Will apple reject an app for doing things like putting up a screen that says: "We've added lots of new features.You need to update before using this app..."? I'm unsure if this is a nosy thing to do but it may be something I need if I ever create lots of new features that need widespread frontend adoption.
This is fine. Clash of Clans for example will not let you play if it detects a newer version on the Appstore. Many online-related apps need to be up to date.
Also, you don't need to force all updates. You could simply force critical updates only.
Related
Is there a way I can make my Worklight's app public version number be different than the version number we're providing in application-descriptor.xml?
For example, I want my users to see the version 3.0.1 on Android settings (which is defined by the version attribute in the application-descriptor.xml) and one day I will want them to get an update from the Worklight server, but at that point I'd like that to turn into version 3.0.2. The problem is that a 3.0.1 will not update against something on the Worklight server that is 3.0.2.
Is there a way I can get around this?
Worklight does not provide this ability. IMO this is because what you're asking for is not inline with the thinking and intended usage of the Direct Update feature.
Direct Update is meant as a way to quickly provide fixes after having already released an app version to the store, for example in cases such as:
discovery of minor or major UI or logic bugs you've found in the app, or
for closing security holes that have been found
This is all happening to the same app version (lets say 3.0.1). Consider these as 3.0.1.build releases. or something.
It is not meant as a way of releasing new versions of the app. For this purpose use the conventional and appropriate way of releasing new app versions.
If you want to change the app version (which should coincide with a new app release), then you need to increase it in application-descriptor.xml (and other Worklight-related tasks), create a new binary and upload it to store, which users are then able to update and will see the new version number (lets say 3.0.2).
I want to change my app from a paid version to a free with ads. However, I don't want the people that originally paid for the app to get the ads.
I was thinking I could include a new update that has extra code that sets up some UserDefaults saying the version doesn't have ads and then do the update to the free version. But that doesn't seem like a very reliable solution.
I think, it depends on minimum OS version, that your program can be run on. For iOS 5.0 and later you can try to use iCloud to store some flag about purchased version. It allows you to set this flag not only for one device, but for the user's account.
Or you can store this info in the keychain to get it later. But in this case your user will not be able to have no ADs on some other device with his(her) account.
Anyway, as far as I know, you need to create an update for your app first to write this flag anywhere. And only in some time make an update with ADs.
I will be glad to see comments if someone has another thoughts about this issue.
It seems there is no reliable method to detect whether someone paid for your app or downloaded it later when the price has been changed to free. For this reason I have decided to create two separate entries in the app store.
I have a logistical question: I'm trying to figure out the best way to manage APIs getting out of sync with an app. The best way to explain it is with an example:
Let's say MyApp Version 1.0 posts to a "submit_feedbacK" API that requires first_name, last_name, and email.
I then submit MyApp Version 2.0 to the App Store. That version is designed to post first_name, last_name, gender, and email to the API. All of these are required fields on the API.
The problem I have:
- If I update the API before the new App is live, it will break Version 1.0
- If I wait until Version 2.0 is live and remotely cripple 1.0, I have to time it correctly.
I'm going to guess that the 'right answer' is to maintain two different APIs. But if both APIs post to the same live database, that makes things a bit awkward.
Does anyone have suggestions on how to model this?
This question may share some aspects with iOS consuming API design.
The right answer is definately to provide two APIs (at least for a short period of time while users adjust). You do not have to maintain two versions at the same time, as once a newer version is released you can maintain that one, and simply provide the old one for legacy users. The only real changes you may have to make to it are things like security patches or major issues. Major changes (such as you deciding to restructure your entire database) may lead to the old version not working any more, however update to newer API versions should be designed to allow previous versions to still function.
The other question I linked you to gives an answer about how you can have different version of your app access the correct version of the API.
Another note is that it may be easier for you (depending on what framework you're using) to design your APIs as engines or subapps, and simply mount them at different end points. I know that this is easily do-able in Rails by using Engines, and in Node with Express using app.use() with sub-applications.
I would use a webservice/http endpoint for the communcation with your app. If you preferer to maintain the same URL in all versions of the app, then include a version number in all the requests/posts to the server so it knows how to handle them. This will also make the development and tests easier as new versions can test against the new api on the server.
So on any function you can call in the webservice/server add a single variable with version number. a BYTE ought to be enough as I think you could start over and "kill support for v1.0" once you hit 256 versions of the same function (if ever).
Once the server receives a request/post with data, you can just code a simple switch/case structure in the server API so support works for both versions.
If they do similar, but eg. swaps the parametres or something, you can handle all these serverside and the BAL/DAL (n-tier structure) can be maintained on the server part of the solution.
Btw. my answer is not just for iOS or smartdevices, but merly a client/server approach for a "work-in-progress" production setup where everything has to be online, while still being under development and maintanance.
Hope it makes sense, otherwise, comment on it and I shall try to explain it further.
just FYI, I use CodeIgniter. I'm using the REST Controller provided at https://github.com/philsturgeon/codeigniter-restserver. I ultimated ended up settling on having different end-points for every version. Basically I'd check out a new repository for each release and put it into a unique directory. (i.e. http://www.mysite.com/1.0/api/method, http://www.mysite.com/1.1/api/method, etc) Trying to maintain multiple versions of an API under one code-base just sounded too scary. At least when I released a version, I would know it is locked in stone and I don't have to worry about breaking it. (Note: I had to use a special .htaccess tweak to get multiple CodeIgniter instances running from the same domain. I can share it if you like)
I need my application to perform a background task every day, but it does not comply with Apple's specification for running in background.
It's none of these: audio, location, VOIP, news stand, external-accessory—, Bluetooth-central.
I'm planning to use local notifications, but the point is, that if the user doesn't open the app (and just leaves it in the background), I cannot plan new local notifications.
What should I do in this situation?
Make something else.
Seriously, if your app doesn’t at least technically fit one of those categories, you’re not going to be able to get it to do background work in a way that’ll get you approved for the App Store.
I’ve seen apps that added specific functionality in one of those categories, orthogonal to their actual purpose, to be allowed to run in the background; for instance, there’s a couple of weather apps out there that play a continuous audio file—one of the available sounds being a silent one—in order to be able to update the lock screen’s “now playing” image with live data. If you don’t mind your users being unable to listen to any other music, and have your app continuously active (which might cause additional battery drain), that could work. But if you’re trying to have your app invisibly do things in the background, without interfering with anything else, in a way that’ll get you into the App Store, you’re probably out of luck.
Four options:
Go for jailbreak
Try to get in the app store as one of those types of apps, making up a feature that uses one of those types.
(my favorite) Really rethink your system, is it really necessary to schedule background tasks? Can't the user wait a bit when he opens the app? That loading can be performed in background. And can't you offload some of the work to a webserver? Are you collecting data? You shoudln't without the user consent.
Let your user know that it's important for him (he's the one using it right?) that he opens the app once a day.
I think I covered all yohr options except the one already covered by Noah.
I have an app published on the AppStore.
I plan to change the minimal requirement of my app to iOS 5.x because there's an issue that only exists in iOS4 and it has been fixed in iOS5.
Is there any easy way to check what iOS version used by my existed users?
I want to know the statistics so I can decide whether to change the min requirement is OK or not
Thanks!
The only way to check this would be if you had already written code to send usage statistics such as [UIDevice currentDevice].systemVersion, [UIDevice currentDevice].localizedModel, [UIDevice currentDevice].systemName, etc to yourself (a webserver/db you control) in your current App.
If it is not currently coded in your live App, then there is no way to determine this information. It may be a good idea however to program this in to your next update for future situations such as this.
You need to add code for this, such as analytics or sending back, you also need to be careful with analytics as Apple discourages sending device information, but OS should be ok. The answer is no, not without recompiling, perhaps crash reports might give you an idea, but there's nothing else you can do.
Perhaps you would care to ask how to fix the issue instead?
you might use some service like TestFlight to track what version people are using.