I recently found a site that allowed me to bookmark the site and then use it just like an app. There was no url bar, it was indistinguishable from an app you would download on App Store. Is this a new upgrade or technology ?
This is not new technology, I don't remember how long it's been out, but I'm pretty sure at least since iOS 3. It's called a webclip. You can do quite a bit with a webclip but are still limited to functionality provided by JavaScript, so no accessing the flashlight and certain hardware features (although many are being included in the device JS object). Though it is certainly much easier to implement basic app functionality!
+1 to SnoApps and here's a bit more detail about this older detail.
You can specify a webpage to appear like a regular app icon on the iPhone "home" screen (where all the apps appear).
There's more information here under the "Configuring Web Application" section of this Apple Safari Web Content Guide.
Related
Is it possible to set up iOS universal links without having a separate website?
For example, if you want a universal link that 1) opens your iOS app if the user has it installed on their device and 2) opens up the App store listing on any device without the app installed.
It seems that having a separate domain you control is the standard way to do it. The Apple documentation (here), and other guides like here and here, seem to make it pretty clear that you need to add the JSON code in the Apple App Site Association file to a separate website that you control.
But is it possible to set up universal links without that website?
Detail:
For an iOS mobile app developer, setting up a separate website, dealing with website hosting, etc. is distinct from building an iOS app, and an involved additional task to go through just for universal links. Many developers might have a site already or have experience building websites in addition to mobile apps, but it's still a different thing than building mobile apps.
So I'm surprised if Apple assumes app developers have a website ready to go for the purpose. I note there are non-Apple alternatives that do similar things that clearly don't require a website.
Edit: I am familiar with alternative linking systems, such as Firebase and Branch. I want to see how you can do it with Apple Universal Links.
So let's say you want to stick with Apple universal links. Is there a way to do it without setting up a website, dealing with hosts (and potential costs for that), etc?
If it is necessary, what would be the cheapest and easiest way to set up the bare minimum site for a mobile developer that would work for universal links?
Before create a new account for iOS, android to upload web app to Google play and apple store, I want to ask:
Are they allows developer to upload an application that use InAppBrowser of Ionic to view website through that uploaded app ?
We need this to keep our work up to the latest date of updates for all users without need so many versions for both iOS and android.
So, are there any positive, negative or past experiences related to this topic ?
If you take a look at the review guidelines from Apple, https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ it states that
4.2 Minimum Functionality
Your app should include features, content, and UI that elevate it beyond a repackaged website. If your app is not particularly useful, unique, or “app-like,” it doesn’t belong on the App Store.
I would make the case to package your app as an Ionic app, and use either Ionic Deploy, or Code Push to update the content of your app on the fly. Note: This type of deployment cannot update Cordova dependencies, but it does let you keep your html, css and js files up to date.
In general yes, they allow this, but they might get confused (specially Apple) and ask you to be careful about the links that you open inside your app.
For example, Apple has certain guidelines about apps that buy/sell cryptocurrency. If you put a link to a buy/sell cryptocurrency website and open it inside the inAppBrowser, the app reviewer might "think" your app is for buying/selling cryptocurrencty and you might get rejected as a result.
However, if you put links to normal website, for example CNN, they should be ok with it, as there are many apps that already do this.
I am developing an iOS app using Xamarin.iOS that should only be triggered by tapping on a URL. Because of this, I would like to prevent the app icon from being placed on the home screen. The reason is, the app will not function properly if they open it from the home screen (it needs some of the data in the URL to load properly). I would prefer to prevent the app from being on the home screen instead of checking whether a link was tapped or not. I know that is possible to do this in Android using the manifest, is this also possible in iOS?
This is not possible whatsoever; the developer has no control as to the placement and visibility of the application, and as such will always be visible on the springboard/home screen.
The best option you have is to show information to the user that explains why opening it from the home screen will not work, if they launch it that way. Most likely though, this will be rejected from the App Store as having no useful purpose. The guidelines are found here (App Store Guidelines), and I think this is what may cause a rejection (emphasis mine):
If your app is not particularly useful, unique, or “app-like,” it doesn’t belong on the App Store.
I'm not finding the documentation I was looking for, but, as far as I know, this is not possible in iOS.
You could maybe have a default url that the app launches with and then use deep linking to launch the app with a custom urls. There are lots of great tutorials on deep linking (launching your app through a url) like
This one or maybe this one
I have a responsive blogging website which works pretty well across all iOS and Android browsers. Now I want to create a native App for my website.
I don't have the resources to design my App from scratch and create mobile-APIs to be consumed by my App. So I am thinking about opening my website in a web-view. This would not be it though, I will be implementing the features like 'take a blog offline for reading later', notifications etc.
So, what are the chances that it would not get rejected by the App-Store®?
From Apple Guidelines:
Apps that are not very useful, unique, are simply web sites bundled as Apps, or do not provide any lasting entertainment value may be rejected.
Despite the fact, your app will provide "offline content" (which can be accessed by default Safari browser) I think you app will be rejected.
Safari will save the link and the webpage so you can read it, even when you're offline.
I read that PhoneGap is approved by Apple as a framework for building native apps, but I'm not clear on how this does not constitute a "website wrapped as an app," something that Apple specifically doesn't like, as per their App Store guidelines. I'm assuming it is because the JS is contained in the application, rather than running on a remote server?
Any clarification on this issue would be most appreciated.
but I'm not clear on how this does not constitute a "website wrapped
as an app," something that Apple specifically doesn't like, as per
their App Store guidelines.
By this Apple means Apps that simply show a UIWebView that loads a remote website, so it basically just behaves like Mobile Safari, just without the controls. Also they wan't Apps to show at least a UI when the device is not connected to the internet, like in the Facebook App where you can still read already downloaded status updates, view photos etc. That's what a "I just wrap a remote website inside a UIWebView"-App can't do.
PhoneGap Apps have all the resources they need (HTML, CSS, JavaScript) on the device residing in the App's bundle, so using such an App would not depend on network availability and could at least show a UI that tells you to connect to the Internet in order to use the App, or they could display already loaded content (like Facebook, Twitter and so on).
I think that the signature of the binary tells Apple what framework built the application, and since all the supporting files (js included) are included in the project and therefore in the binary, it is a standalone application. That being said, I still think that doing things Natively is the best way to go. I am extremely comfortable with javascript and started out thinking Phonegap was the way to go for me. I did a couple of projects with it and then decided to take the plunge and learn Objective-C. That worked out so much better for me. No dependency on a third party framework and I wish that I had started that way.
Sometimes the easy way out just hurts ya in the end IMO.