Interactive
DEGREE 53 APPLE APPS DIRECTIVE
Te team at Degree 53 revealed that while bet365, Coral, Ladbrokes and Unibet scored the highest (54-55/100), all of the reviewed brands received low ratings overall. None of the operators stood out. Some of the common low-scoring areas were web-like functionality and a lack of a clear user journey. Tis is mainly due to all of these products being container apps (website wraparounds) that don’t fully support the native standards required by Apple.
Jade Daniels, design director at Degree 53 commented: “Apple has disrupted the online gambling industry by enforcing its design standards to real money gambling apps, giving very little time to operators to make any significant changes. It can take a large operator around a year to develop a native sportsbook app from scratch and requires a big investment. Many of our clients were in this situation, so we started looking into different solutions and studying Apple’s design guidelines to best meet their requirements. Tis report reflects our findings and recommendations on how to achieve this.”
“While not many can afford to build a native sportsbook, making it as app-like as possible will increase the chances of approval. Te common problem that operators have is that their apps are derived from their sportsbook websites, still using web features in navigation and UI or even opening content in a browser. Today, product owners need to adopt the mobile-first approach, which Apple is trying to enforce, as that’s how the majority of people engage with digital products. Online gambling is a huge industry and it’s time it caught up with retail, entertainment and travel to support mobile engagement and provide a great customer experience.”
G3 interviewed Degree 53's Jade Daniels about the changes that have now taken place and what measures operators and players can expect from Apple.
How did you score the apps and did you expect such low review scores from the big brand apps?
I don’t think our expectations were especially high. If you think about the best non- gambling related apps, such as Spotify and Uber, we weren't expecting the gambling industry to hit those kinds of benchmarks. However, the results were still below expectations.
We didn't score point-by-point, but instead used a summarised version of Apple's criteria. We condensed the guidelines to the fundamentals that every app should incorporate as standard. We reviewed against this measure with the goal of understanding if an app was likely or not to be rejected by Apple. Te biggest issue we encountered centred around navigation. Most of the apps failed to offer a proper structure that enabled clear navigation.
What's the answer - overhaul or complete refresh?
I think there are ways to incrementally improve and change things step-by-step with slow and steady releases rather than advocate that operators scrap their current solution and release a brand new app, since a completely new offer might not work for the customer base. Gambling apps have established a strong customer base that's now familiar with their functionality.
A major concern for operators is that if they release something radically different, they'll need to re-educate their customer base as to how to use their app. I also think that key improvements, depending on the brand, can be implemented quickly that will ensure that their website operates more like an app. However, this too needs to be implemented with a step-by-step approach to ensure the brand doesn't alienate players.
Was Apple right to impose this change?
I think it's a shame that it got to this point. Apple changed the ground rules and sparked panic. Tis shouldn’t have been a thing to worry about. On the positive side, operators need to consider their app development as a roadmap, as opposed to simply parking progress. I hope this will spark more innovative thinking.
Was the industry given enough warning?
A major concern for operators is that if they release something radically different, they'll need to re-educate their customer base as to how to use their app. I also think that key improvements, depending on the brand, can be implemented quickly that will ensure that their website operates more like an app. However, this too needs to be implemented with a step-by-step approach to ensure the brand doesn't alienate players.
P100 NEWSWIRE / INTERACTIVE / MARKET DATA
Te original notice period was incredibly short. It was very sudden, without regard for the fact that operators would need two-three months to make even the smallest of changes to their apps, so wholesale change was not feasible.
What type of review process are we going to see?
Operators will submit their updates as usual, with Apple expected to reject apps that do not meet with their guidelines, usually offering up a vague reason as to why their app has failed. Operators will need to re-submit apps based on the guidelines, otherwise Apple won't allow these apps in their Store. Apple
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110
