Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's Difficult App Store Decisions Determined by Executive Review Board Run by Phil Schiller
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Of course big companies get “special” treatment. As due big clients to all companies. There is nothing strange about it - some accounts are worth more. As long as the rule book is the same...
The App Store is doing just fine. Apple is doing just fine, there is nothing "disgusting" about them.
Why not leave every app in? Because Apple's customers don't want crappy apps. Apple protects its customers from rubbish. What's so difficult about being a sane human being? Well, you tell me when you figure it out. Google could vastly improve their store by using some of Apple's rules themselves.
[doublepost=1561207267][/doublepost]
That is definitely the case. Lots of things can be checked automatically, for example using private APIs (not allowed), not telling users why the app is using camera, location, address book etc. And things like camera or address book, I am quite sure that the reviewer is shown a list of what things the app is using, and if it is using your address book, then they will want to see a good reason why the address book is used. I could imagine they have a tool that can launch an app, click on every button in sight, enter stuff into text fields, and report any crashes, fully automatically.
[doublepost=1561207668][/doublepost]
You should read the review guidelines. Baskets of fruit are not allowed. Cash will be anonymously distributed among all the reviewers, so you make the reviewers happy, but can't change the outcome for you. If you get rejected, the review guidelines specifically say that complaining to the public will NOT help your app getting accepted. (Whether it makes it harder to get accepted, that's up to your imagination).
Seriously, I've seen one developer asking on stackoverflow.com, whose company apparently really upset Apple, so he had not just his app rejected, but got effectively banned from the App Store (I can't remember the exact wording, but it wasn't "your app has these problems, fix it" but "we don't want to do business with you anymore"). I think sending a fruit basket could have that kind of effect.
[doublepost=1561207853][/doublepost]
No, what happened with Uber was that the review wasn't perfect and missed what Uber did, and when Apple found out, Uber had to fix it (Uber had some privacy violating features that were turned off if the app was used in or near Cupertino). In the case of Facebook, Apple has thrown out Facebook's VPN app permanently, and both Google and Facebook have had enterprise certificates revoked.
[doublepost=1561208299][/doublepost]
In the end, Apple has a pretty big filter just at the start: You can't submit an app for review anonymously. You have to have a company with a DUNS number, so they know who you are. There are people posting stuff on Facebook that would get you into jail if it was found out who did it. There is 0.0001% chance that an Apple app reviewer would be confronted with stuff like that, the submitter could do that only once and would be permanently removed from the App Store, and for the stuff that causes PTSD Apple would probably contact the police.
[doublepost=1561208414][/doublepost]
It's exactly _NOT_ a conflict of interest. The VP of marketing has the ultimate responsibility for what is in the App Store and what is not.
Last edited by a moderator:
That might be his title but anyone who’s followed the company long enough knows he’s way more than the head of marketing. I’ve often said he’s the most powerful employee at Apple.
[doublepost=1561208790][/doublepost]
Schiller is probably the most powerful employee at Apple. His team isn’t just marketing or App Store. They’re also involved in every hardware product - features, configurations, pricing.
Okay, so it has. Not much you can do to change it and Apple probably doesn’t listen to user feedback with this format.
There is no such thing as “free speech” with private enterprise. You can’t yell “fire” in a movie theater any more than you can post any old drivel on these boards or say anything you want at your place of employment.
Kudos to MacRumors for using an iPhone without a notch for the demo in this article (the way it should always be). I also saw an advertisement with an app on the iPhone 4s and iOS 6 at my doctor's office and got a little excited the other day.
Of course it makes sense. Apple's App Store is a venue where things are sold. What gets put on the shelf for sale gets there after a bunch of rules are met, doubtless including one about how the mere presence of an app needs not to trash Apple's reputation from their own viewpoint. It's their store. The guy in charge of marketing at Apple gets the last word on that score. It's his job, his call, and of course in the end his decision can have subjective components. If a developer believes that those subjective aspects run afoul of laws on discrimination, there's legal recourse.
Once upon a time, not even that long ago, people had a very different bar to experience outrage. Maybe we’re running out of things about which to feel outrage, perhaps because we’re numb to the legitimately outrageous things happening at home and abroad. Maybe we have nowhere else to aim our daily quotient of accumulating outrage, so we target something that makes our computing experience a little less convenient.
I dunno.
There’s only 2 competing vibrant casual gaming communities on the entire planet.
The App Store for iOS/iPadOS, & Steam... Google Play Store & Windows store don’t even get an honorable mention- they’re not even close.
Both spent copious amounts of time, money, & energy building a solid ecosystem. Both are top-notch.
I cannot imagine Steam trying to figure out a way for Apple users to use their platform to access iOS games instead/as well & purchase them outside of the Steam store so they make no money. That would be insane. They want their gaming platform to be a repository & a storefront, NOT just a landing strip for games you bought elsewhere.
Similarly, I can see why Apple wouldn’t want you to be able to skip their App Store forever, instead buying all your games off Steam, never giving them a penny, but still having full-access to an enormous library of games.
Pardon my “liberal” thinking... but it seems only fair, if one gets a HUGE benefit from the other, for a mechanism to be in place to get paid.
"Apple doesn't give apps from major companies special treatment, according to CNBC, and all apps are required to go through the same exact review process."
Bold face lie!
I was a contractor working for a MAJOR corporation on an iPhone app. The app was submitted with a restricted API. The team lead called their contact at Apple (who actually answered the phone - no leave a message crap) to let them know the app was submitted, and it had a restricted API. The app was in the store 30 minutes later.
And at WWDC 2013 the keynote featured an new app called "Anki Drive", which is a racing game. The iOS device controls small toy cars via bluetooth that race around a course printed on a small 'rug'. The rug has elements imbedded that the car also senses. Anki had their app in the store the day before WWDC, but the cars (hardware) weren't even available until October of 2013. The iOS app had zero features except for a bunch of advertising graphics - which were eventually replaced when the app was completed and the cars shipped. This was in clear violation of Apple's regulations that prohibit marketing only apps. Anki bragged about having 50 million in SFO VC startup cash - that buys a lot of special treatment.
Schriller is a POS for continuing to repeat his blatant BS.
Bold face lie!
I was a contractor working for a MAJOR corporation on an iPhone app. The app was submitted with a restricted API. The team lead called their contact at Apple (who actually answered the phone - no leave a message crap) to let them know the app was submitted, and it had a restricted API. The app was in the store 30 minutes later.
And at WWDC 2013 the keynote featured an new app called "Anki Drive", which is a racing game. The iOS device controls small toy cars via bluetooth that race around a course printed on a small 'rug'. The rug has elements imbedded that the car also senses. Anki had their app in the store the day before WWDC, but the cars (hardware) weren't even available until October of 2013. The iOS app had zero features except for a bunch of advertising graphics - which were eventually replaced when the app was completed and the cars shipped. This was in clear violation of Apple's regulations that prohibit marketing only apps. Anki bragged about having 50 million in SFO VC startup cash - that buys a lot of special treatment.
Schriller is a POS for continuing to repeat his blatant BS.
Last edited:
I’d say making sure the apps don’t contain viruses or inappropriate content are good points in favor of some kind of review process.
If you want to install anything in your phone then you might be happier with android.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out...
Just look at recent purge on youtube , first then came for infowars, now its Steven crowder and even Phil de Franco, who cheered on the banning of AJ...
[doublepost=1561238489][/doublepost]
It is not that easy, you should read up on difference between platform vs publisher concerning the law.
Last edited by a moderator:
I too think Apple is doing things just fine and sure they will be mistakes made and some improvements can still be made but no system of any kind is going to be perfect but I like the fact apps on the App Store are vetted and approved as an app developer I prefer this and why I will not support Android until Google is more strict.
50-100 a day...every day. Yeah, I'm sure they REALLY give each app some QUALITY TIME to evaluate it. One of the richest corporations on each = crap quality control these days (in hardware and software) and now we have some idea WHY. Apple never wants to hire enough people to do the job right, it seems. Push people to the brink (it has to be stressful being expected to review at least 50 apps a day!) and then they wonder later why they leave when they get an offer from Google (nap time, play time, relax time; you wouldn't believe it was even a JOB at Google by comparison and the pay is astronomical to boot...well the old Google at least. It's not quite what it was.)
Out of curiosity, how do you know how many people are in teams doing what job and exactly how they do their job.
And I disagree as a general statement the software and hardware is crap. The software and hardware as a general statement is very good.
Try submitting a paid app with receipt validation. Report back here with your experience.
The core difference between opinions about the app store are rooted in the goals of two-ish different types of apps:
1. Service Products: These types of products are some sort of service. Mobile applications only provide a method of accessing that service (like AirBNB, or similar). These services can also be accessed via a website, so a mobile app may or may not provide any value added to the "experience" of accessing that service. The business model for these services have basically zero to do with the mobile app, but it is a "nice to have" business "want" (not a need) - and - considered pure "overhead", meaning the business would not necessarily fail if an app did not exist. Apple generally caters to these types of apps because Apple needs their platform to appeal to users accessing these types of services. Developers of these types of apps will generally appreciate Apple because Apple does believe these developers need to be "served" to some degree so Apple users will have an "Apple curated/controlled" method to access such services.
2. "Hammer" apps: I'm using "Hammer" very generally here, it basically means any app (excluding games) where the software embodies some type of utility or function that is mostly (or even completely) implemented in the app itself. These types of apps rely on a business model of directly selling the "utility". Because the functionality of these apps is completely embodied in the app, the revenue stream is completely tied to Apple's App store policy - this becomes the "rub" because Apple is a hardware company and really has no idea about how to generate profit from software products - yet it is in the position to dictate how these types of apps monetize their technology. Developers of these types of apps generate VERY original ideas (even if it is a fart synth), but they are then constrained by Apple policy - this leads mostly to frustration. Most of some really good "lives in your pocket" ideas that ended up as apps (no one would have thought of) have gone away. Apple myopically thinks all you need is a calculator in your pocket, so they really don't give a covfefe about these types of apps - or are just so hopelessly ignorant. Also, as the article implies, reviewers are basically entry level 'dolts', so they really wouldn't be able to recognize a really great idea if/when such an app shuffles into their review work queue - it would be just one "huh?" idea that gets "buried" within the hundreds of apps they ply through on a daily basis and go unnoticed (no chance of featuring), or worse, rejected. UNLESS! The app is created by a company with 50+ million in SFO VC dollars behind it - then Tim Crook's phone will ring, and the red carpet gets rolled out (and vacuumed). This is the main problem. Small devs with great ideas will be fighting an impossible battle to get 'traction' on the app store. VC firms now deny funding "nobodies" then proceed to 'steal' their ideas (this happens all the time).
3ish. Games: This is basically the same as #2, but I separated it into its own category because Apple has "contorted" App store policy a bit to "shoehorn" games into a misguided classification to make them appear to be successful in the App Store. Most are not.
They type of development you do (as described above) will correlate to your opinion of Apple.
Devs living in the #1 universe will generally have a positive opinion of Apple. But remember, your existence has very little to do with the main revenue stream of your product, and therefore you are purely overhead. If (when) your company experiences some financial difficulty, you will be tossed overboard. Pink slips don't float for long.
[doublepost=1561310848][/doublepost]
Then your perspective is very limited because you generate zero revenue from the app store.
1. Service Products: These types of products are some sort of service. Mobile applications only provide a method of accessing that service (like AirBNB, or similar). These services can also be accessed via a website, so a mobile app may or may not provide any value added to the "experience" of accessing that service. The business model for these services have basically zero to do with the mobile app, but it is a "nice to have" business "want" (not a need) - and - considered pure "overhead", meaning the business would not necessarily fail if an app did not exist. Apple generally caters to these types of apps because Apple needs their platform to appeal to users accessing these types of services. Developers of these types of apps will generally appreciate Apple because Apple does believe these developers need to be "served" to some degree so Apple users will have an "Apple curated/controlled" method to access such services.
2. "Hammer" apps: I'm using "Hammer" very generally here, it basically means any app (excluding games) where the software embodies some type of utility or function that is mostly (or even completely) implemented in the app itself. These types of apps rely on a business model of directly selling the "utility". Because the functionality of these apps is completely embodied in the app, the revenue stream is completely tied to Apple's App store policy - this becomes the "rub" because Apple is a hardware company and really has no idea about how to generate profit from software products - yet it is in the position to dictate how these types of apps monetize their technology. Developers of these types of apps generate VERY original ideas (even if it is a fart synth), but they are then constrained by Apple policy - this leads mostly to frustration. Most of some really good "lives in your pocket" ideas that ended up as apps (no one would have thought of) have gone away. Apple myopically thinks all you need is a calculator in your pocket, so they really don't give a covfefe about these types of apps - or are just so hopelessly ignorant. Also, as the article implies, reviewers are basically entry level 'dolts', so they really wouldn't be able to recognize a really great idea if/when such an app shuffles into their review work queue - it would be just one "huh?" idea that gets "buried" within the hundreds of apps they ply through on a daily basis and go unnoticed (no chance of featuring), or worse, rejected. UNLESS! The app is created by a company with 50+ million in SFO VC dollars behind it - then Tim Crook's phone will ring, and the red carpet gets rolled out (and vacuumed). This is the main problem. Small devs with great ideas will be fighting an impossible battle to get 'traction' on the app store. VC firms now deny funding "nobodies" then proceed to 'steal' their ideas (this happens all the time).
3ish. Games: This is basically the same as #2, but I separated it into its own category because Apple has "contorted" App store policy a bit to "shoehorn" games into a misguided classification to make them appear to be successful in the App Store. Most are not.
They type of development you do (as described above) will correlate to your opinion of Apple.
Devs living in the #1 universe will generally have a positive opinion of Apple. But remember, your existence has very little to do with the main revenue stream of your product, and therefore you are purely overhead. If (when) your company experiences some financial difficulty, you will be tossed overboard. Pink slips don't float for long.
[doublepost=1561310848][/doublepost]
Then your perspective is very limited because you generate zero revenue from the app store.
Last edited: