
Apple’s widened ban on templated apps wiping small businesses from the App Store - sxates
https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/08/apples-widened-ban-on-templated-apps-is-wiping-small-businesses-from-the-app-store/
======
saagarjha
There are two sides to this:

1\. Templated apps that spam the App Store just to increase revenue. For
example, games that just swap out some assets and rebrand as an entirely new
experience. 2\. Templated apps for small organizations such as cities and
universities that differ significantly in content, but not in design.

Obviously, it would be advantageous to let through apps of type #2 while
blocking #1–the issue is finding a good boundary between them. I feel that the
differences in content should be what really sets apps apart, instead of their
design.

~~~
freedomben
Why not let the user rating/review system work? If an app lacks value, it will
get a poor rating. User's can then avoid low-rated apps.

I guess I just don't understand the Apple mentality in general that removing
my choices and capabilities is better for me somehow.

~~~
PeterisP
If I submit ten copies of the same game with different background colors, then
all of them would get the same rating, because all of them provide the same
value/quality. If the game's not poor, it will not get a poor rating.

Nonetheless, Apple would (rightly) want to ensure that this doesn't happen,
since all the duplicates provide negative value, crowding out the competition,
harming discoverability. _On their own_ each of them would provide value, the
problem is in duplication.

~~~
jpalomaki
Allow ”hidden” apps which could be only found via direct link.

For the legitimate template apps described in article this should be ok as
users are likely dedicated and can find the link to app for example via
website.

~~~
mjw1007
Yes, I think that's exactly what they should do.

Apple wants to have absolute control of what users are allowed to install on
their own devices. Maybe that's justifiable as a way to avoid malware, and
maybe it's also reasonable to extend the "evilness" check to cover apps which
would drain the battery or interfere with other apps.

Apple also entirely reasonably wants quality control on what apps they're
willing to advertise on their "store front".

But I think there's no justification for using the "store front" quality bar
to block what users are allowed to install. If an individual or organisation
is willing to pay to have an app developed for their own
customers/staff/associates/family/whatever, Apple shouldn't be applying more
than the "evilness" check before they permit people to install it.

(Alternatively Apple could agree to sign apps which pass the "evilness check"
without hosting them, but they'd probably want to be able to remove them if
they spot malware later rather than relying on some kind of certificate
revocation. They could charge a reasonable fee to cover review and hosting
costs.)

------
scarface74
I don't have a strong opinion either way about Apple's stance, but why do
these restaurants need an app at all? You can do online ordering and Apple Pay
with a website.

If the companies had tied their fate to the web instead of the App Store they
wouldn't have this problem.

I'm usually pro native apps for things I use every day but I'm not going to
keep an app on my phone for a restaurant.

~~~
ksec
Because searching for an App within App Store with Logo shown in restaurant is
infinitely easier for majority of users then typing www. whatever this is they
couldn't spell.com

QR Code solves this problem by simply having the user scan.

I dont think restaurant needs its own App. But there are definitely some
advantage to having a App Entrance to your restaurant.

I think this is a problem worth solving.

~~~
scarface74
I doubt that anyone in the almost 10 years that the Apple App Store has been
opened has ever said that searching through it is easier than searching
Google.

------
bashinator
Why do these small businesses need apps rather than web sites? Reading the
description of these templated apps, they seem to to be the low quality kind
of web site replacement that doesn't offer any extra functionality over a web
site.

~~~
ec109685
Push notifications require an app, which is likely a big reason for wanting to
get users into apps.

~~~
arthurfm
> Push notifications require an app

An app isn't required if you use a browser that supports push notifications.

[https://developers.google.com/web/progressive-web-
apps/](https://developers.google.com/web/progressive-web-apps/)
[https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/codelabs/push...](https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/codelabs/push-
notifications/)

~~~
npunt
On iOS the only way to get a push notification is via an app. Mobile Safari
doesn’t support push (or service workers).

~~~
SyneRyder
I think you might be correct. Until someone else corrects me, I found this in
Apple's documentation about website notifications and Safari Push
Notifications:

"This document pertains to OS X only. Notifications for websites do not appear
on iOS."

[https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/Ne...](https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/NetworkingInternet/Conceptual/NotificationProgrammingGuideForWebsites/Introduction/Introduction.html)

------
pwinnski
This seems to be part of a PR effort on the part of people making the app-
creator apps.

Apple is cracking down on spam apps, in which someone creates dozens or
hundreds of nearly-identical apps. That's why the notice says "Your app
provides the same feature set as many of the other apps you’ve submitted to
the App Store, it simply varies in content or language."

So if you're a company creating one app for each of three dozen restaurants,
yeah, but that's spam. Solution: each restaurant publishes their app under
their own account. Problem solved!

But that would remove lock-in by the spam vendors, so instead they begin a PR
effort.

~~~
dkonofalski
This is exactly it. Apple is simply requiring that apps be published under the
proper owner's account rather than under the accounts of the app mills that
generate them.

------
tinus_hn
The notice by Apple states ‘Your app provides the same feature set as many of
the other apps you’ve submitted to the App Store’.

IE spam

But according to the article it’s against apps creates using a template.

I don’t think you get these notices if you use a template to build one app,
just when you submit hundreds of the same apps.

------
beager
Two viewpoints:

1\. I wonder if this could be used to target things like React Native. Is
there an incentive for Apple to push devs to use Swift/ObjC/Xcode to keep them
on platform? Is RN’s platform agnosticism a threat?

2\. Native apps are horrible and mask deficiencies in both web apps and device
makers. The web should be good enough. Apps also create a walled garden which
is antithetical to an open internet.

~~~
saagarjha
> Is there an incentive for Apple to push devs to use Swift/ObjC/Xcode to keep
> them on platform?

Of course. It creates developer lock-in.

> Native apps are horrible and mask deficiencies in both web apps and device
> makers. The web should be good enough.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Web apps (yes, I'm including
React Native here) are always inferior to a well-designed native apps. They
perform significantly poorer, don't take full advantage of UIKit, and, based
on many companies' engineering blogs, require a significant amount of effort
to solve issues that just don't occur with native apps.

~~~
beager
I agree on all your points about web apps vs native apps. I should clarify,
native apps are fine, but the _requirement_ for native apps due to poor
performance of web apps is horrible. At least give me PWAs.

------
elijahlofgren
This does seem unfortunate especially considering the enforcement doesn’t
target Apple’s parter IBM which the article says develops similar apps. I
guess the answer is that for many of these apps they need to make their own
without a template or just encourage use of a mobile website.

~~~
megaman22
They pay the protection money.

~~~
mcny
They do better than just pay protection money.

[https://www.cio.com/article/3133945/hardware/ibm-says-
macs-s...](https://www.cio.com/article/3133945/hardware/ibm-says-macs-save-up-
to-543-per-user.html)

screenshot
[https://screenshots.firefoxusercontent.com/images/db98b0b7-1...](https://screenshots.firefoxusercontent.com/images/db98b0b7-15c5-432a-832c-d9a915bc8a62.png)

------
xauronx
Anyone have any idea on how this will affect the new Salesforce mobile? They
recently unveiled this huge thing where you could rebrand their app and deploy
it to app stores through config only. I'm about 50/50 on "this is going to
ruin it for them" and "Salesforce can throw money at it to be a silent
exception"

------
Powerofmene
Seems that the bigger companies are getting the more they focus on shutting
businesses out of economical ways of becoming more efficient where technology
is concerned. Many of these smaller businesses are simply developing a means
for the convenience of their customers to do what they currently undertake but
in a more time consuming manner. Yes, they hope to gain new customers but
moreso they are are trying to provide a service to their existing customers.
Shutting these smaller businesses out will just make it harder and more
expensive for them to ever compete with the big competitors in their
respective industries.

~~~
Powerofmene
I don’t like the spammy apps but I do think there are good smaller businesses
who need some of these services. I guess the challenge is finding the balance
between helping small businesses and cutting down on the spammers.

------
TheAceOfHearts
Seems like a great opportunity for them to migrate to the web. None of the
examples provided seem to require features that aren't available in all major
browsers.

The web is open and accessible! I find it incredibly frustrating when random
services expect me to install their shitty mobile app. I don't want to use any
walled garden if I can avoid it.

I'd view this as a small victory for the web.3

~~~
tomcam
People on a limited data plan for with bad net access may not want to incur
the charges of a big fat webpage

~~~
akoncius
it’very possible to have an app with webview only, so absence of app does not
neccessarily mean less data traffic.

------
valuearb
Glad to see Apple take a stand on all these spammy templated apps.

------
tyingq
Winning hearts and minds. I wonder if they considered how this might make
small businesses feel about using Apple products.

~~~
valuearb
Well it's "winning hearts and minds" of users who accidentally download these
spammy template apps.

~~~
tyingq
There's likely a mix of legitimate ones and spammy ones.

For example, the app needs of small family owned restaurants likely don't vary
much. A templated app that does coupons, menus, take out orders, maps, etc,
likely works for all. Why build a custom app from scratch?

~~~
PeterisP
Having every restaurant I frequent having a separate app sounds like a very,
very bad thing from the user perspective.

If you're not adding any new functionality, what benefit does having this app
give the user? If "A templated app that does coupons, menus, take out orders,
maps, etc, likely works for all." then it should be _one_ app on my phone for
_all_ such restaurants, not a separate one for each.

Having separate apps is intentionally getting worse user experience just for
the sake of restaurant branding/advertising, so the needs of users and
restaurant owners conflict here. The whole point of a walled garden is to
steer the growth towards something that users want in the end, so if that's
your example, then Apple _should_ be putting in work to ensure that we don't
get to a future where each small family restaurant has such an app; I'd want
Apple to ensure that the needs of users prevail even if that's not what the
restaurant owners want.

~~~
TheCoelacanth
> The whole point of a walled garden is to steer the growth towards something
> that users want in the end

That's incredibly naive. The whole point of a walled garden is to steer growth
towards something that benefits the owner of the walled garden.

~~~
dkonofalski
Your response is a bit naive too. Isn't the most beneficial thing for Apple
(the owner of the walled garden) for their users to get the information they
want easily so that they can spend money there? The better and faster the
conversion happens, the better Apple makes out both financially and in repeat
business.

------
hbcondo714
Other than AppMakr that's listed in the article, I believe there are many
other 'app making' companies that are affected. One of our active app store
apps was built using Appery.io but we haven't received a notification like the
one shown in the article.

~~~
dkonofalski
If you publish the packaged app under your own account, you wouldn't get the
notification. The issue is the companies are flooding the store with these
apps that are barely different, even in content.

------
supergirl
apple should work on improving their app store search instead of this

------
mildweed
Church app company that has successfully pivoted to still service churches
within the new rules: [https://aware3.com](https://aware3.com)

------
jore
I do not understand why they do not switch to "progressive web apps". What are
their disadvantages compared to native apps?

------
mankash666
This is text book antitrust. Apple runs the most profitable app store, not
being on it can severely impact the bottom line of businesses. It's abusing
app store leadership and picking winners on a whim, while hypocritically
campaigning for net neutrality.

FTC, BBB, Justice department - take note

~~~
arkades
Apple owns less than 20% ([https://www.idc.com/promo/smartphone-market-
share/vendor](https://www.idc.com/promo/smartphone-market-share/vendor)) of
the smartphone market, and you can access site-based services via safari.

It’s a far cry short of monopoly.

~~~
xigency
Ah, yes, Safari. The only web renderer allowed on the platform.

They may hold 20% marketshare but it's an important 20%. Trusts and
anticompetitive practices have multiple forms as well.

~~~
arkades
Yes, it’s an important 20%. The gap between “important 20%” and “monopoly” is
enormous.

------
dailyvijeos
Ted Liew is always on-the-ball and challenging DC bozos. Props.

------
NicoJuicy
So, Apple in it's esteem of for the "rich" people, doesn't care about the SMB
next door that isn't a million dollar company?

This is actually quite concerning. What's the motivation behind this? How can
SMB's improve ordening if Apple despises the web and bans "niche related"
apps?

