Phil Schiller Defends App Store Approval Process

[JonHimself]

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]

iPhone or Droid?

 

[inkswamp]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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) 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]

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]

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]

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]

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) 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]

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]

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.

Then don't go where the money is. The masses seem to prefer big stores with draconian policies. Compare what it takes to get Walmart to carry a product (there are books on the subject), and how much more sales Walmart will create for a product as compared to selling it a the local flea market.

And if Walmart stocks your product, but later finds out your paint supplier violated the rules on the amount of lead allowed, bam, big product reject. Just like Apple.

 

[HLdan]

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.

 

[topmounter]

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.

 

[reallyMedia]

refunds, no... video, yes... pre-approval needed

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[twoodcc]

the app store isn't perfect, but nothing really is. i think the app store is great though, and i enjoy it

 

[epo]

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.

It's been edited so I can't see what I originally wrote, no offence or insult was intended and I apologise for any careless writing that slipped through.