Phil Schiller Defends App Store Approval Process

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

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.

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.

Cheat at gambling you say?

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!)

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.

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.

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.

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

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.