Other Thank you 

[akash.nu]

Finally! Thank you Apple for doing this! Tired of reading app update descriptions without any damn details!

https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/

 

[Raist3001]

This is a good step forward, but what is preventing developers from continuing to use the generic descriptions apple is still allowing?

 

[joeblow7777]

Yeah, the Facebook app drives me nuts.
It's always just something to the effect of, "we update the app regularly to make it better".

 

[akash.nu]

This is a good step forward, but what is preventing developers from continuing to use the generic descriptions apple is still allowing?

They won’t allow anymore for major updates.

Yeah, the Facebook app drives me nuts.
It's always just something to the effect of, "we update the app regularly to make it better".

Yeah me too! All Facebook services have the same descriptions.

 

[macintoshmac]

I might be wrong, but this changes nothing. It clearly says developers can still rely on generic messages for simple bug fixes, security improvements and such.

About major versions and changes, yes. But most of the times, all I get is simple and generic messages, and for this I do not think any change is coming just yet. Again, I could be wrong here.

 

[bennyf]

The one thing I'm hoping for is that apps can't remove functionality, add advertising or make other key changes without notice.

 

[-Gonzo-]

They should be more creative just like Argos does for its UK users

 

[Raist3001]

I might be wrong, but this changes nothing. It clearly says developers can still rely on generic messages for simple bug fixes, security improvements and such.

About major versions and changes, yes. But most of the times, all I get is simple and generic messages, and for this I do not think any change is coming just yet. Again, I could be wrong here.

This is what I was referring to. If a developer implements a change he does not wish to disclose, he could just use the generic description. In my opinion, this new policy should be applied to all changes. Be they minor or major. Tired of the generic "we've made performance improvements". What Performance improvements? I never see any

 

[now i see it]

I've had important apps break after updating. My motto now is:
If it aint broke don't (download) it.

 

[44267547]

This is How it *should* be. The user should have the right to see exactly what they are downloading specifically and what improvements were adjusted or altered. Too many times I see applications that are so vague in their descriptions, you don’t know specifically what’s being addressed and I think that will be a nice benefit moving forward for those who actually do care about what was changed in the description.

 

[acorntoy]

This is what I was referring to. If a developer implements a change he does not wish to disclose, he could just use the generic description. In my opinion, this new policy should be applied to all changes. Be they minor or major. Tired of the generic "we've made performance improvements". What Performance improvements? I never see any

Especially banking and stocks apps. If your going to update it and potentially break something I need, I’d like to know what was changed.

 

[Starfia]

Totally agreed about Facebook (though their apparent love for iOS apps has never shone too brightly).

 

[akash.nu]

This is what I was referring to. If a developer implements a change he does not wish to disclose, he could just use the generic description. In my opinion, this new policy should be applied to all changes. Be they minor or major. Tired of the generic "we've made performance improvements". What Performance improvements? I never see any

This is not as simple as whatever a developer thinks because Apple checks through these things for each app submission.

 

[akash.nu]

They should be more creative just like Argos does for its UK users

All of these guys.

 

[EM2013]

Meanwhile at Facebook....

 

[C DM]

They won’t allow anymore for major updates.



Yeah me too! All Facebook services have the same descriptions.

Yeah, the Facebook app drives me nuts.
It's always just something to the effect of, "we update the app regularly to make it better".

The one thing I'm hoping for is that apps can't remove functionality, add advertising or make other key changes without notice.

The tricky part there is that in quite a few cases for various apps/platforms (like Facebook, for example) various changes are sometimes tested on some part of the user base, other times they are rolled out only to some part, or rolled out over a period of time to everyone, which can make it hard to specify at least some of them since not everyone might see them or get them at the same time (which can then create confusion, among other things).
[doublepost=1529008022][/doublepost]

This is what I was referring to. If a developer implements a change he does not wish to disclose, he could just use the generic description. In my opinion, this new policy should be applied to all changes. Be they minor or major. Tired of the generic "we've made performance improvements". What Performance improvements? I never see any

This is How it *should* be. The user should have the right to see exactly what they are downloading specifically and what improvements were adjusted or altered. Too many times I see applications that are so vague in their descriptions, you don’t know specifically what’s being addressed and I think that will be a nice benefit moving forward for those who actually do care about what was changed in the description.

There can also be something to all of that too. Various fixes and improvements can be on the level of fixing some branch logic in some method that improve some timing or addressing some edge condition with some null reference or adjusting some algorithm that leads to faster execution in some scenarios--most of those would be somewhat hard for the typical user to understand or really care about if they see them actually spelled out in release notes, which is why for things of that nature in a lot of cases they get collected under the "bug fix" or "performance improvements" groupings essentially.

That said, things that have an specific noticeable impact on what the user actually sees, uses, or experiences should be called out in some fashion. So even if some edge case was fixed and it was some technical detail that was changed, if it actually correlates to some potential issue in the app that a user could run into then specifying that that particular issue should no longer exist would be an appropriate thing to mention.

 

[akash.nu]

The tricky part there is that in quite a few cases for various apps/platforms (like Facebook, for example) various changes are sometimes tested on some part of the user base, other times they are rolled out only to some part, or rolled out over a period of time to everyone, which can make it hard to specify at least some of them since not everyone might see them or get them at the same time (which can then create confusion, among other things).

Very true when it comes to A/B testing. I’d like to see how such things get handled by the companies given the new directives.

 

[C DM]

Very true when it comes to A/B testing. I’d like to see how such things get handled by the companies given the new directives.

I think at least some of that, if not quite a bit, is often on the server side of things, so that makes it trickier as far as who can see things and when (or might see something and then not see it later).

 

[Hieveryone]

Yesss! I am happy about this. Very happy. Apple is great.

 

[rjp1]

Plex usually has good notes.