fix it. Hopefully, you're not this sloppy with your programming.