The tests for where someone is a self-employed contractor vs an ("disquised") employee are Control (how much control does the person have over how they do task), Substitution (do they personally have to do the task) and Mutuality of obligation (how tied are they together).

I think the ruling makes it clear that Uber has a huge amount of control over the driver, how they do their job and how many fares they take (with penalties). Since Uber is interviewing the drivers and requiring that that driver show up for the fare, it's not clear that a driver can substitute someone else for their fare). You can argue that there is an obligation on the specific driver to complete fares for Uber and the driver depends on Uber to supply fares. The ruling makes sense that they are employees as UK law defines the term.

I don't think you can argue that an App Store developer is a disguised employee in the same way, Apple/Google have very little control over how I write my app, they don't care if I write it or I subcontract and I don't think Apple have any expectation that I will write the app.