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....
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?
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.
> 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true when that sentence continues to say that Apple cited "only" its policy for removing apps deemed "obsolete" or "outdated."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.
Anyone who has purchased the item would be able to download it again for free - it's just new purchases that would be discontinued.
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.
> It also claims that Apple and Google have a “special responsibility to protect consumers’ interests” due to their “effective monopoly” on app stores. Apple and Google’s lack of oversight “constitute abuses of their respective dominant positions,” it says.
https://mobilegamer.biz/apple-google-king-supercell-and-more...
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.
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.
Thanks!