Old versions of my app got bad 1 star reviews. Customers love the new versions but the old bad ratings lower the average and hurt sales.
As far as I know, the only way to get rid of those outdated ratings would be to replace the app completely and alienating current customers.
Has anybody a better idea or done a complete replacement and want to share the experience ?
Now as per the new rules apple Allows you to control the old reviews. So as per new rules when you are submitted new version they allows if we wants to continue with the old reviews or wants to clean it up. So by this way you should get rid from the old reviews.
Important Note :
Even if we do not retain the old reviews while submitting the new version it will still keep showing the average ratings which you can't control or remove
Hope this helps to everyone.
Related
I need to do SEO and need to show improvements and a summery of new trends for a site.It is a replacement for an old site. How i can prove that i have done a good job on SEO,using google analytic and Facebook Conversion Tracking.Is there a way to get current site statistics? Then i can show, i have brought him more viewers to his new site.
If the previous site doesn't already include google analytics tracking codes then no, it doesn't keep track of any statistics. You can implement them though to the old website keep it up for a month or so, gather the data required and when you launch the new one, then compare them.
If you don't know how to add tracking codes, take a look here.
We have an existing game app that is now defunct and is just sitting there doing nothing. We are considering if the new game app that we are releasing can be released as an update to the old one. The old one has nothing in relation to this new one at all.
I am personally against doing this, but do any of you see any potential problems that could be caused by releasing the new game app as an update for the old one?
Thank you!!
I'm going to leave the moral or business take (and the app store guidelines issues) on the sideline here, and just talk technically.
There really isn't much glue that handles app updates. All you need to do is use the same bundle identifier com.mydomain.myapp for the new one, and use a higher version number than the last release, and upload to the same "app" on the portal, and it should just work. The new version, that is totally different, should just replace the old one.
One case it may not work is if you have a lot of documents or local databases, or settings stored ont he phone, the new app will have to take into account some of that data if it uses the same keys or filenames. But if it's totally different app, that's probably not a big deal.
iPhone app store updates have very little magic. One packaged binary simply replaces the old one. The update could be a minor bug fix, or a complete codebase rewrite that performs a similar function, or a whole new app. There is no technical restriction.
Even app meta data like name, keywords, description, icons, can all be changed along with an update. Whether completely changing one app into another is cool with Apple though, I can't claim to guess.
I am developing an app that has an sqlite file embedded inside.
That sqlite file is being copied to the /documents folder of the app, and contains the data of a specific version of a book (it's an advanced search app for a specific book).
I've also implemented an subscription service (via inapp payments) for that app, for updating the content. for Registered users only. Basically the app update will occur once a large number of update entries is fulfilled or a bug fix, so that the newer user would have to download a lesser number of updates.
The problem is that the old users have paid for a specific book. New users could pay for the extra book, at the same price (consider it an updated version). Is there any way to "forbid" the old users from having access to that book resources since they have not paid a subscription or the app at a latter time?
There are different types of inapp purchases: non-replenishable, replenishable, subscriptions, and auto-renewing subscriptions.
The user will always get what's embedded, though, if you don't track user status yourself (which probably is not worth it) - and then you have to deal with the problem of giving him that exact version.
The main question remains though: Do you really want to penalize your early buyers? Their money came to you first (so it is more worth than the current buy), and now they are left behind with less.
If there is really new content frequently, you might want to go the subscription route. Personally, losing my purchased data like a book just because you bring an update would leave you with one frustrated customer less.
A different route is to limit the support for that app to a specific date and then get your users to buy a new (different) App, maybe with making the first app cheaper during its final stages, and then removing it altogether.
You should aim to make your users buy as soon as possible. But with your business model, it is actually better to buy as late as possible, and often late equals never in practice.
I'm scratching my head over this.
I have a moderately successful app which has a free "LITE" version in addition to the full one. This is a utility app, not a game with levels, and I'm having trouble figuring out what Apple will accept for the lite version. The reason this is now an issue is that I've brought both code bases together with different targets and my new improved lite version will be iPad compatible as well.
There are two fundamental differences in the versions. In the lite version, the data displayed is only displayed for the current day, whereas the full version allows users to choose any date. Additionally, one of the data screens shows 3 data points in detail, whereas the full version shows much more. The lite version is perfectly functional in its own right and has no greyed out features.
What I would like to do is use the spare space on the lite version data screen to explain that more data is available in the full version and offer a button to upgrade, however I can't figure out if Apple will classify this as "upselling" (well how else am I going to mention the full version?) and from reading the new app store review guidelines, I was disappointed to note that absolutely no further clarity seems forthcoming from Cupertino in this regard. All the examples I find from Apple are games with additional levels and this simply doesn't match a "utility" application.
Is there any recent advice on what is and what is not allowed? I'm aware of not having greyed out functionality and nagging the user - but does having an upgrade button on one of the tabs (in the case of the iPad in a popover) count as nagging? Am I allowed to mention the additional features in the premium version or does that count as upselling? If not, what can I actually say?
Clues welcomed!
Frankly speaking, there is no way to be 100% sure without submitting the app. There might be someone who have already tried this and get rejected. It's not very easy to be sure. But as a user personally I won't be happy to see the upgrade button in every page. Rather I would like to get the summery of full version in a different page. This might not be a better design to have an upgrade button in every page, though this is my personal opinion. Apple gives importance to be consistent with the convention, and the convention is to have different upgrade page, I think.
You can download a number of lite apps and check whether any one has done this kind of thing. The policy should be same for both game and utility. If after checking many you don't find a single one, then you should reconsider this. But yes, you can't be 100% sure.
The rules appear to be inconsistently applied.
I think it boils down to the perceived difference between "Ha! You don't get $feature unless you pay us!" and "By the way, we also offer $more_expensive_app with more features." The two are effectively the same thing, but they leave a different impression. Yes, it's a big grey area — I've seen apps across the spectrum (I don't recall any persistent nagging/mentions, but certainly "buy $full_app to get more levels").
"Other apps by $company" might be a good way to go, perhaps in an "about" tab or similar.
Reviewers are also far from consistent. Before Apple did any "private API" checks (they didn't seem to until mid-2009; apparently not even the frameworks you linked to which is dead easy), private API usage was determined by whether your app did anything in $list_of_suspicious_behaviour, which seemed to be applied inconsistently by different reviewers.
I've also used "$full_app" because that's the impression I got; I think part of the guidelines is that you're not supposed to give the impression that your app is not "full". I also hate crippleware (artificially limiting a feature, e.g. a navigation app limited to 8 waypoints and telling you to buy the full version if you want more, as opposed to simply not including a feature), but Apple doesn't seem to mind.
Apple allows ads in apps if they are presented in a reasonable manner.
Developers can choose which ad network to run, even from competitors such as admob.
There's nothing to say you can't be your own ad network.
Just make sure your ad for your products (which occasionally just so happens to be an ad for the full version of the same app) follows the same presentation rules as the ads for admob, iAd, etc. follow. Your own ad network may or may not be the campaign you choose to run during the review period.
This morning we are not able to see the newly added bundle ids in the drop when we attempt to add a new app!
Is there a limit on the number of bundle id's one developer account can create? Anyone else facing this situation?
Thanks
Yup, me too. Although others I created before showed up. Let's wait.
I'd assume the following:
Apple does not synchronize their databases in real time but every x hours or days.
Someone has to review the App IDs manually (unlikely).
They have a real database problem over there. But with the large number of Developers, I doubt they'd leave such a heavy bug in there.
As a sidenote: SO is probably the wrong place for such questions. The Apple Discussion Forums are much better suited for that.