Phil Schiller Defends App Store Approval Process [Archive]

MacRumors

Nov 23, 2009, 04:47 AM

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/11/23/phil-schiller-defends-app-store-approval-process/)

Despite the massive success of the App Store, the actual app approval process has been a constant source of criticism for Apple. A couple of well known developers have recently quit (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/11/12/facebook-iphone-application-developer-quits-over-apples-review-process/) from developing iPhone apps altogether due to the process. Businessweek recently interviewed (http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2009/tc20091120_354597.htm) Apple's senior vice-president of worldwide product marketing Phil Schiller who predictably defends the process:"We've built a store for the most part that people can trust," he says. "You and your family and friends can download applications from the store, and for the most part they do what you'd expect, and they get onto your phone, and you get billed appropriately, and it all just works."
Schiller goes on break down the major types of rejections. He explains that 90% of rejections are due to technical errors or bugs while 10% of rejections are due to inappropriate or illegal content. Meanwhile <1% of app rejections fall into a legal gray area that require additional research before they can make a decision. One example of such an application was one that teaches you how to cheat at gambling in casinos (in this case, it was rejected).

The source of frustration for developers have frequently come from inconsistent review standards and vague communications from Apple. Apple has been making some efforts to improve the transparency of the approval process, but obviously not enough yet to fully appease many developers.

Article Link: Phil Schiller Defends App Store Approval Process (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/11/23/phil-schiller-defends-app-store-approval-process/)

r.j.s

Nov 23, 2009, 04:49 AM

There are problems with the App Store, but the benefits have greatly outweighed the problems IMO.

nickhutson

Nov 23, 2009, 04:54 AM

I just wish they'd offer a refund service. That's the only flaw I can come up with - and maybe video previews in the store to see footage.

guytoronto

Nov 23, 2009, 05:08 AM

I just wish they'd offer a refund service.

Nah. It's a buyer beware market. For something under $5, is it really worth it to set up that type of infrastructure? It's an administrative nightmare.

If the app has no reviews, their support website is non-existent, and they don't offer a free "trial" version, you are taking you chances. It's like buying a no-name DVD player from Ed's House Of Bargain Electronics.

intel

Nov 23, 2009, 05:13 AM

Cheat at gambling you say?

psonice

Nov 23, 2009, 05:24 AM

As a developer, I think it's good but there's definitely still some issues.

I have 6 apps live, and have done quite a few updates over the last year, and it's all gone very smoothly until my last app. Previously, everything was approved first time, within a week.

The issue with my last app was my fault (I used a private API by mistake, fair enough..) but I take some issue with the way apple dealt with it.

What should have happened: they test the app, reject it, and give me a list of faults to correct. I resubmit, it gets accepted.

What did happen: they tested it, and gave me 1 issue to correct. I fixed it, resubmitted, and they rejected it with 2 more issues (both were present in the first version). I corrected, resubmitted, now I'm praying it goes through first time! It's taken around 6 weeks already.

Another (major) issue is updates. Previously, if you updated your app if would appear in the 'latest released' list. This means if you update your app regularly you're rewarded with a short spike in sales. This spike for me usually pays for the time I take to improve my products.

Now, updates no longer appear in the list. No extra income from updating your apps. Because of this, it's no longer worth me adding new features to some of my apps, and my customers will suffer (one emailed me just 2 days ago requesting a new feature, I was going to add it - now, I won't because it's worth $0 and it'll take up my time!)

CrackedButter

Nov 23, 2009, 05:27 AM

What did happen: they tested it, and gave me 1 issue to correct. I fixed it, resubmitted, and they rejected it with 2 more issues (both were present in the first version). I corrected, resubmitted, now I'm praying it goes through first time! It's taken around 6 weeks already.

That is the bit I cringe over, I feel bad for you developers when this happens.

dmjossel

Nov 23, 2009, 05:31 AM

Now, updates no longer appear in the list. No extra income from updating your apps. Because of this, it's no longer worth me adding new features to some of my apps, and my customers will suffer (one emailed me just 2 days ago requesting a new feature, I was going to add it - now, I won't because it's worth $0 and it'll take up my time!)

That was changed at the request of developers who complained that some were spamming the release list with minor updates just to keep an app on the "latest releases" list.

I think you need to reexamine your cost-benefit analysis. Under the current system, yes, a new feature will not generate new sales at the same rate because you don't get kicked to the top of the release chart again. On the other hand, adding features and fixing bugs helps maintain a positive relationship with your existing clients, who presumably count first in your potential audience for future unrelated releases.

Many of the comments associated with low user ratings in the store relate to non-responsive developers who don't reply to support requests and don't update their apps.

So it cuts both ways.

DanielSw

Nov 23, 2009, 05:32 AM

At a guess, I can see where there might be gaps between what a developer has put there in an app submitted for approval, and what Apple considers to be the minimum requirements for that app, and that this can only be assessed once the app is submitted, and once their people review it. This can get complicated, and evaluating the various checkpoints can be both subjective and controversial.

A point which seems to go easily missing--especially to those developers who are anxious to start making money--is that, with the App Store, Apple has assumed the role of "publisher." As such, it has a responsibility to review and evaluate exactly what it publishes. It has to establish standards for what is acceptable--standards which may seem too arbitrary, especially to a developer who has worked long and hard on his "book." Beyond the various judgement calls considering moral or ethical standards, there are the technical considerations in order to maintain the smooth functioning of the device in it various modes of phone, media player, etc. Without these standard the iPhone would devolve into the "openness" of its gadget competition such as the Droid, Pre, and other gizmos.

We hear complaints from a few, which the press tries to inflate by reporting again and again on the same incidents, in order to produce what they think is the essential "controversy." But if the system were indeed seriously flawed, I would think that, for one thing, there wouldn't be the impressive 100+K number of apps, and for another, that there would be a LOT more press from many more disgruntled developers.

hob

Nov 23, 2009, 05:32 AM

"appease developers"?! good lord. I'm surprised anyone would spend time or money developing an app that could be rejected out of hand...

Cakester

Nov 23, 2009, 05:38 AM

95% of these people that have the iPhone don't give two nickels about the approval process. And I think that for those developers who get porked in the deal, while they might not enjoy being rejected......from a business aspect, I'm sure they "get it".

In order to be on top Apple knew they'd have to play to the least common denominator, which is the youngins. Make it safe, if it's safe it has a larger profitability chance.

What I find ironic is all these free loving hippie folks that are government loving regulators of public policy, want these companies to become less regulated laissez-faire type of companies.

TheDude01

Nov 23, 2009, 05:39 AM

A couple of well known developers have recently quit from developing iPhone apps altogether due to the process.

Meaning who else except a guy from Facebook?

wonza

Nov 23, 2009, 05:39 AM

I had to wait 6 weeks for them to reject my lite version for having 'inappropriate' keyword: 'wifi'. It was because the lite version never had wifi, but the full version did. I dont mind the reject, but to have to wait 6 weeks make a 2 second change and then resubmit, its not acceptable. :(

ipoppy

Nov 23, 2009, 05:44 AM

Kelmon

Nov 23, 2009, 05:53 AM

I tend to wonder how difficult it can be to clearly state the rules and then to actually follow them, plus how much investigative work is actually done? There really should be no rejections based on anything other than technical issues. If the rules have been clearly stated then everyone can follow them and none of the issues that have been raised over the past 18-months would have happened. There is no denying that some of the rejections have been completely ridiculous and there was nothing in the rules to indicate that what the developer was doing was "wrong".

We'll see how things work out in the long term but I'd certainly be wary of developing for a platform where my work could be rejected because of an unwritten rule or because the reviewer has made their own interpretation of the rules.

Kelmon

Nov 23, 2009, 06:00 AM

I dont know what they are mooning about really. App store is huge and secured and that what, from perspective of buyer, its important. Plus if app is popular developer can make loads of money instantly and that alone is worth any issues for approval process.

I think you meant "moaning"; "Mooning" means something rather different. But I can quite understand why developers are complaining. Sure, the App Store is popular but does that really excuse the issues? Why are there issues in the first place? Do you really think it is acceptable to have issues still after 18-months of this? I find it baffling that applications that have already been accepted can have updates rejected despite the offending parts having already been approved in earlier releases. I find it even more baffling that some people seem to think that this is OK and that developers shouldn't complain...

Kelmon

Nov 23, 2009, 06:01 AM

Meaning who else except a guy from Facebook?

There was Rogue Amoeba last week and that's a real loss given the great work they do on the Mac.

BornAgainMac

Nov 23, 2009, 06:27 AM

Eventually the Q/A procedures will give back better feedback. They have to deal with so much volume. From my experience at work, Q/A and developers don't get along anyways. It is interesting to hear about some of the apps that are rejected like the gambling app.

edesignuk

Nov 23, 2009, 06:30 AM

I just wish they'd offer a refund service. That's the only flaw I can come up with - and maybe video previews in the store to see footage.

Nah. It's a buyer beware market. For something under $5, is it really worth it to set up that type of infrastructure? It's an administrative nightmare.

If the app has no reviews, their support website is non-existent, and they don't offer a free "trial" version, you are taking you chances. It's like buying a no-name DVD player from Ed's House Of Bargain Electronics.On the Android Market you can get a full and automated refund for a purchased app any time within the first 24hrs of having bought it. It's not complicated.

psonice

Nov 23, 2009, 06:32 AM

That was changed at the request of developers who complained that some were spamming the release list with minor updates just to keep an app on the "latest releases" list.

I think you need to reexamine your cost-benefit analysis. Under the current system, yes, a new feature will not generate new sales at the same rate because you don't get kicked to the top of the release chart again. On the other hand, adding features and fixing bugs helps maintain a positive relationship with your existing clients, who presumably count first in your potential audience for future unrelated releases.

Many of the comments associated with low user ratings in the store relate to non-responsive developers who don't reply to support requests and don't update their apps.

So it cuts both ways.

Yeah, I know where you're coming from, but seriously this will affect the quality of my work in future. I know a guy who also writes iphone apps, but puts out some real crap - he gets bad ratings, yes, but doesn't really care because he's still making good money. I do actually know a guy like this, he's a friend of a friend. I'll show you how our methods compare, up to now:

Me: I spend the time writing a decent app. It gets good initial sales, then if I'm lucky it gets into the charts and continues to sell at an OK level. If not, it sinks from the charts and my income disappears.

Updates - if it's out of the chart, an update would give me another income boost, paying for the time. If it's in the chart, the income boost is minor, but it helps me to stay ahead of the competition (or catch up if they go past me..)

Other guy: He spends as little time as possible, makes something that sounds good or useful, and gets a decent spike of initial sales. Then people realise it's rubbish and get angry, but he's already well into the next one.

Updates: A quick spelling fix or minor change took a few minutes and sold more apps.

After the recent change, the other guy will just continue writing crap, and getting paid for it. He won't bother with updates, but he'll probably make 2x more apps instead.

For me, if I update now it'll keep my existing customers happy (no income here), which will improve my rating. That will help keep my app in the charts a little longer, but if my app is decent in the first place it'll make very little difference. The extra income will be small. It won't help me to stay ahead of competitors or catch up any more too, because you need an additional sales boost to do that, and that no longer happens. If my app is out of the charts, it'll make zero difference.

Just to emphasise that, I just updated one of my apps that was out of the charts. Normally, that would earn me a reasonable amount of money and put me back in the chart for a while. This time, i had zero additional sales. Not one. Sales were actually down on last week. Will I update that again? No.

See what I mean? I won't bother updating in future, as much as it pains me to do it (I do actually care about my customers - that last update had 2 new features requested by cusomters!) there's no incentive. If I spend the time on a new app I'll make some actual money instead.

Ranma13

Nov 23, 2009, 06:35 AM

iJed

Nov 23, 2009, 06:37 AM

I submitted my first app back in September and then completely stopped development on it because I wasn't going to waste my time if it wouldn't get approved. After two rejections for some quite ridiculous reasons it was suddenly approved about six weeks later.

I've since had to catch up with the major bugs that were in the 1.0 release but due to being so uncertain of the App Store approval process the users had to wait until last Friday to get it fixed. Fortunately the update only took one week to approve.

So the App Store approval process is not just hurting us developers, it's also hurting the end user.

Winni

Nov 23, 2009, 06:45 AM

Paul Graham said it all:

http://www.paulgraham.com/apple.html

"The way Apple runs the App Store has harmed their reputation with programmers more than anything else they've ever done."

But my favorite part is this:

"In the past when I bought things from Apple it was an unalloyed pleasure. Oh boy! They make such great stuff. This time it felt like a Faustian bargain. They make such great stuff, but they're such *******s. Do I really want to support this company?"

nsayer

Nov 23, 2009, 06:47 AM

One example of such an application was one that teaches you how to cheat at gambling in casinos

I don't know anything about the app in question (since, of course, it was rejected), but I can only imagine that such an app would have done one thing: teach people to count cards playing Blackjack.

Which is not cheating!

In and of itself, it's perfectly acceptable to track the deck. What is not acceptable is communicating that count to someone else or having mechanical/electronic assistance in keeping count or making decisions.

And, in any event, the casinos have now worked around that bug by using continuous shufflers (meaning that there's no count to keep because the cards you were dealt last hand might come back again next hand).

Teaching someone how to count cards is not illegal, and since counting isn't illegal in and of itself, a teaching aid is neither illegal nor tortuous.

I suspect the real reason the app was rejected was that it was unsavory. Which is a shame, because I doubt anyone would have given it any notice had it been approved. Instead, it's now a bullet point in the store's approval controversy.

t22design

Nov 23, 2009, 06:54 AM

There was Rogue Amoeba last week and that's a real loss given the great work they do on the Mac.

Yeah, the Rogue Amoeba rejection was stupid.

Rogue Amoeba develop some great software for OS X, that improves the way many users use their computers. Not having them develop for iPhone is a shame.

dernhelm

Nov 23, 2009, 07:00 AM

While I am aware of a couple of rejections that I feel were odd or questionable, I also feel that VAST MAJORITY of people are not treated unfairly by the process.

Were are talking about a very vocal minority of developers here. But then again, this is an internet forum, so pretty much that's all we EVER talk about.

gnasher729

Nov 23, 2009, 07:01 AM

huntercr

Nov 23, 2009, 07:21 AM

I refuse to develop for the iPhone because I don't want to deal with arbitrary rejection reasons, waiting weeks to get patches in, dealing with name squatters, being restricted from using other SDKs, and being silenced from iPhone development discussions except for the most basic of things. Frankly, I'm surprised the app store is as popular as it is, considering all the draconian policies. And people think Microsoft is bad?

What the app store is doing here is setting a dangerous precedent, where software developers are at the mercy of a corporation.

Cry me a river.

Where else in the world can you get a free SDK, distributor, advertising, antipiracy control ( though insufficient IMHO ), and sales statistics for 30%?

There is no silencing about iPhone development, BTW.. where the heck are you getting that? Are you referring to the old NDA from 3 years ago?

A minor point:: Apple may be strict, but remember.. it's their ass on the line too. If they let you publish something substandard, it reflects on them. If they let you publish something illegal, it puts them in the crosshairs.

You are free to publish your app as a web application or for another platform.

And another thing, while Apple may be making bad calls here and there, quite simply the App store is overrun with apps. I personally wish we could do some culling. Some of the apps out there are so bad, it's just creating fog for the buyers.

If you have to go through 10 crappy apps to find a good one, you might give up searching altogether. Most of these apps are convenience purchases or "nice to have"s so if the customer gets frustrated even in the slightest, you're probably going to lose the sale.

JonHimself

Nov 23, 2009, 07:24 AM

I'm not a developer and I don't truly understand the frustration for those that have had problems so please take this for what it's worth (little).. but does anyone think if we had a news article about every app that was accepted we might realize how infrequently this actually happens? That doesn't fix the problem that some developers have had with the process but I tend to believe him that the problems are a small percentage of the overall process.. we just happen to hear about them because no one is going to complain, pull their support, etc when things are going fine.

knightlie

Nov 23, 2009, 07:25 AM

sh1n1gam1

Nov 23, 2009, 07:26 AM

While the majority of rejections may very well be due to some of the stated reasons, there are examples that do not fall into any of the categories that Schiller claims. The following is perhaps the best example: http://alsoftiphone.com/iPrivacy/. Its rejection is puzzling enough but the reason for its rejection is downright bizarre and disturbing. In addition to not falling under any of the categories mentioned by Schiller, this rejection raises serious questions about whether Apple is building back doors into encryption applications on the platform. That certainly cannot be a good thing. I rest my case...

edesignuk

Nov 23, 2009, 07:27 AM

A minor point:: Apple may be strict, but remember.. it's their ass on the line too. If they let you publish something substandard, it reflects on them. If they let you publish something illegal, it puts them in the crosshairs.By that logic nothing could ever be released on any platform without the platform owner giving the green light. As we know, this is simply not he case.

Apple are just hell bent on controlling every little detail about the iPhone. Not that it matters of course, it's still a massive success and the vast majority of people couldn't give a rats arse about a few developers getting their panties in a twist over Apple's apparent flawed app approval mechanisms.

I don't like it one little bit, so I don't own an iPhone.

JonHimself

Nov 23, 2009, 07:31 AM

...And another thing, while Apple may be making bad calls here and there, quite simply the App store is overrun with apps. I personally wish we could do some culling. Some of the apps out there are so bad, it's just creating fog for the buyers.

If you have to go through 10 crappy apps to find a good one, you might give up searching altogether. Most of these apps are convenience purchases or "nice to have"s so if the customer gets frustrated even in the slightest, you're probably going to lose the sale.

Just based on my parents purchases of terrible casino, slot machine, card game, etc while in line at a grocery store or a wal-mart I tend to believe that the same problem exists with PC (or Mac, computers in general) software. You just have to check out review sites (I can only think of Touch Arcade of the top of my head but I know there are several) as well as browsing the iTunes Store on your computer (easier than on the phone, in my opinion) to find what you're looking for. Even for video games, all I really have to base this on is my own purchasing habits but I generally only buy Madden and NHL (maybe MLB and occasionally stuff like GTA, etc) yet the EB games is FULL of games I'll never play, will never look at, have never even heard of and - to me - are just taking up space.
I guess it's unavoidable.

twilson

Nov 23, 2009, 07:35 AM

I just wish they'd offer a refund service. That's the only flaw I can come up with - and maybe video previews in the store to see footage.

Just ask for a refund, I did on a $10 app and they refunded it happily. Was a very easy process.

*LTD*

Nov 23, 2009, 07:44 AM

Despite the issues, it's a wild, runaway success. It is THE platform to develop for.

johnnyjibbs

Nov 23, 2009, 08:02 AM

The current process takes too long. They really need to speed it up. It's not like they don't have the cash to hire more reviewers...

eastcoastsurfer

Nov 23, 2009, 08:21 AM

A minor point:: Apple may be strict, but remember.. it's their ass on the line too. If they let you publish something substandard, it reflects on them. If they let you publish something illegal, it puts them in the crosshairs.

The problem is that there are tons of substandard apps in the appstore. Apple is not rejecting what they should and instead doing rejections rather arbitrarily. GV is a great example. As is any app that might give Apple competition now or in the future. Apple rejects great apps because they don't like an icon, but then let in the tons of substandard fart like copycat apps?

kallisti

Nov 23, 2009, 08:29 AM

"appease developers"?! good lord. I'm surprised anyone would spend time or money developing an app that could be rejected out of hand...

What if we changed your quote to read: "I'm surprised anyone would spend time or money writing a novel that could be rejected out of hand..."?

Doesn't sound as crazy when you word it that way, does it? I would imagine (though I don't have data to back this up) that there is a much higher chance an app will get into the app store than a novel will get picked up by a publisher. Yet people still spend months (years) writing novels.

Bill&Rose

Nov 23, 2009, 08:34 AM

The whole problem with this store is over 100,000 products? There is no way anyone can review each and every one of those products so the good ones get lost is a maze of useless products.

Even the 10,000 products in the Droid store are far to many.

These stores are nothing but gimmicks.

Apple is losing me as a customer due to their practices.

I currently have two iMacs and a MacBook Pro. I highly doubt I will invest in any further Apple products due to the way Apple does business.

Chaos215bar2

Nov 23, 2009, 08:37 AM

What if we changed your quote to read: "I'm surprised anyone would spend time or money writing a novel that could be rejected out of hand..."?

Doesn't sound as crazy when you word it that way, does it? I would imagine (though I don't have data to back this up) that there is a much higher chance an app will get into the app store than a novel will get picked up by a publisher. Yet people still spend months (years) writing novels.

The trouble is, if you're rejected from the App Store, that's it. If you want to take you're hard work to another app store, you'll need to completely rewrite it using their language and APIs.

jbellanca

Nov 23, 2009, 08:57 AM

I guess I'm in that "1%". One of my apps was originally approved about 8 months ago and is in the store, and has even made the Top 50 in its category before and has thousands of users. Then a random update to fix a minor bug submitted in the beginning of October is still in review...

Compile 'em all

Nov 23, 2009, 09:24 AM

Really most of the troubles bugging devs about the app store would be solved with short approval times. If it takes a day or two max to hear back from them everything would have been fine. But having to wait at least 2 week for a minor update is ridiculous.

eastcoastsurfer

Nov 23, 2009, 09:26 AM

What if we changed your quote to read: "I'm surprised anyone would spend time or money writing a novel that could be rejected out of hand..."?

Doesn't sound as crazy when you word it that way, does it? I would imagine (though I don't have data to back this up) that there is a much higher chance an app will get into the app store than a novel will get picked up by a publisher. Yet people still spend months (years) writing novels.

You fail at analogies. If no publisher picks up my novel I can shop it around to another publisher or just publish it myself and sell it on my website. There is always another option to sell a book, there are no other options with the app store.

haravikk

Nov 23, 2009, 09:42 AM

I much prefer the idea of a reviewed store as Apple has now to that of a completely "open" system. For consumers it means that apps are all of some standard, most notably in terms of their technical features, so apps that instantly drain your battery, or make your phone slow or unresponsive, or just plain don't work properly are going to be rejected. So you know when you download something from the app-store that it should just work, and it makes sure that application developers maintain these standards and put the extra effort in to make sure their apps get approved.

However, I can also similarly agree with the complaints, as a developer myself I'm obviously wary of whether my app will be approved or not; so I would like Apple to make their system more transparent, and provide as much feedback to the developers as possible in regards to why their app(s) were rejected.

Sbrocket

Nov 23, 2009, 09:44 AM

...On the other hand, adding features and fixing bugs helps maintain a positive relationship with your existing clients, who presumably count first in your potential audience for future unrelated releases...

The problem is that, with Apple acting as the sole "iPhone application publisher", there is no such connection between the developer and the customer. We don't know who the customer is unless they do something like email us for support. Beyond that, the customer data never gets to us. There's no way to notify these customers of upcoming releases and such, and as such there's little incentive to release updates beyond the necessities for bug fixes and such. The software publishing model didn't work before, it sure isn't going to work now.

jbellanca

Nov 23, 2009, 10:03 AM

The problem is that, with Apple acting as the sole "iPhone application publisher", there is no such connection between the developer and the customer. We don't know who the customer is unless they do something like email us for support. Beyond that, the customer data never gets to us. There's no way to notify these customers of upcoming releases and such, and as such there's little incentive to release updates beyond the necessities for bug fixes and such. The software publishing model didn't work before, it sure isn't going to work now.

Agreed that this is also a problem. My users - unless they purposely visit my website/blog - would have no idea that a new version has been in the works for ~2 months, what's holding it up, etc. But at least with this, I can build a view into my app that let's people view developer news, register, submit feedback, etc., if I choose to do so. So, I don't really see this is a major thing Apple has to change. Sure, it would be nice to have a better way to handle this, but I can manage the way it is now.

But what I don't have is any clear checklist of sorts that tells me what Apple will or won't accept as apps. For example, my app hasn't really changed at all from the last version to the new version, other than the minor bug fix, and yet it's still taking forever to review. What baffles me is that: (1) it's been approved before, so the only thing that could have changed is their review process, since the app hasn't changed; (2) exactly why an app like mine, that contains nothing different that many other apps and online stores (just organized differently), is being held up; and, (3) what _specifically_ I can do about it to alleviate their concerns.

(For those wondering why I'm selling an app like many others - it summarizes info you could find in 1,000 other places all in one place, and targets a specific type of user, so it's very valuable if you happen to fall within it's demographic.)

kallisti

Nov 23, 2009, 10:23 AM

You fail at analogies. If no publisher picks up my novel I can shop it around to another publisher or just publish it myself and sell it on my website. There is always another option to sell a book, there are no other options with the app store.

I think the analogy holds reasonably well. In both cases you need a publisher/distributor to sell your product (if you are unable to interest ANY publisher in your novel, you are pretty much screwed. Publishing on your own website isn't likely to attract many readers or result in many sales...). In both cases the "approval" process may not seem fair. In both cases, you either revise your work and hope it now gets approved, or you start on a new project. While I don't have actual data, I'd be willing to bet quite a large sum of money that the approval rate for apps is quite a bit higher than for novels.

JonHimself

Nov 23, 2009, 10:32 AM

You fail at analogies. If no publisher picks up my novel I can shop it around to another publisher or just publish it myself and sell it on my website. There is always another option to sell a book, there are no other options with the app store.

Sure there are, you can release your app for a different platform... and even that has holes in it. Ultimately the analogy is bad from the start - as are most.

epo

Nov 23, 2009, 10:57 AM

Sure there are, you can release your app for a different platform... and even that has holes in it. Ultimately the analogy is bad from the start - as are most.You can't release it for a different platform you have to recreate it because of different APIs, programming languages, platform capabilities, SDKs etc. With a book, you just send the MS elsewhere or at worst, print it out again.

JonHimself

Nov 23, 2009, 11:35 AM

You can't release it for a different platform you have to recreate it because of different APIs, programming languages, platform capabilities, SDKs etc. With a book, you just send the MS elsewhere or at worst, print it out again.

That's what I meant by there are holes in the analogy and it doesn't really work. My point was that just as you are free to seek a different publisher, you are also free to seek another platform - the holes being that the app would have to be re-developed. Technically another option would be to release to the jailbreak community but I really don't know how that works (for revenue, hosting of the application, etc) and it's a less than ideal solution.

kps

Nov 23, 2009, 11:37 AM

iPhone or Droid? (http://xkcd.com/662/)

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/iphone_or_droid.png (http://xkcd.com/662/)

inkswamp

Nov 23, 2009, 11:55 AM

If Apple had been running the App Store for 10 years now and we saw these kinds of things happening, I'd be pushing for developers to jump ship too, but it's still in its infancy.

There's no way Apple could have foreseen everything developers would want to do and establish a policy for every possible scenario. Some of this will have to be established on-the-fly. Any developer jumping into a whole new system like this who throws up their hands and makes a very public exit due to frustrations loses my respect (lookin' at you Rogue Amoeba.) There's no way anyone should expect it to be perfect at this stage.

That isn't to say Apple should be let off the hook and shouldn't speed the process along however. They're not exactly hurting for cash. They could double the staffing in the approval process for now and then scale back once things start running more smoothly. I'm sure that wouldn't hurt them financially and it would solve one of the biggest issues with the App Store--approval time.

harlinator

Nov 23, 2009, 12:02 PM

I think you meant "moaning"; "Mooning" means something rather different. But I can quite understand why developers are complaining. Sure, the App Store is popular but does that really excuse the issues? Why are there issues in the first place? Do you really think it is acceptable to have issues still after 18-months of this? I find it baffling that applications that have already been accepted can have updates rejected despite the offending parts having already been approved in earlier releases. I find it even more baffling that some people seem to think that this is OK and that developers shouldn't complain...
Please apple... put up an independent music artist store. Wish I was a developer so I could rake in a few dollars for some useless app for a PHONE! So what their updates don't make it... should have been done right the first time! Too bad I can't put out an update for my music... you know, I messed up on that chorus there so lets update it he he... you guy's got it made developing software... a mistake? Just put out an update!
Do what musicians have to do... proof, listen, proof, and then do it over again to make sure it's right... I have no sympathy for them.

jbellanca

Nov 23, 2009, 12:26 PM

Please apple... put up an independent music artist store. Wish I was a developer so I could rake in a few dollars for some useless app for a PHONE! So what their updates don't make it... should have been done right the first time! Too bad I can't put out an update for my music... you know, I messed up on that chorus there so lets update it he he... you guy's got it made developing software... a mistake? Just put out an update!
Do what musicians have to do... proof, listen, proof, and then do it over again to make sure it's right... I have no sympathy for them.

First, it's almost impossible to produce 100% bug-free software. Sometimes it happens, but it's rare. Especially for indie developers with limited resources. Look at how often Apple, Microsoft, or anyone else puts out fixes.

Second, updates often are not for bug fixes. More often than not, they add features or functionality. Would you rather see a new app you have to pay for every time we add a new function to an app?

Compile 'em all

Nov 23, 2009, 12:31 PM

Please apple... put up an independent music artist store. Wish I was a developer so I could rake in a few dollars for some useless app for a PHONE! So what their updates don't make it... should have been done right the first time! Too bad I can't put out an update for my music... you know, I messed up on that chorus there so lets update it he he... you guy's got it made developing software... a mistake? Just put out an update!
Do what musicians have to do... proof, listen, proof, and then do it over again to make sure it's right... I have no sympathy for them.

Tell that to Apple. May be they will work on that one software that is the holy grail that forever embodies every feature and is bug free.

jaw04005

Nov 23, 2009, 12:39 PM

Yeah, the Rogue Amoeba rejection was stupid.

Rogue Amoeba develop some great software for OS X, that improves the way many users use their computers. Not having them develop for iPhone is a shame.

Since Rogue Amoeba’s blog post, Apple has contacted them and changed their internal policies regarding trademark images. AirFoil Touch 1.0.2 has already been approved with the original images and is available now.

http://www.rogueamoeba.com/utm/2009/11/23/airfoil-speakers-touch-1-0-2-is-now-available/

There's no way Apple could have foreseen everything developers would want to do and establish a policy for every possible scenario. Some of this will have to be established on-the-fly. Any developer jumping into a whole new system like this who throws up their hands and makes a very public exit due to frustrations loses my respect (lookin' at you Rogue Amoeba.) There's no way anyone should expect it to be perfect at this stage.

Oh, please. Some of their policies and app store rejections go against common sense and display a lack of technical knowledge on the part of their reviewers (like in Rogue Amoeba’s case) :rolleyes: You should be glad Rogue Amoeba took such a public stance. Apple has since changed their internal review policy (as noted above) because of them.

soundbwoy

Nov 23, 2009, 12:43 PM

Wow, it is so easy to come down hard on the ones that pioneer and are only trying to make things better for their real customers the iphone users. Malware is so easy to come about and create havoc for users but it actually takes discipline and good business practice to try and get it right for the consumer.

Developers need to realize that thought the process is tedious, the reward out-ways it all. The only thing you have to do is put in the time to reap the benefits, all the benefits. Remember, once approved you really have no costs… unless you have a large overhead.

firewood

Nov 23, 2009, 12:54 PM

Now, updates no longer appear in the list. No extra income from updating your apps. Because of this, it's no longer worth me adding new features to some of my apps, and my customers will suffer (one emailed me just 2 days ago requesting a new feature, I was going to add it - now, I won't because it's worth $0 and it'll take up my time!)

With free updates, you'd still be giving that update to that customer for $0.

Instead, to make it worth it, put that feature in a "new improved" product, and sell that instead (just like most other consumer product businesses). Then the customer will pay for your product with that new feature they wanted, instead of getting it for free. After getting the new product in the store, you can remove the old one if you don't want to support both.

Or keep both in the store. At walmart, customers can buy different pillows with a choice of colors; maybe different App store customers will want different seasonal varieties of your app based on the icon color scheme.

jaw04005

Nov 23, 2009, 12:55 PM

Wow, it is so easy to come down hard on the ones that pioneer and are only trying to make things better for their real customers the iphone users.

The App Store is almost a year and half old now. At this point, there should be set policies for everything. You wouldn’t think an iPhone application displaying a Mac computer icon that’s being provided to it by a published OS X API would be a problem.

The problems with the App Store having nothing to do with malware and everything to do with control. Apple as a company hasn’t scaled well with its newfound App Store success. Otherwise you wouldn’t have Apple’s Sr. VP of Marketing personally involving himself in the App Store approval process. Schiller’s personal involvement with the App Store is bizarre from a corporate structure point of view. What executive at Apple is even in charge of the App Store? One would think it would be Eddy Cue, Apple’s Sr. VP of iTunes and Internet Services.

However, it’s Schiller who’s been doing damage control.

OllyW

Nov 23, 2009, 12:56 PM

Since Rogue Amoeba’s blog post, Apple has contacted them and changed their internal policies regarding trademark images. AirFoil Touch 1.0.2 has already been approved with the original images and is available now.

http://www.rogueamoeba.com/utm/2009/11/23/airfoil-speakers-touch-1-0-2-is-now-available/

Oh, please. Some of their policies and app store rejections go against common sense and display a lack of technical knowledge on the part of their reviewers (like in Rogue Amoeba’s case) :rolleyes: You should be glad Rogue Amoeba took such a public stance. Apple has since changed their internal review policy (as noted above) because of them.

It's still too late for Rogue Amoeba. Despite Apple's change in policy they are sticking by their decision to not develop any new apps for the iPhone.

jaw04005

Nov 23, 2009, 01:06 PM

It's still too late for Rogue Amoeba. Despite Apple's change in policy they are sticking by their decision to not develop any new apps for the iPhone.

For now. It doesn’t mean they won’t come back eventually.

Q: Does this mean you’ve changed your mind and will develop more iPhone applications?

A: It does not. The problems of the App Store go well beyond our own relatively minor case. We pushed this update to Airfoil Speakers Touch out because we wanted to restore functionality we had to take away from our users. We’re happy to be able to do that.

That said, the App Store and iPhone platform still have myriad problems, detailed in many places. Among other issues, the potential remains for months of effort to be wasted as an app sits in limbo, or is never even released. As well, the long lead times needed before updates reach users are still in place.

At this time, we don’t believe it makes good business sense for us to commit much in the way of resources to the iPhone.

Q: When will you return to iPhone development?

A: If and when we feel it makes good business sense, we’ll again develop for the iPhone. We don’t have our heads in the sand, nor are we blind to the enormity of this platform. That said, the Mac still remains a much more developer-friendly platform, and that’s where we’ll be concentrating our resources

firewood

Nov 23, 2009, 01:08 PM

HLdan

Nov 23, 2009, 01:20 PM

Some of these developers have such nerve, I mean really. What job does anyone have where becoming successful with it doesn't require you to jump through hoops. It's ridiculous the behavior of some the developers, "whaa whaaa whaa, if I can't have it easy and on my terms, I won't develop for the iPhone". I say go ahead and develop for other companies, I'm sure they'll accept any type of crud that a developer wants to throw at them and take the risk of being sued for inappropriate content.

To you developers out there, quit complaining, anything that will help build your business takes work, dedication and cooperation. It's the same thing for anyone who has an everyday job and wants to advance, they have to agree to the terms of the company and abide by their requirements and wait several weeks for the company to approve them to step up the ladder.

If you want easy money, sell the junk out of your garage on Ebay. :p

topmounter

Nov 23, 2009, 01:21 PM

reallyMedia

Nov 23, 2009, 01:24 PM

I just wish they'd offer a refund service. That's the only flaw I can come up with - and maybe video previews in the store to see footage.

Refunds will no longer be needed as more developers use free apps with in-app purchase upgrades of various types, as Apple has suggested. The idea of "Lite" vs. paid will fade away, and it wouldn't surprise me if Apple eventually disallowed this practice.

I agree that Apple needs to allow video demo. We used a link to YouTube, but it doesn't launch the device YouTube player from the AppStore, so its an incomplete way to show an app.

In general, I favor an approval process, but Apple needs to roll out a way to pre-approve apps conceptually using flow diagrams or visual mockups so we can at least have a reasonable expectation that the app won't be fully developed and then disallowed.

HLdan

Nov 23, 2009, 01:29 PM

With free updates, you'd still be giving that update to that customer for $0.

Instead, to make it worth it, put that feature in a "new improved" product, and sell that instead (just like most other consumer product businesses). Then the customer will pay for your product with that new feature they wanted, instead of getting it for free.

You mean how Apple and Microsoft do this with their OS's? I don't think many customers would agree with your idea.

eastcoastsurfer

Nov 23, 2009, 01:31 PM

I think the analogy holds reasonably well. In both cases you need a publisher/distributor to sell your product (if you are unable to interest ANY publisher in your novel, you are pretty much screwed. Publishing on your own website isn't likely to attract many readers or result in many sales...). In both cases the "approval" process may not seem fair. In both cases, you either revise your work and hope it now gets approved, or you start on a new project. While I don't have actual data, I'd be willing to bet quite a large sum of money that the approval rate for apps is quite a bit higher than for novels.

No, it doesn't hold at all. Self publishing is completely possible with books (I've even bought some before). You don't need a publisher or distributor at all. We're also not talking about apps/books that suck and thus don't get published. We're talking about apps/books that just don't happen to fit with the only publishers in own vision. Google voice is the best example of this. It's a great app, but for whatever reason Apple refuses to carry it. Google could easily self publish (if allowed) and plenty of people would find it outside of the app store. Good apps (like good books) will get found.

jaw04005

Nov 23, 2009, 02:21 PM

Obviously the barriers-to-entry for the App Store development program are far too low. Apple should either make the process of accepting developers more selective (and as a result reduce the number of app submissions), or they should increase the fees required to join the program enough to pay for sufficient resources to expedite the process.

This would do nothing to stop the current flow of “crap apps” (like Flashlight, Fart sounds, etc) to the App Store.

Many of those .99 cent applications are developed by large mobile app companies that do nothing but churn out craptastic applications in bulk to cash in. It’s the “let’s throw 100 darts at the dartboard to score a bullseye” method of business. Unfortunately, there appears to be a market for it.

jbellanca

Nov 23, 2009, 02:24 PM

This would do nothing to stop the current flow of “crap apps” (like Flashlight, Fart sounds, etc) to the App Store.

Many of those .99 cent applications are developed by large mobile game companies that do nothing but churn out craptastic applications in bulk to cash in. It’s the “let’s throw 100 darts at the dartboard to score a bullseye” method of business. Unfortunately, there appears to be a market for it.

Agreed - and for those of us who are small developers, focusing on a couple, well-done apps- barriers that are too high would stop our development.

djsiek

Nov 24, 2009, 04:03 AM

Agreed - and for those of us who are small developers, focusing on a couple, well-done apps- barriers that are too high would stop our development.

I have just released my first two apps and worked really hard on them and am finding it a challenge to even get noticed... other than paying massive amounts of money... I've done a whole lot like prmac.com etc... but yeah its hard

the app approval process for me was pretty smooth though thats a plus!

Dybbuk

Nov 24, 2009, 12:47 PM

What I find ironic is all these free loving hippie folks that are government loving regulators of public policy, want these companies to become less regulated laissez-faire type of companies.

you see, the app store is just like health care because

pdjudd

Nov 24, 2009, 12:52 PM

No, it doesn't hold at all. Self publishing is completely possible with books (I've even bought some before). You don't need a publisher or distributor at all. We're also not talking about apps/books that suck and thus don't get published. We're talking about apps/books that just don't happen to fit with the only publishers in own vision. Google voice is the best example of this. It's a great app, but for whatever reason Apple refuses to carry it. Google could easily self publish (if allowed) and plenty of people would find it outside of the app store. Good apps (like good books) will get found.

At least with Google Voice, it seems that Google believes that they can accomplish most of what the App was supposed to do by making it a web app - at least that’s what I have heard.