[HN Gopher] Developer angry that App Store is removing game that...
___________________________________________________________________
Developer angry that App Store is removing game that hasn't been
updated in 7 yr
Author : ksec
Score : 31 points
Date : 2025-07-15 18:02 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (appleinsider.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (appleinsider.com)
| asdefghyk wrote:
| The game is https://apps.apple.com/us/app/wheels-of-
| aurelia/id1198170026
|
| 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 wrote:
| Seems like a pretty strong argument.
| SOLAR_FIELDS wrote:
| 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?
| fracus wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| it is time for a regulation forbidding the practice of reaching
| into your hardware and modifying, without your consent.
| duskwuff wrote:
| How is that even relevant here? Apple is only delisting this
| app from the store, not removing it from users' devices.
| lacksconfidence wrote:
| This is the law in California (https://www.sidley.com/en/insigh
| ts/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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| That's only until Apple introduces an incompatibility, then
| it will be unavailable with a certain iOS update or new
| phone.
| cellular wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Shoulda never sold Virtual Game Station, they'd hold the gaming
| market in their palm today
| mikestew wrote:
| Ninja'ed (by a measly few minutes):
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44573512
| saubeidl wrote:
| Note the different framing on the different sites.
|
| Biases in action.
| andrewmcwatters wrote:
| Another article for https://github.com/andrewmcwattersandco/app-
| store-rejections
|
| Thanks!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-07-15 23:02 UTC)