Apple to deny apps using UDID data, lacking iPhone 5 display support starting May 1

Posted:
in iPhone edited January 2014
Apple on Thursday announced to developers that apps using UDIDs will no longer be accepted by the App Store effective May 1, adding that titles lacking support for the iPhone 5's 4-inch display will also be rejected.

UDID


The move comes after over a year of warnings from Apple regarding third-party use of Unique Device Identifiers, which are leveraged to track users for advertising purposes.

Apple's notice to developers:
Starting May 1, the App Store will no longer accept new apps or app updates that access UDIDs. Please update your apps and servers to associate users with the Vendor or Advertising identifiers introduced in iOS 6

Starting May 1, new apps and app updates submitted to the App Store must be built for iOS devices with Retina display and iPhone apps must also support the 4-inch display on iPhone 5
Because every cellular-connected mobile device has a UDID, the identifier can be used as an incredibly useful tool for advertisers looking to get the most granular data regarding ad impressions. Mounting concern over privacy issues, including location tracking on iOS 4, ultimately prompted Apple to begin deprecating use of the identifiers.

In March of 2012, Apple started to tighten access to UDIDs, reportedly initiating App Store rejections for apps using the per-device information. The move came after a 2011 warning that UDID access would be cut off with the release of iOS 5.

As for iPhone 5 screen support, Apple is ensuring a consistent experience for all iOS device users.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 28
    daharderdaharder Posts: 1,580member


    Good... Developers have had quite enough time to facilitate the latest aspect ratio.

  • Reply 2 of 28
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member
    I hate it when developers just abandon apps for reasons like this though.

    I have an Oxford English dictionary app that I paid 30.00 for that they just never updated to the iPhone 5 screen size. They just stopped selling it in the store (so you can't even leave a nasty review), and now sell four or five different versions of it, (each of which is 20-50 bucks). And this is a big time developer too.

    I bet there are more developers that will just go "f*ck it" and abandon the app than there are those that will update it to the new stuff.
  • Reply 3 of 28
    ericblrericblr Posts: 172member


    If the app developers want a platform that they dont ever have to update to accomodate larger screens, they need to stick with android.


     


    Look at the state of tablet apps for android, they're practically non-existant.

  • Reply 4 of 28
    nasseraenasserae Posts: 3,157member


    Good. Supporting iPhone 5 display isn't that damn hard. I don't understand why many apps still not updated to that aspect ratio even though the developer is actively updating for bug fixes.

  • Reply 5 of 28
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    ericblr wrote: »
    If the app developers want a platform that they dont ever have to update to accomodate larger screens, they need to stick with android.

    Look at the state of tablet apps for android, they're practically non-existant.

    A bespoke italian suit is to Apple as sweatpants and flip flops are to ___________.
  • Reply 6 of 28
    pt123pt123 Posts: 696member


    I think supporting the retina display mean bigger app, less (storage) space available for other stuff.

  • Reply 7 of 28
    noelosnoelos Posts: 104member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post



    I hate it when developers just abandon apps for reasons like this though.



    I have an Oxford English dictionary app that I paid 30.00 for that they just never updated to the iPhone 5 screen size. They just stopped selling it in the store (so you can't even leave a nasty review), and now sell four or five different versions of it, (each of which is 20-50 bucks). And this is a big time developer too.



    I bet there are more developers that will just go "f*ck it" and abandon the app than there are those that will update it to the new stuff.


    Hey, I have that app too and was very annoyed with their useless communication on the issue. The company changed name from "Enfour" to "English Channel". You can download the new version of the equivalent App (which is 'free' but with in-app purchase). If you have the old "Enfour" version of the app installed, you can activate the new version with nothing more to pay. This is a massive pain in the ass and I have no idea why they did it, but it does work and the new version does have iPhone 5 support.

  • Reply 8 of 28
    nasseraenasserae Posts: 3,157member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by noelos View Post


    Hey, I have that app too and was very annoyed with their useless communication on the issue. The company changed name from "Enfour" to "English Channel". You can download the new version of the equivalent App (which is 'free' but with in-app purchase). If you have the old "Enfour" version of the app installed, you can activate the new version with nothing more to pay. This is a massive pain in the ass and I have no idea why they did it, but it does work and the new version does have iPhone 5 support.



     


    Some developers are pulling their apps from sale just to release a newer version. This is the only way for them to charge people for updates. It sucks and I hope Apple close this loophole.

  • Reply 9 of 28

    This is why I love Apple!


    This could only be good for users.

  • Reply 10 of 28
    lightknightlightknight Posts: 2,312member


    I love how some people here go "developers have had enough time" and "I hate hen devs abandon apps". Go f*** yourselves, guys. Developers aren't working for free, and just as you guys go "Apple has no reason integrating Siri in iPhone 4", well neither have developers adding features in an app you already bought. Tough life suckers.

  • Reply 11 of 28
    lightknightlightknight Posts: 2,312member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post


     


    Some developers are pulling their apps from sale just to release a newer version. This is the only way for them to charge people for updates. It sucks and I hope Apple close this loophole.





    It's complicated, obviously. If Apple starts refusing updates to their apps that do not have (insert feature not supported, such as iPhone 5 screen size), they're forcing you to add workhours to your  bugfixing time, or stop updating your apps, or release them under a new name, "My App 2" or whatever... but Apple's position is also quite logical and good for users in the long run.


    The only ridiculous position is the one from users who feel somehow like Gazoobee earlier "entitled" to a free iPhone 5 version of something because he says he paid for an iPhone 4 version, which currently runs as "legacy", if you think about it. Strangely, they're also known Android trolls... I wooonder what's the relationship here.

  • Reply 12 of 28


    My first reaction to requiring iPhone 5 screen support was elation. Then I really thought about it. I've already seen one app update that claims iPhone 5 screen size support, but all they did was make the "Home" screen on the app 4-inches. All the rest are on the old format. Then I thought about all the big games released 2 or 3 years ago that were lucky to see bug fix updates once a year, all from major dev houses. I doubt they'll release further updates now, unless it's "limited" support like on the one app I described.


     


    So I'm neutral on the subject now. It's neither a good nor bad thing. New, newer, or very well supported apps were always going to get iPhone 5 support eventually without the push from Apple. Older or less supported apps will now get forced out of the store and, consequently, users will lose what little support they were receiving before.

  • Reply 13 of 28
    ipenipen Posts: 410member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post


     


    Some developers are pulling their apps from sale just to release a newer version. This is the only way for them to charge people for updates. It sucks and I hope Apple close this loophole.



    Why Apple wants to close this loophole?  Apple gets a share of it too.

  • Reply 14 of 28
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

    This is the only way for them to charge people for updates.


     


    That's wrong, though.

  • Reply 15 of 28
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,215member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pt123 View Post


    I think supporting the retina display mean bigger app, less (storage) space available for other stuff.



     


    This is my issue with the universal apps. I don't want some big bloated app that eats up a ton of storage space because it has graphics for every possible variation. 


     


    I think it should be how they do video, you pay once and there's separate iPhone, iPad, etc versions. Grab the one you want.


     


    or like how Temple Run Oz did it. I got the app and when I first fired it up it detected I had it on a retina iPad and asked if I'd like to get the HD assets. 

  • Reply 16 of 28
    nasseraenasserae Posts: 3,157member
    ipen wrote: »
    Why Apple wants to close this loophole?  Apple gets a share of it too.

    It is two edge sword. Apple can create a method for developers to charge for major updates without pulling the app and releasing new one. But that can be abused as well.
    That's wrong, though.

    Maybe. But this is how Apple do it. When they released Mountain Lion they pulled Lion from sale at the same time. However, you will still be able to download and update older apps you bought from Apple or third party. We think it is wrong because for a while since the App Store opened we were used to getting new features and updates for free.
  • Reply 17 of 28
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

    When they released Mountain Lion they pulled Lion from sale at the same time.


     


    Hmm… I'm not sure that's quite the same. I'm saying that apps can have paid updates rather than simply 'sequelizing' like some of these seem to be. I've never seen any myself, and I really don't know why more don't, but it's possible.

  • Reply 18 of 28
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,438member
    The 'Add to Home Screen' option in Safari still generates a 960*640 window (just like the Gallery 1.2.ipa), so I guess Apple needs to do some work before May 1st themselves as well.
  • Reply 19 of 28
    nasseraenasserae Posts: 3,157member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Hmm… I'm not sure that's quite the same. I'm saying that apps can have paid updates rather than simply 'sequelizing' like some of these seem to be. I've never seen any myself, and I really don't know why more don't, but it's possible.



     


    The only way for developers to charge for iOS (and likely Mac) apps updates is to release new app. Removing existing app is not required but it is better to remove it to avoid confusion. You need a new app with new App ID or existing customers will just download the update for free.

  • Reply 20 of 28
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

    The only way for developers to charge for iOS (and likely Mac) apps updates is to release new app. Removing existing app is not required but it is better to remove it to avoid confusion. You need a new app with new App ID or existing customers will just download the update for free.


     


    Why? On the update screen and the stupid modal popup that appears every single time, it explicitly distinguishes "free updates". Every button has a "Free" label on it. All of this is completely unnecessary if paid updates were impossible, and yet it has been there for years

Sign In or Register to comment.