Wednesday
16Jul2008
App Store Review is broken
Wednesday, July 16, 2008 at 08:31AM
It's well known that there is a process of review that happens when a developer submits an application to the iPhone App Store. At the iPhone SDK launch, it was claimed that this was to prevent "bad" applications reaching users' phones. The problem was that "bad" was and remains loosely defined. Those pornographic applications, virii and "bandwidth hogs" were to be filtered out before unsuspecting users could download them. Fine. In theory.
The problem that I and others are having right now is that it doesn't scale. Apple requires that every single update to every app go through the same vetting process (although who knows exactly what this involves?). I submitted Exposure 1.0.1 to the App Store last Friday and, five days later, one version is "In Review". The other is still, mysteriously, "waiting for upload", even though I already did.
If Apple can't guarantee a maximum 24 hour review process, they should drop it. What would happen if I was trying to correct a data loss or security bug, and the update sits in App Store limbo for five or ten days? Fortunately I'm not facing that situation, but these are fixes for painful crashing bugs that are really affecting users of Exposure. All the while, users continue to comment negatively on these already-fixed-but-not-released bugs in Exposure's reviews on iTunes. Without demos, those reviews are an app's lifeblood.
I can understand Apple wanting to check new applications, but holding up bug fix releases for five days or more is both annoying to users and damaging to developers' reputations.
The problem that I and others are having right now is that it doesn't scale. Apple requires that every single update to every app go through the same vetting process (although who knows exactly what this involves?). I submitted Exposure 1.0.1 to the App Store last Friday and, five days later, one version is "In Review". The other is still, mysteriously, "waiting for upload", even though I already did.
If Apple can't guarantee a maximum 24 hour review process, they should drop it. What would happen if I was trying to correct a data loss or security bug, and the update sits in App Store limbo for five or ten days? Fortunately I'm not facing that situation, but these are fixes for painful crashing bugs that are really affecting users of Exposure. All the while, users continue to comment negatively on these already-fixed-but-not-released bugs in Exposure's reviews on iTunes. Without demos, those reviews are an app's lifeblood.
I can understand Apple wanting to check new applications, but holding up bug fix releases for five days or more is both annoying to users and damaging to developers' reputations.
Reader Comments (11)
Console makers do a poor job of testing games. Apple isn't doing any better. Of course we expect Apple to do better than mere mortal companies. There are bugs in the 2.0 software update too. The camera on my 2.0 upgraded iPhone no longer works properly. Photos look like they're completely out of focus. I soft-reset my iPhone and bricked it. Had to restore everything via iTunes from my Macbook. This didn't happen before I installed 2.0.
It's worse than that, unfortunately.
Apple is, it seems, deciding whether they even like the design of your app at all. Without giving out too much info, it seems they are dictating how the app looks. So, this begs the question - why don't they just design the app for us, and then we can develop it? Would save us all a lot of trouble..... Or maybe they could adopt the same practice as every other manufacturer - and just certify the app to ensure it doesn't break the phone, or use too much bandwidth? And leave the app design to the people who know best - the developers.
@ Annoyed Care to share what exactly you tried to submit that leaves you with that conclusion?
Because seriously, if you look at the apps that got through (bad design: triplog), ip telephony (not sure what the app name is) and tons of ebooks/flashlight apps etc, I really don't see how apple is "weeding out".
@flo - Sorry, but I can't say (it's for a customer and it's all secret squirrel stuff right now). But I agree - seeing some of the cr@p that's got into the store, I really don't understand what their methodology is for weeding out either.
Apple need to be a little more transparent and let developers know in advance what their criteria is, and then we wouldn't waste time having to pander to their whims.
I just got a notification that Exposure (the free version, natch) has been updated, but it still says 1.0 and has no release notes. Has it really?
You are one of the lucky ones. At least you got your app published!
Me and a partner invested months of our lives and thousands of dollars into developing an app, and now it is "in review" weeks (!) on end. Mails to Apple don't get answered, no information on the status of the app in the review pipeline, nuttin.
In the meantime a similar product appeared of which I know (the developer says on his site) that it was submitted AFTER ours.
I am no fan of conspiracy theories. But one could suspect that it's not "first come, first serve", but Apple Engineers holding stuff back on purpose. Maybe waiting till their buddies' apps are ready to go live?
AAPL has become evil.
ACTGratuity 2.0 has been under review for 7 days now and counting...
This hasn't prevented Apple from publishing the updated description and screenshots within 12 hours of the upload. Made for some verrrrry angry customers!
Lesson learned: update the description only once you receive confirmation that your update went live!
I agree with what you're saying but there's something in your post that just makes me cringe every time I see it: virii.
I don't want to sound like a nit-picker but the word doesn't exist (although, ironically the word has spread like a virus on the internet). The plural of virus is 'viruses'.
@Virtuous: Compared to Apple, they do a marvelous job of testing. Yes, bugs in games slip through, but believe me, certification for any of the major consoles is not a thing you easily pass. Where it excels over Apple is that there's a well-documented list of tests you have to pass.
Apple, on the other hand, seems to keep the criteria completely secret.
@Robert: So secret, in fact, that not even the Appletards running the process know what the criteria is. And in any case the criteria seems something of a moving target anyway.
It'll all change when Android eventually launches, and everyone's attention shifts to another "open platform" - then maybe Apple will relax their iron grip on the process, and stop trying to run everyone else's business.
Affiliate Marketing is an Internet-based marketing practice in which a business rewards one or more affiliates for each visitor or customer brought about by the affiliate's marketing efforts. It is an application of crowdsourcing.[citation needed] Examples include rewards sites, where users are rewarded with cash or gifts, for the completion of an offer, and the referral of others to the site.
The affiliate marketing industry has four core players: the merchant (also known as 'retailer' or 'brand'), the network, the publisher (also known as 'the affiliate') and the customer. The market has grown in complexity to warrant a secondary tier of players, including affiliate management agencies, super-affiliates and specialized third parties vendors.
International Web Marketing Affiliate Network