Can you clarify what you mean by a container app? I’m not a new dev by any means (first software published in the late 80s) but I’m having a hard time grokking what you mean.
Thanks.
Jay
@J.A. Why : According to the devs, the verbage used was “container app” or single application vs multiple.
Basically, instead of having 5 or so “educational apps” that use a similar engine, but cater to varying age groups, they asked that they use one container app, and combine those apps together, using iAP to reduce the number of apps & clutter on the appstore.
I don’t know how widespread this will be yet, but it seems to be the direction they are heading for many devs producing varying applications and games.
So if you only have a few apps, it’s a non-issue, but if you’re using the same engine or framework, and making an educational app for kinder/preschool, 1st graders, 2nd graders, 3rd graders and so forth, they want all of those combined into a “container” meaning one single app with multiple iAP.
I’m also uncertain if they are allowing legacy apps to be updated as is, or if they are asking for old apps to also be combined into a single container app.
The biggest issue I see with this is the OTA download limit. It’s already hard enough to try and keep games under the 100 meg limit these days, but with combining apps like this, it almost seems impossible.
Hi,
While not knowing the intimate details, I’d imagine they want to discourage the “EduKids-<grade level>” type apps, and instead have those different grade levels be in one “container app” and this would apply to other apps like that.
Using IAP, the grade levels (in this example) would unlock inside the app itself. This does make a certain amount of sense, though not as easy to produce perhaps.
But one of your concerns is app size. While not ideal, this can be mitigated by working in a “level” pack system. The data would need to be stored in the cloud, on Amazon S3 for example, and downloaded as needed (upon purchase). This of course could be an additional cost for the developer.
If you’re familiar with the Telltale series of games, they generally include a first “chapter” in the initial download, so you can start fairly quickly. You then buy the additional chapters, and the content is downloaded into the “container app” as it were.
Another method (and this may not apply to your apps) would be getting clever with assets and layout so as to keep the asset sizes down. This usually requires some type of dynamic layout, and well designed assets with an understanding of how to create the most size-effcient exports.
These are just a couple of ideas off the top of my head. Hopefully some others can share some ideas as well. And while this adds additional development concerns, it’s certainly not insurmountable, and is a fairly standard practice.
-dev
@Develephant: you have been by far, the most helpful with advice. I will pass it along to the other devs.
A lot of them have been doing apps full-time since the dawn of the Appstore, back when the iPhone 3 was the best iPhone money could buy, and the OTA download limit was only 20 megs! Some of the apps in question are quite old, but have been udpated regularly according to them.
That’s great advice too, and noticing that’s the trend even with larger companies as well. As for indies, having servers host additional content might pose a challenge financially. But I will pass all of that info along, you’ve been very helpful!
I wanted to bring up a question I think is a little bit related to this topic. I mention it here because of some of the comments above, made me think of this question I have had for awhile.
I had asked this once a while back, but the responses did not clear up the question. I am not sure there is an clear answer, but I am hoping someone may have input anyway.
Using the Edu-kids example, say you created the app(maybe it is free) and has IAP for each grade 2nd,3rd,4th,5th etc… in which once the user purchases the IAP, they get that grades content from the server you are maintaining and paying for as the developer. All fine in good since you are bringing in money when they do that.
Once they have over time paid for each of the 5 grades, they own that content for as long as they have that app. Now you had great success with that app at the start maybe 500,000 downloads. Half of them did download all the content IAPs over a few months, so 250,000 users out there have the rights to that content for their app stored on your server.
Now, maybe just 10,000 are still using the app over the next year or so… But there are no more new users and no more IAPs for content occurring(you are bringing no more income in)… there will be a fair number of those regular users who will change devices or clear and reload their existing devices, and be needing to access that content they already paid for from your server. Thus the server you are maintaining at a cost will need to be there for that to happen.
My question is how long are you obligated legally or business wise to maintain that server at whatever cost, while you app is no longer bringing any income?
I ask this because it seems even successful apps get most of their downloads early in the process, and I assume most of their IAPs fairly early as well. I do understand most users will drop the app once they have achieved all the ‘levels’ and/or achievements … but what obligation do we have to maintain the server content for those users that expect that content for another year or so as they continue to use the app.
Even if you use a BAAS service like GameSparks(I am strongly considering using) for multiplayer functions and other app management stuff for an app that maybe is a paid app 1.99 or so; I think the same question applies. Even though there is no ‘content’ that the app might need later to re-download, the service of ‘player and game management’ needs to be there, even if you have a few thousand users that continue to want to use the app they paid for; long after no more income is coming in from that app. How long do you need to maintain that BAAS service? I do realize with GameSparks it is free at certain levels of activity, but say there is many thousands still using the app for hours in the day to where you exceed the ‘free level’ with GameSparks… how long is one expected or required to continue to keep that service active?
I apologize if this seems to off the original question but I think it is related enough to ask it here.
Thanks for any input.
Bob
Hi,
You bring up a good, and very tricky question. I’ve run across a few apps that state they are “supported until x/x/xxx” which may be an option. Or possibly an in-app user agreement stating the time the downloadable content is available.
As a consumer, I would feel that I owned my IAP content for as long as the app is live.
The trick is to determine the actual cost of hosting, and the bandwidth needed to download the content. With a service like S3, its generally very cheap to move a fair amount of data, and host long-term. If only a small fraction of the users are needing to re-install content, then the cost may not be a big issue, even in the long run, as the non-downloaders cover it. Over time the downloads will decrease as you stated. I guess its just a matter of all the “curves” moving in the right direction over time.
It appears that Apple can host your in-app content, though I’m not sure if this works with Corona. It does not appear that Google or Amazon offer the same. Additionally, I was unable to find any type of mandatory rule for how long content must be made available, though my search was only cursory, so there may be something. Of course your customers might be unhappy if they suddenly lose access to the content.
If It were me, I would probably go with a very clear user agreement stating the conditions. It is very possible you could lose a content sale, but at least you’re not saddled hosting the content indefinitely. Of course it would be wise to either remove the app at that point, or disable all IAP content.
I too am interested in others opinions on the subject.
-dev
devElephant,
Thanks. Very good input as usual. User agreement stating conditions seems logical and fair.
Thanks
Bob
I recently bump into a rejection in the iOS app store for my puzzle app. I was asked to remove the word “kids” from the app name and sub-title for all languages. The clause marked by the reviewer was:
2.3.7 Choose a unique app name, assign keywords that accurately describe your app, and don’t try to pack any of your metadata with trademarked terms, popular app names, or other irrelevant phrases just to game the system. App names must be limited to 30 characters and should not include prices, terms, or descriptions that are not the name of the app. App subtitles are a great way to provide additional context for your app; they must follow our standard metadata rules and should not include inappropriate content, reference other apps, or make unverifiable product claims. Apple may modify inappropriate keywords at any time.
don’t post crap… simple really… code something original
That’s pretty obvious, but I wasn’t referring to developers that post crap. Clones have been an issue for years, and it’s great that they are finally doing something about it.
There are some devs who are posting some very sophisticated material like health apps or apps for the education system with tons of content and features.
Apple is now taking a stance even against all apps that use the same engine. They want everyone to put their apps inside a container app. That doesn’t work well if you’re a developer trying to market to a specific audience with your app eg: diet, school system apps etc.
What are other developers’ thoughts on this & has anyone here ran into an issue with them on updates?
apps are not penalised on the framework used; that makes zero sense… they are (rightly so) penalised for not adding any value.
long time coming if you ask me.
just be original and you will have no issues.
Agree, junk and clone apps should have been wiped out a long time ago. Again, I reiterate, that’s not what I am referring to here & I have plenty of original products myself & haven’t run into issues. The devs I know are using Unity SDK and professionals doing this full-time.
There are a lot of apps that use a similar framework, but offer a different value to a different market. eg: school apps for the education system, health apps targeting different audiences, educational games using the same engine, but offering different levels depending on the grade.
This is what’s happening now, and it’s very well known in the dev community, but I’m not here to argue that point with you anymore. Articles are posted everywhere about the recent changes, and if you look in itunes connect, there’s information about promoting multiple iAP packs. This is where the Appstore is headed. They want to condense everything.
Here to find out if any other developers’ have had issues with any of their apps getting rejected and asked to put their line of apps (Whatever category it may be) inside one container app?
Can you clarify what you mean by a container app? I’m not a new dev by any means (first software published in the late 80s) but I’m having a hard time grokking what you mean.
Thanks.
Jay
@J.A. Why : According to the devs, the verbage used was “container app” or single application vs multiple.
Basically, instead of having 5 or so “educational apps” that use a similar engine, but cater to varying age groups, they asked that they use one container app, and combine those apps together, using iAP to reduce the number of apps & clutter on the appstore.
I don’t know how widespread this will be yet, but it seems to be the direction they are heading for many devs producing varying applications and games.
So if you only have a few apps, it’s a non-issue, but if you’re using the same engine or framework, and making an educational app for kinder/preschool, 1st graders, 2nd graders, 3rd graders and so forth, they want all of those combined into a “container” meaning one single app with multiple iAP.
I’m also uncertain if they are allowing legacy apps to be updated as is, or if they are asking for old apps to also be combined into a single container app.
The biggest issue I see with this is the OTA download limit. It’s already hard enough to try and keep games under the 100 meg limit these days, but with combining apps like this, it almost seems impossible.
Hi,
While not knowing the intimate details, I’d imagine they want to discourage the “EduKids-<grade level>” type apps, and instead have those different grade levels be in one “container app” and this would apply to other apps like that.
Using IAP, the grade levels (in this example) would unlock inside the app itself. This does make a certain amount of sense, though not as easy to produce perhaps.
But one of your concerns is app size. While not ideal, this can be mitigated by working in a “level” pack system. The data would need to be stored in the cloud, on Amazon S3 for example, and downloaded as needed (upon purchase). This of course could be an additional cost for the developer.
If you’re familiar with the Telltale series of games, they generally include a first “chapter” in the initial download, so you can start fairly quickly. You then buy the additional chapters, and the content is downloaded into the “container app” as it were.
Another method (and this may not apply to your apps) would be getting clever with assets and layout so as to keep the asset sizes down. This usually requires some type of dynamic layout, and well designed assets with an understanding of how to create the most size-effcient exports.
These are just a couple of ideas off the top of my head. Hopefully some others can share some ideas as well. And while this adds additional development concerns, it’s certainly not insurmountable, and is a fairly standard practice.
-dev
@Develephant: you have been by far, the most helpful with advice. I will pass it along to the other devs.
A lot of them have been doing apps full-time since the dawn of the Appstore, back when the iPhone 3 was the best iPhone money could buy, and the OTA download limit was only 20 megs! Some of the apps in question are quite old, but have been udpated regularly according to them.
That’s great advice too, and noticing that’s the trend even with larger companies as well. As for indies, having servers host additional content might pose a challenge financially. But I will pass all of that info along, you’ve been very helpful!
I wanted to bring up a question I think is a little bit related to this topic. I mention it here because of some of the comments above, made me think of this question I have had for awhile.
I had asked this once a while back, but the responses did not clear up the question. I am not sure there is an clear answer, but I am hoping someone may have input anyway.
Using the Edu-kids example, say you created the app(maybe it is free) and has IAP for each grade 2nd,3rd,4th,5th etc… in which once the user purchases the IAP, they get that grades content from the server you are maintaining and paying for as the developer. All fine in good since you are bringing in money when they do that.
Once they have over time paid for each of the 5 grades, they own that content for as long as they have that app. Now you had great success with that app at the start maybe 500,000 downloads. Half of them did download all the content IAPs over a few months, so 250,000 users out there have the rights to that content for their app stored on your server.
Now, maybe just 10,000 are still using the app over the next year or so… But there are no more new users and no more IAPs for content occurring(you are bringing no more income in)… there will be a fair number of those regular users who will change devices or clear and reload their existing devices, and be needing to access that content they already paid for from your server. Thus the server you are maintaining at a cost will need to be there for that to happen.
My question is how long are you obligated legally or business wise to maintain that server at whatever cost, while you app is no longer bringing any income?
I ask this because it seems even successful apps get most of their downloads early in the process, and I assume most of their IAPs fairly early as well. I do understand most users will drop the app once they have achieved all the ‘levels’ and/or achievements … but what obligation do we have to maintain the server content for those users that expect that content for another year or so as they continue to use the app.
Even if you use a BAAS service like GameSparks(I am strongly considering using) for multiplayer functions and other app management stuff for an app that maybe is a paid app 1.99 or so; I think the same question applies. Even though there is no ‘content’ that the app might need later to re-download, the service of ‘player and game management’ needs to be there, even if you have a few thousand users that continue to want to use the app they paid for; long after no more income is coming in from that app. How long do you need to maintain that BAAS service? I do realize with GameSparks it is free at certain levels of activity, but say there is many thousands still using the app for hours in the day to where you exceed the ‘free level’ with GameSparks… how long is one expected or required to continue to keep that service active?
I apologize if this seems to off the original question but I think it is related enough to ask it here.
Thanks for any input.
Bob
Hi,
You bring up a good, and very tricky question. I’ve run across a few apps that state they are “supported until x/x/xxx” which may be an option. Or possibly an in-app user agreement stating the time the downloadable content is available.
As a consumer, I would feel that I owned my IAP content for as long as the app is live.
The trick is to determine the actual cost of hosting, and the bandwidth needed to download the content. With a service like S3, its generally very cheap to move a fair amount of data, and host long-term. If only a small fraction of the users are needing to re-install content, then the cost may not be a big issue, even in the long run, as the non-downloaders cover it. Over time the downloads will decrease as you stated. I guess its just a matter of all the “curves” moving in the right direction over time.
It appears that Apple can host your in-app content, though I’m not sure if this works with Corona. It does not appear that Google or Amazon offer the same. Additionally, I was unable to find any type of mandatory rule for how long content must be made available, though my search was only cursory, so there may be something. Of course your customers might be unhappy if they suddenly lose access to the content.
If It were me, I would probably go with a very clear user agreement stating the conditions. It is very possible you could lose a content sale, but at least you’re not saddled hosting the content indefinitely. Of course it would be wise to either remove the app at that point, or disable all IAP content.
I too am interested in others opinions on the subject.
-dev
devElephant,
Thanks. Very good input as usual. User agreement stating conditions seems logical and fair.
Thanks
Bob
I recently bump into a rejection in the iOS app store for my puzzle app. I was asked to remove the word “kids” from the app name and sub-title for all languages. The clause marked by the reviewer was:
2.3.7 Choose a unique app name, assign keywords that accurately describe your app, and don’t try to pack any of your metadata with trademarked terms, popular app names, or other irrelevant phrases just to game the system. App names must be limited to 30 characters and should not include prices, terms, or descriptions that are not the name of the app. App subtitles are a great way to provide additional context for your app; they must follow our standard metadata rules and should not include inappropriate content, reference other apps, or make unverifiable product claims. Apple may modify inappropriate keywords at any time.