Apple is apparently removing applications from its App Store that haven't been updated recently. I personally have several applications published that are simple, free utilities. Like the developer in the article, my applications are complete and have no need to be updated. In fact, in order to update them at this point I would have to buy a new Apple developer license ($99US) in order to publish an update. Fortunately they won't need much, if any, code changes to bring them up to date. It's just irritating that I will need to pay again to keep my apps published.
Devs Are Up in Arms After Apple Says It Will Remove Games That Haven't Been Updated
On Twitter, Protopop Games (below) shared an email from Apple that said their app had not been updated in "a significant amount of time" and would therefore be deleted from the App Store.
The game in question, Motivoto, was completed and therefore last updated three years ago in March 2019, but Apple told Protopop Games that "if no update is submitted within 30 days, the app will be removed from sale."
The complaints center around the fact that all games will eventually cease receiving updates as developers move on, but will plausibly remain functional from that point onwards. Apple's new policy could see swathes of classic games removed simply due to having been released years earlier. We've reached out to Apple for comment on the reasoning behind the new policy.
Protopop Games reacted in this tweet:
I feel sick. Apple just sent me an email saying they're removing my free game Motivoto because its more than 2 years old.
It's part of their App improvement system.
This is not cool. Console games from 2000 are still available for sale.
This is an unfair barrier to indie devs.
Additional coverage:
Apple may have begun a new push to remove outdated software from the App Store
Apparently this has gone on before:
Apple to begin removing old, unmaintained apps from the App Store (2016)
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2022, @10:02PM (11 children)
I've had many apps I purchased on Google Play or Android Market disappear from my library of purchased apps. App developers aren't allowed to remove apps from users' libraries, so they couldn't possibly be responsible. It's 100% on Google, removing apps from my library that I've already paid for. Google doesn't refund the purchase, either, when they remove the app.
I've actually complained to Google about one app being removed. I actually got a human reply, but they gave me an ambiguous answer that about why the app was removed, implying it might be the doing of the developer. I know that this is false. Developers aren't allowed to hide paid apps from users who have purchased them. It was a lie. Worse yet, Google claimed it was the responsibility of the developer to refund my purchase.
I also contacted the developer by email, because I'd purchased another app and still had access to the contact information. The developer wrote back to thank me for alerting them that their app had been removed. The developer suggested that Google periodically scans apps for certain old code and removes those apps. I believe the developer, particularly because Google couldn't even give me a straight answer about what happened. I also emailed another developer awhile back whose app had also disappeared, and I heard something similar.
This should be illegal, because Google is arbitrarily revoking my ability to use an app that I've already paid for. They've been dishonest about what's going on. The developer doesn't choose to hide their apps; this is 100% Google's doing. Although Google is unilaterally denying me the ability to use software I've already paid for, they don't refund me or even notify me that they've removed the app from my library. I've seen no indication that it's due to security issues with the apps, just an arbitrary decision to remove certain old apps. Even if it's indirectly the fault of the developer for not updating the app, it still doesn't excuse Google's absolute lack of transparency, outright lying about what happened, and failure to refund people who purchased the apps.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2022, @10:32PM (2 children)
You didn't read the fine print. You paid for the right to use the app for as long as Google allowed you. If you were a but smarter, you would use FOSS apps where this can't happen.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2022, @11:50PM (1 child)
I disagree with your comment, both in tone and substance.
For one, Google claimed for a long period of time that they aren't actually selling apps, just facilitating transactions between developers and end users. Google took this position for many years, shifting the burden of remitting sales tax to developers. If the transaction is between a developer and me, where Google only facilitates it and takes a cut from the purchase price for doing so, they shouldn't later get to take an active role and revoke my ability to access the content.
With respect to the fine print [google.com], I don't think it quite says what you think it does. Again, Google claims that app purchases are contracts between the developer and customer, and that the sales are final once the transaction is complete. In my emails with Google customer service, they were saying that it's the responsibility of the developer to provide a refund. But if that's the case, Google shouldn't have a role in revoking my access to the content.
There is a specific section about removing content or making it unavailable, with the relevant reasons being "there are critical security issues, or there are breaches of applicable terms or the law" when Google can remove access. I find it highly unlikely that the apps in question are being removed for critical security issues, because this seems to pertain to apps that are actively engaging in malicious behavior. The second part of breaching applicable terms or the law might be a bit more relevant, if you're willing to argue that the developer failing to update their code is a breach of their terms with Google, and that it allows Google to remove content from users. But that seems more likely to involve apps that are actually for the purpose of illegal behavior or otherwise behave maliciously (e.g., fake clicks on ads).
I'm all for FOSS software, but there certainly are non-free apps for which there is no FOSS substitute. If your position is that Google does whatever it wants regardless of what the fine print actually says or what legally makes sense, that might be more accurate.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday April 27 2022, @03:25AM
> the relevant reasons being "there are critical security issues, or there are breaches of applicable terms or the law" when Google can remove access...
>I find it highly unlikely that the apps in question are being removed for critical security issues
I could very easily see an app integrating a popular library which was later found to contain serious security flaws. That's not exactly unusual after all. And especially if that flaw could allow a malware infection to rapidly spread through the network, or was otherwise serious enough, I would not be terribly surprised to see Google eventually blacklist apps that still contained the old, flawed library. That sort of thing is relatively easy scan for automatically, and would routinely scoop up old software that was no longer being updated by the time new flaws were discovered.
I do agree it's problematic that you can just lose access to software you've "bought" - but in some ways that's inherently the price you pay when you let someone else run your computer/device for you. Maintain your own library, and it wouldn't be a problem.
It has nothing to do with Open Source either - rather it's a question of an open platform. I have a number of ancient, proprietary PC apps that would no doubt go up in flames under modern security scrutiny, but that I still use from time to time, with appropriate caution. But in the traditional PC world the platform is open and individually managed - anyone can write software that will run on anyone's computer. You get your software wherever you want, make what security decisions you want, and you manage your library yourself - nobody else even knows what software you own.
Join a closed platform though, whether it be the Google Store on Android, or Microsoft Store, Steam, etc. on the PC, and you're explicitly signing up for someone else to manage (that portion of) your library for you - subject to certain limitations and disclaimers. Among them that you're letting them make the decision to throw away your software under certain conditions. Aside from the potential for authoritarian abuse, it's not entirely unlike hiring a house cleaner - by hiring someone else to manage the cleanliness of your space, you're implicitly trusting them make the decisions about what to throw away. Decisions which may occasionally include things that you had really wanted to keep. You gain convenience, but it comes at a price.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2022, @11:03PM (1 child)
Well, you could try to find an adventurous lawyer/law_firm for a class action suit against Google.
"Everyone" loves to sue deep pockets, but the deep pocket companies have lawyers too and can delay small suits indefinitely (until the challenger runs out of money).
But (without looking myself) I think the first reply has it right--you didn't read the fine print.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2022, @01:41AM
Have to agree, it is fine print all the way down. As much as software as a service and rent seeking grates, the embedding of licencing terms into the early days of software, coupled with always online operating systems created and sustains this situation.
(Score: 2, Touché) by dbitter1 on Wednesday April 27 2022, @02:41AM
Yeah, it sucks, but at least with Google/Android we have side loading without too much drama.
(Score: 2) by SomeGuy on Wednesday April 27 2022, @01:20PM (3 children)
It sounds like what you are looking for is a device called a "personal computer".
Hint: The toys idiots carry around with them to make telephone calls are not that.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday April 27 2022, @01:43PM (2 children)
Well, they're certainly not public computers. In pretty much every way that matters, they are a personal computer. Nowadays, you can hook up a keyboard and screen to them. They are personal computers. They just happen to have seriously walled garden kinds of application ecosystems. Maybe, people should try something different. https://shop.puri.sm/ [shop.puri.sm] Those are stupid expensive, but they are open. You could also buy a cheaper phone than that and stick LineageOS on it. https://lineageos.org/ [lineageos.org] (Cyanogen/CyanogenMod successor.)
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 28 2022, @07:39AM (1 child)
Cheaper than stupid expensive is still expensive. Let me know when LineageOS will run on a phone that I can actually afford to buy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 28 2022, @07:40PM
You can run Lineage on almost any phone as a GSI generic system image, I do that, got a cheap Oukitel k15 pro, 6 gb RAM, 128 storage, 10000 battery, use something like mtkclient on github to back up rootr, etc. Almost all Chinese phones have easily unlockable bootloaders, no problem. On all the phones I owned, I always managed to put a custom ROM on, except one, which was a dirt cheap buy. It can be done, and ypu control it fully.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 28 2022, @07:43PM
Nasty of them ,but back up the apks from the installed apps dir, I always do, just in case.
(Score: 5, Touché) by pTamok on Tuesday April 26 2022, @10:03PM (1 child)
Welcome to the
compoundwalled garden. Rules might be changed forouryour convenience at any time. Terms and conditions may apply.Essentially, you are being pushed to monetise your apps to pay for the ongoing maintenance, unless you want to be a small philanthropist.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Joe Desertrat on Wednesday April 27 2022, @01:17AM
Welcome to the "cloud". Anything you don't have locked down on your own PC or server is subject to disappearance at any moment. Everyone seems enamored with instant access to everything, but there's a risk and cost involved. You can lose access and/or privacy at any time. Those that give up security for convenience will have neither...
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2022, @10:31PM
Hah, this is the same Apple that put out "1984" commercial to launch Macintosh.
Some shits never change.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday April 27 2022, @12:21AM (1 child)
You can't warehouse your bits and bytes in Apple warehouses forever, unless you're willing to pay! Storage space is expensive!
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday April 27 2022, @01:33PM
Supposedly people would still buy the app(s) and apple would get a cut. Assuming it's only free apps that are being targeted, I can see the point. Hmm.., seems to just be free content. Which is actually kinda nuts. Apple would be so lucky to have people continue to create free apps for their ecosystem. In the event that they keep doing this kind of thing though, they may see people ditching them in favor of just about anything else.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2022, @12:32AM
They're laughing at us. Who is righteous the white or the nigger? You know you're evil. You know you're evil.
- Terry A. Davis
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2022, @06:05AM
My app on iOS exhibits annoying behaviors with changing versions. Stuff like the keyboard remaining on screen, size changes and library calls being deprecated.
The android code has been much more stable. But I guess that is to be expected, as Apple sells their own phones.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2022, @05:27PM (1 child)
I'm a software developer myself, and I guarantee you that any code that no one has rebuilt in 6 months is starting to develop bit rot. Assumptions about the world that any app makes will change in that amount of time. The libraries that it depends on have had security flaws discovered, and hopefully patched. The versions that it was originally built with are obsolete. Often they are no longer even available. Code that was compatible with the old versions is frequently not compatible with the new versions. The underlying operating system often changes. Don't even get me started on changing encryption standards.
If you want to keep selling your app, check it a couple times a year to make sure it is still current. If you can't be bothered to do that, your code is dead, and should be removed from the ecosystem. If occasional maintenance does not make economic sense to you, obviously no one is buying your app anyway, so accept that nothing is forever and move on. It is not apple's or google's job to sell every old dead rotten app forever.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 28 2022, @07:44AM
Stand-alone games don't have security issues because they don't ever see outside data, but they also can't do in-app purchases that Apple can take a cut of.