Since last year I've been working on several iPhone projects off and on. I have half a dozen solutions incubating that I think are both new and fun (and for problems where there isn't "an app for that" on the App Store. Don't tell Apple.) I've tried curtailing my blog reading, focusing only on "critical news" specifically to avoid reading about App Store rejections. Daring Fireball is one of a few blogs I still read daily and yesterday I read about yet another App Store rejection.
The Motivation and the Risk
As a software developer trying to start up a software company, reading these sordid tales is extremely demotivating. To be up against the raw market is risky enough, but to have to mentally grapple with the real possibility of some random reviewer's power trip banishing my months of design work to the bit bucket is unnerving to say the least. Unlike the fabled entrepreneur, I don't like risk, I seek at all times to reduce it as much as possible, but this is a show stopper kind of risk I don't know how to manage.
I've learned that I do my best work when doing something I'm passionate about, and I'm passionate about iPhone applications. It's what I want to do and the confluence of so many things I love. It's what I think about in my free time. It's how I want to create. But with all the App Store rejections, (and I'm sure there are more that have not been published) it's causing me to seriously question my development efforts. It seems like the only way to be sure you get in the App Store is to write a game, and even then not always. Now, I like a good game, but that's not the kind of solution I want to build.
I hope to build apps that real people will be delighted to pay for and not dismiss because the price is more than $0.99. The consequence of this desire to build innovative and focused solutions that are worth more than $0.99 is that real investment must be made. Real money for design work, real money for development, real time spent understanding a problem space and building and testing the solution. From a realistic business perspective, can I really afford to invest that much time, effort and money in the hope that Apple will smile on me and I'll be able to make a living doing something I love?
The No Upgrades Business Model
One sure way to manage risk is to invest only a little at a time. Many developers release a small simple application to test the market and then make their livelihood on the upgrades over time of serving that portion of the market. On the iPhone App Store, there is no way to do this. Once you've purchased an App, you get upgrades to that application forever, for free. When modeling a business on the App Store this reality means you must amortize the life time cost of your development efforts over your predicted customer base. Not only is this tricky, but it makes releasing an application worth that price very difficult. Many of us have paid for years of Mac OS upgrades, and while it adds up to a lot of money, who would have paid over $500 for Mac OS X 10.0? I'm not saying that the iPhone business model is bad, but that it's different than the typical upgrade driven model. This difference affects the risk that a developer must assume and in most cases increases the risk, rather than decreases it. When you compound this risk onto the risk of an App Store rejection, it's no wonder that there seems to be a low price average on the App Store.
The Market
What frustrates me most about the approval process is actually not that it is so opaque, but that it does nothing truly positive for customers. It doesn't help quality. It doesn't help customers find the right solutions. It doesn't protect customers. As far as I can see, every part of the process is about Apple, their legal issues, their protection, their agreement with AT&T and others, and their success. I know there are more App's in the queue for the App Store now than ever before, but are they really compelling solutions? Some are, to be sure, but what about the rest? Isn't there a compelling business reason for Apple to support investment in valuable (not free) solutions built for the iPhone? They get 30% of the dollar applications as well as 30% of the 10 dollar applications. A percentage of a larger number is a larger number, last time I checked. At the scale of the App Store, Apple must see this in high contrast, black and white. Why fight against it?
The Trust Thing
It's about trust. Trust in developers and users. I think that's what grates the worst. It's as if Apple doesn't trust the developers to produce high quality applications or users to choose and rate apps appropriately. If Apple believed that the "unwashed masses" with iPhones could actually vote with their comments, their money and their downloads in some reasonable way, we'd be so much further along in this slow process of exposing simple and clear review guidelines.
The Mac App Store
When the App Store first came out I was actually excited that perhaps someday there would be a similar store for the Mac. It would take so much of the upgrade, install and purchasing hassle out of the process. Now, I'm glad I have a "free" platform on which to fall back should the App Store process remain unchanged. If the Mac App Store resembles even slightly the unpredictable process of the iPhone App Store, I hope it never materializes.
Legal Issues
I recognize that there are real legal issues that Apple must deal with world wide. But like with the iTunes Store, deal with those legal issues so as to hide them from the customer without reducing the quality of the experience. Don't be so weak in bowing to the legal realities as to avoid seeking a real solution that makes the App Store a place where real software developers can invest. If all Apple wants is large numbers of applications for PR then they should drop the entry fee for joining the iPhone Dev program, but if they want something more, then they should act like it before and after they take the money.
Transparency
The review process can be a success without being transparent. The unpredictability is really the hardest part about the approval process. I don't believe the entire process needs to be fully transparent, as much as I'd like that. What really needs to be clear is how I can ensure that my application will be approved. If I have this assurance, then I can invest appropriately, until then, I'm gambling and that's no way to run a business.
Hope
I still have hope that Apple will change. They have in the past. I hope they do now, and soon. The iPhone is the best mobile phone platform out there, it's a shame to limit the creativity on the platform to what a $0.99 application investment can support. Dear Apple: Give us the rules, we want to play.
Why not just quit? Find another platform to live out your dream. Seems everyone loves Apple so much, they don't care what they do to devs. Everybody is screaming, but no one is quitting.
This has happened to a tiny, tiny, percentage of submissions and has been hyped beyond all belief because of the iPhones popularity and because it is Apple.
Nice summary, David.
Tor: No acceptable alternatives? Android and Pre are weaksauce.
snookie: That's just not true at all. I know many iPhone devs and all have encountered absurd hurdles in the submission/approval process.
Tor & Snookie, the reason it is hyped so much and the reason devs are complaining is that the experience of the hardware and much of the software with Apple blows away the competition and we don't want to switch back.
The App Store approvals process is the fly in the ointment and if Apple deals with it, we have a very good system. Unfortunately, because it has not been dealt with transparently (Phil may be handling this aspect now) it has become one of the few black eyes that Apple has with devs.
Yes, some devs are have given up and are switching to Android and Palm but the consumers don't seem to be (switching) at this point. Do you ignore that marketshare or do you complain about the problem loud enough that it gets fixed?
The choice is there but get used to the complaining because it will happen as long as developers want to work with Apple products.
I agree on all points except the Upgrade model. I much prefer the model the App Store pushes, where upgrades are free.
If your 'upgrade' is significant enough, then it becomes a new app. If it's not, then I don't want to get nickel & dimed on upgrades, which may be required for bug fixes and/or to deliver on an experience that was expected in the original app.
This is pretty much new land, and the alternatives are struggling with the same problems as the App Store. Breaking new ground will have growing pains. It is to be expected.
@Tor - You obviously didn't understand what David meant in the "The Motivation and the Risk" section. And don't mistake this broken issue as a systematic issue of the Apple developer community. Objective C and the rich APIs and tools are much more compelling than some hooligan jumping around on a stage yelling "developersdevelopersdevelopersdevelopers".
@snookie - Hype or not, he's pointing out a very real risk to an independent developer. It is a completely opaque and (apparently) arbitrary process that has had numerous documented cases of "human error/behavior".
And lastly, David, thank you for actually being able to cogently document my own trepidation. I, too, have my ideas and my passion and I think I'm probably just about as risk averse as you are when it comes to such an arbitrary investment.
Snookie, it's not about the small percentage of submissions that has been hyped it's about the possibility of spending hundreds of hours and potentially thousands of dollars on a product that Apple can kill. As an iPhone developer, we certainly consider this, and are very careful about spending too much time on any one product. This means we target and create apps on the low end of the spectrum, but not because we want to, but because we have to hedge our bets.
Apple could literally break us if we spend 6 months developing a product that Apple doesn't want on the app store.
Please persist! If you have compelling apps they will be adored and bought. Price them at what you think they are worth. iPhone users are not necessarily cheap. Also, you might want to segment the apps as a way to future-proof them. Build add-ons (in app upgrades). It's a fair bet that future devices will be a lot more powerful and so you'll have the opportunity of fully revising apps that take advantage of that power in the future - and people will pay for it. They have the option of running the old app or buying a new app that fully leverages the new hardware.
I think the author wrote this honestly and in the spirit of constructive criticism, but to my eyes it's so clearly wrong on most points and so obviously biased towards the developer point of view I have to mention it. In every section, there are excellent counter arguments or if there aren't, it's because of the (apparently unseen by the author) bias.
to wit:
"No Upgrades" - sure there are upgrades, simply put out a different "2.0" product. There is no way to advertise the second version in the first, which is a problem, but to say there are no upgrades possible is false.
"The Market" - at the risk of using up too much space, I'll just say that it's pretty clear that the consumer *is* helped rather a lot by the app store policies in terms of the quality and safety of the software offered relative to an uncontrolled situation. It's just false to claim otherwise.
"Trust" - This is an argument for a completely open market based *only* on trusting developers? (cause they are all saintly?) Are you serious?
"Mac App store" - This is just a speculative insult based on a hypothetical. Not sure it has any relevance at all.
"Legal" - This is totally muddled. "Don't be weak and bow to the law?" WTF? ??
"Transparency" - The only truly *valid* issue raised here at all. Raised many times before by many others though.
"Hope" - Let's all put glitter on our cheeks and cry? Not sure.
IMO this article is a good example of how an intelligent, creative person with nothing but the best intentions can think, and write, biased nonsense without meaning to at all. I'm sure we are all susceptible to the same and I'm not trying to be "holier than thou" or anything, but it's good to remember that "smart" is not equal to "wise."
For developers the App Store is whole of the business, but for Apple it is only a small part and the least important financially. So before developing any app think about whether it will take away business from Apple or their carrier partner. If the app will cost either of them, it will be rejected. Even Google didn't have the clout to overcome this unwritten rule, discussed in my October article
http://lowendmac.com/nash/08tn/unwritten-app-store-rule.html
Someone asked, "Why don't you quit?" Because of the passion. I can't say I've had another device so much change the way I navigate this world as the iPhone. I WANT to be a part of that process, that movement.
Apple needs to fix things before people lose that passion, and it starts to resemble a Windows Mobile clearing house.
Regarding upgrades, can't you sell new functions through the in-app purchases API?
David, I disagree with you on one thing:
You're right. As a customer I haven't noticed anything that would imply Apple's struggling with legal issues in the iTMS. But the same holds true for the regular App Store customer, who might not even know about Apple's strict policies (or has this thing hit mainstream media yet?).
As much as it sucks for a developer to use the App Store, as much may it suck for music labels or artists to publish their stuff in the iTMS. But compared to app developers, they just don't blog that excessively about it.
""The Market" - at the risk of using up too much space, I'll just say that it's pretty clear that the consumer *is* helped rather a lot by the app store policies in terms of the quality and safety of the software offered relative to an uncontrolled situation. It's just false to claim otherwise."
This is completely false, it has not helped consumers at all. Just look at Cydia there is much less BS apps , like fart apps, absolutely no malware and most imporantly CHOICE. Right now you can download and use GV mobile from cydia. How exactly is its app store policy helping us?
I agree with smookie. This paranoia about the App Store is simply hysterical. There are how many tens of thousands of devs/apps out there? Any how many apps have been rejected outright and how many required adjustments? Not many on either count. And the price is not a function of Apple but of the free competition by devs. At worst, Apple may have made the entry cost too low, which has allowed too many devs in.
Too many devs want to rely on the App Store to market their apps. Too bad. I don't believe that was ever the promise of the store, nor should devs believe that they don't need to find their customers. Just because Apple makes their products/marketplace so attractive does not allow devs to assume that Apple is going to coddle them to success.
There are too many perfect examples that Apple CAN"T TRUST devs. How many apps blatantly violate the letter and spirit of the App Store's policies? Enough to discredit your suggestion that Apple is unjustly suspicious of developers. Apple has put its own reputation by building the App Store. The company has the right to protect itself from self-serving devs who want to circumvent the rules of the market.
This issue has nothing to do with customers. The vast majority of the millions of customers don't read Daring Fireball or the blogs that we read each day. They simply aren't aware of the controversies. Moreover, with nearly 100K apps, what does a customer care? And why should they? There are too many good apps available. I, for one, am glad that the App Store is not the uber marketing machine that some devs want to image it ought to be. When I want to look for an app, I search the web, not the App Store. I look for reviews and user experiences. When I find an app that I want, I go to the App Store to purchase and download it. My point is that Apple is not and should not be involved in the marketing of your app. Granted that Apple does provide lists of popular and new apps, but not more than necessary. I prefer it to stay that way.
I couldn't disagree more with your flippant dismissal of the submission process. There have been enough examples of violations of the App Store policies (and how many have we not heard about?) that justifies the process. Apple would not invest the money in the process if there was not a significant business reason. Apple's reputation as a high quality provider is a primary part of its marketing effectiveness. Reputations like this with customers is difficult to build and easy to lose. Devs should better appreciate the investment the Apple makes and the enormous benefits that accrue to devs. Do you honestly believe that the sales ramp up of the App Store was just some wonderful miracle? No. Apple built it.
As a dev myself, I don't have much doubt about how to ensure that my app is approved. The rules are clear. Despite a few (and I mean on-one-hand few) examples of Apple arbitrarily rejecting apps, the rules are clear. Devs know very well when they are getting too close to the line. If a dev doesn't, the dev should find something else to do.
I disagree with a few points here:
1) Want to charge for upgrades? You can use in-app purchase to enable latent upgrade code, if you feel that is a model that best works for you.
2) I have bought a number of apps that are quite a bit more than $1. If you feel a fair price is important (and I do very much) then charge more than $1, rather than go for a quick cash grab.
3) You only think the app review process does nothing for users because you have so little to compare it to. The fact is that to some degree it does improve quality - apps have been rejected for crashing, or even for UI issues (one of my updates was rejected because UI elements were slightly malformed in a rotating view). They can't catch everything, but I do think at least a very low pass filter that rejects things that are just simply broken is a good and useful thing - and not just for Apple.
4) As an independent app developer I have absolutely no fear that any of the non-game ideas I am working on will be rejected. The fact is, there are obviously grey areas and if your ideas are outside that realm they will get in if you write the apps so they will function. If you are not factoring that into the ideas you choose to expend energy on, then you aren't making good business decisions. Yes it's a shame there are these grey areas and Apple should seek to shrink these, but by and large there is a huge realm of possibility outside these. The world of what you can do is far larger than the world of what you cannot, and I think that's what Snookie was really trying to say.
As a new student dev, I'm finding all so interesting. Apple provides so much for devs. So much that if Apple didn't do, most of us wouldn't sell mobile apps.
Call me crazy, but as a dev the scariest app rejection I think I've seen is along the lines for iFart. Hear me out. I'm not defending apple's use of rejections, but it's the one's for things like "tastelessness" that scare me. No, I never would buy a fart app, but clearly there's people who find it funny and do download things. Call it a niche market. But no app has to be full of convoluted code and do everything. Personally all an app needs to do is perform a specific task well. Fart apps are good at making fart noises. It doesn't pose harm to anyone. Google Voice apps clearly have features that a cell provider wouldn't want. That said I think apple should allow almost all apps. I understand language concerns, but not for a dictionary and web content. We need a rating system that says "This content is your responsibility" I mean, when tweetie was rejected it was because someone followed another user who cussed.
For devs and for users there is a quality threshhold. Mine, as a dev is higher than mine as a user, but I delete apps that don't work right and will sometimes request refunds. I wish for the app store it was easier to find apps. We need more universal tags and better search options.
Remember, probably only 2% of the people reading this post are apple's target audience. None of this affects them until there's an app or feature that Apple has blocked for a certain reason. Google Voice begins in this area, but so far I think more of the support stuff for features on apple's end is what's causing trouble for more advanced apps.
I understand how the popularity of $0.99 apps can be frustrating for developers but I have not seen any practical proposal to change that.
Why is this race to the bottom Apple's fault? Every economist will tell you that an efficient and competitive market will lead to lower prices. And there is no more efficient way to sell to a global audience than the Appstore.
What can a government (read Apple) do to raise the salaries (prices) companies (customers) pay their employees (developers)?
a) Raise the minimum wage (read price for the Appstore)
b) Tweak the rules to facilitate the formation of 'cartels', ie, unions (not trivial to apply in the Appstore)
c) Enforce participation of workers in profits/capital (charge users by how much they actually use the app, maybe via upgrade pricing or apps expiring)
Sorry, I have no sympathy for developers who don't know a good party when they see one.
* App Store gives you 100 steps forward in consumer software development for every 1 step back. You get to 1-click auto-install from a Web link with mini-payments on any arbitrary iPhone or iPod touch, but no, you don't get to run any arbitrary code, or host the app on any arbitrary server. You get to sell right to the consumer (not their phone maker or I-T) with iTunes gift certificates and all the other consumer friendly frills but your app has to be signed and approved and rated like music or movies. There's no optical disc or installer app or retail box or manual upgrades or widespread bootlegging, but yeah there's still a retailer with policies that sometimes get in your way. Apple created a very easy to use mobile computing platform with lots of interested (addicted) users and the power to run sophisticated apps, but sometimes the Apple editorial that is a key feature of the platform will rub you the wrong way. Especially if your expectations are set by other computing platforms which were designed by and for software developers, such as MS Windows or all but a handful of Linux systems.
* HTML 5 gives you the entirely opposite approach to App Store for iPhone development if that is what you want. There is no editorial at all, no ratings, no code signing, no approvals. You can host your app on any server in the world. The app can do or be about anything you want. It's worth noting that the HTML 5 environment that Apple provides on the iPhone is as good as it gets, it's not only not hobbled in any way, it has future HTML 5 features early such as 3D hardware accelerated transforms. In many cases, what you can do on the iPhone with HTML 5 is better than what you can do natively on other mobile platforms. And of course, the HTML 5 app you make for iPhone will work everywhere else also.
So Apple has given developers 2 distinct ways to make world class apps for iPhone users. I think complaining about it is dirty pool, frankly. Both the App Store and HTML 5 are extremely popular. There are 65,000 App Store apps and at least that many HTML 5 apps already, and many more coming fast. The big picture is a very successful platform with happy users running 3rd party code all day long and into the night. Roaring success.
The problem is, the more off the beaten path you go (ie, the more innovative, unusual, different application), the longer it generally takes for you to develop it (increasing your costs), but it also increases the risk that Apple will simply say "No" (or at least reject your app, or simply not accept or reject your app for weeks or months, with NO feedback as to what could be taking so long).
And when you look at the stupid things that Apple has rejected (things that were not harmful to your iPhone), that's when you really question whether you want to spend 10 or 20 man-months developing an application just to have to cripple it or scrap it at the end, with no real means of recourse other than 1) sending an email to a black-hole, where you MIGHT get a reply, or 2) publish your rejection story on the internet and hope it becomes popular enough that Phil Schiller will call you and kick the reviewer in the behind.
Finally, I have to say that from what I can tell, Phil's recent emails are more about trying to kill negative press about the App Store, and not actually about fixing the app store. Especially given that all of Apple's iPhone managers/developers walked out of the WWDC iPhone Dev session without taking ANY questions/comments, while developers were queued up waiting to talk to them AND there was time in the session for questions.
I'm late chiming in, but great summary.
The most disappointing thing for me is that from the point of view of someone who wants to combine entrepreneurship with software development, the app store is just too obvious of a poor choice. Apple has too much control, which makes it a poor business environment.
If someone were to make a great app, have it be rejected and lose time and money in the process, everyone could easily say that it was a dumb move. This is what I would like to see change.
Tor, besides the "vocal minority" argument (which may be debatable, depending on your perspective) there are many advantages to developing for the iPhone. Immediate standouts to me are the size and demographic-agnostic nature of the (still growing) global userbase, the easy transitioning from coding for the iPhone to Mac OS X "desktop" (or vice versa), and the simplicity of having to code for a known quantity in terms of the final user experience in both hardware and general UI. There may be a few people "screaming", but that doesn't suggest for a moment that the platform itself should simply be abandoned. (All that aside, yes there's obviously some kinks in the review process, but that's almost a business/culture discussion and not a "quit and do WinMo/Java/etc programming" argument. Myself, I'd chew my own foot off before attempting to code for another platform environment such as those.)
these things may be true I agree but still there is a lot of scope for improvement as it is a kind of "new thing" we all have experienced.
Interesting discussion. I read valid points on all sides, but I sense a misunderstanding of business. Business is not a 9 to 5 proposition where you do X and are guaranteed to get Y. If that what people are expecting, then I recommend keeping your day job. That is the risk averse environment that you seem to crave. Business, especially new products are, by definition, a risk environment.
Talk to any author of a great novel. They write for years and go through many rejections before getting published. There is no guarantee to be published because no one has read the product yet.
Talk to any inventor of a popular produc. - they toil in his or her basement not having a clue if the product will be accepted by a distributor or not. Or worse even looked at by any consumers. Want an excellent example - what guarantee did Steve Jobs have that the mac he was developing would even see the light of day. The answer is none at all, but he kept at it for years and hoped an investor or company would accept it.
I could go on and on - painters, bands, singers, etc.
This idea that there must be some guarantee that your app is accepted before you start is contrary to every business that I know of. You do not want to run a business; you want to pretend you do, with the security of a day job rules of engagement. I do X and then I get paid Y or at least are guaranteed something.
Really if you are that risk averse, do not say you run a business as developer - business is all about the unknown and risk. If it was not then everyone would be doing it. Clearly the majority opt for 9 to 5 because they do not like risk.
I am not defending Apple's processes here. However, anyone involved in any of the endeavors I mention above will tell you there are absolutely zero guarantees.
Apple and developers will never come to terms if developers bring 9 to 5 constructs to
a hardcore business environment. If you need that security, work for a company not yourself. Sorry, no matter what you say or do business will never provide the security you are asking for for one simple reason - security is the opposite philosophy of creating something new and unknown. By definition, new and unknown are insecure.
There is a big difference between taking risk and managing risk. Taking risk is a gamble, managing risk is what a good entrepreneur does to run a business. My concern was (and perhaps not clearly stated) how Apple's App Store approval policies put me in a position where I find it difficult to manage the risk. This difficulty can only be managed (as I see it) by scaling back investment which consequently limits the quality and scope of a product I can produce on the App Store.
I am not looking for guarantees from Apple for success, but I am looking for some kind of assurance that I can play in the market. I feel very comfortable trying something new and unknown, perhaps too comfortable really, which exacerbates the situation. Still, my basic understanding of business entreats me to identify the biggest risks and examine what can be done to reduce or mitigate them. Is there any bigger risk than having your application rejected from the App Store? That risk must be dealt with, there is no alternative. I'm an optimistic guy, but hope is not a risk management strategy.
My Issue with Apple and ATT is why does ATT get to set the technical features the phone is limited to for the whole world, and who made Apple the moral guardian for us all, while blatently also having apps included on the phone that can view porn and foul language.
I mean really, banning the work Cock from a dictionary?? My kids may never find out it is a male chicken now! Will they ban Penis, Vagina, vulva, labia, anus and breast from a medical dictionary and hope your proctologist doesn't rely on it when studying 8)
But while there is a full browser on the phone, then apps that use it's libraries for rendering content should be allowed to display whatever Safari can display. If Apple want to enforce limits, then restrict Safari. I wonder why they don't do that???
I just got my first app approved. It took 50 days. No rejections, no suggestions, just a 50 day process when most apps are approved in 14 days. What I especially agree with here is that it doesn't seem like the process is actually doing anything for customers.
Users are deluding themselves if they think this process helps them. It makes the game one of spamming the store with many simple me-too titles. It is risky to innovate. It drives away exactly the kind of development needed for the platform to reach its potential.
There has been a bit of good news recently: Phil Schiller's getting involved in some high profile rejections and... me finally getting approved. My hope--and yes hope is not a risk management strategy--is that Apple is starting to "get it" even though so many users don't. Honestly how can they? They have no idea just what this platform is capable of. Developers do.
I'm happy I'm approved and going full scale ahead as a business. But it was 50 days of pure hell. So when I read that it is just a few whiny developers, I want to explode.
Great article! Couldn't have put it better myself.
We've held off so long from sharing our own take of woe, giving Apple every ounce of the benefit of the doubt but are at breaking point.
App: entertainment.
Time in review 16 WEEKS!
Emails sent asking, pleading for feedback: 10.
Replies to said emails: 5 automatic responses with no additional info provided.
Phone calls to Dev Support: 5. everytime sympathetic but can provide zero insight into what if any issues exist. Actually admit to having no direct channel to review team. offer to send an email on my behalf.
Don't think it should matter but I'll add we're no fly by nighter we have 7 apps in-store, 1 featured in Apple stores worldwide, and 2 in the top 20 utilities worldwide for 6 straight months. The app in question is well within the guidelines given for app development (such as they are). I'm sorely tempted to go public on this as it seems that only those that scream injustice from the rooftops get any kind of tlc from our overlords :/
The most famous and similar online store for Mac apps is Bodega [http://appbodega.com/].
Can we start to recognise that Apple may take, but do not make 30%.
Advertising Apps, Running the App Store and giving away or discounting iTunes vouchers must cost them quite a bit.
iTunes Vouchers are currently available in Australia for 20% off and are often given away with iPods
In the past they have even been available at a price of $30 for a $50 voucher
I have heard no developer complaining that they have to pay for all this on top of the cut Apple takes.
What a reversal of fortune, here, beginning with Tør's initial comment about "quitting and finding another platform". A similar conversation was happening 15 or so years ago, when Windows began its rapid growth, and developers stayed there, regardless of the platform's actual merits, because that was the platform users were going to, and if they wanted to actually make money, they would continue to develop for Windows, as opposed to MacOS or something else. Apple in particular really had a huge hole to dig themselves out of, and are finally managing to do it with OS X. But it took over a decade.
Now iPhone has the dominant apps market, hence the reason developers don't "quit". Same conversation, different generation. Stick around long enough everything circles back around...LOL
Good points all round even where they apparently are contradictory. In fact truth always lies outside any single perspective be it dev, consumer or Apple management or mine. There have been several phases to the iPhone platform (starting with no 3rd party devs) and heavy criticism of Apple all along the way for lack of openness, no background processes, approvals and so on. Some of it proved way premature as 3rd Party devs were always going to be a big part of the story and APIs keep expanding now to even enable 3rd party hardware which Apple wouldn't do if it wanted all the glory.
Despite this there are always some with massive assumptions about Apples control freak domination of a platform that has seen an unseemly rush of developers big and small but especially small gunning to get onboard for the big leg up to the future Apple is offering with this device. If you get rejected port to Windows Mobile and cry all over again when nobody rejects you but nobody cares about you either.
If I owned an iPhone maybe I'd get it and be more sympathetic, sorry, but in a complex system don't expect linear outcomes. The point about prevalence of me-too apps (not to mention cheapo copywrite infringing content rip-off apps recently removed) seems the strongest argument against approvals process but as market matures the (addictive?) desire for better apps, like water finding its level, will I think reward mature applications that push the envelope. They just might not come from first time one (wo)man developers without the $$ to risk. Removal of one content infringing developer I guess is the equivilant arguement for and points to an obseesive need for content even when it's illegally duplicating stuff that's already available through other channels. There's a bunch of very very happy part-time developers who've done very well out of iPhone/iTouch btw.
Just wondering do Xbox, Wii platforms etc require approval/dev lincencing for content?
So the App store is inhospitable to you?
All you have to do to "make it" in the App store is not use profanity/nudity, not use private frameworks and make something original (that is, not yet another VOIP app) that doesn't crash constantly or that does absolutely nothing e.g. I'm Rich app.
SO hard to do; whiners are never winners.
great article. you've really seemed to accurately put into perspective the anxiety surrounding iphone development. i myself am only a few weeks away from submitting my first 2 applications for approval, and after all of my hard work i'm not looking forward to playing the waiting / possible-rejection game.
lastly, i must state that every time i've come across a blog concerning the seemingly random, outrageous hypocrisy that is the app store rejection, i've always flashed back to that 1984 macintosh commercial and wonder what ever happened?
David - thank you for your reply. I understand your position better now, but you are really expecting something that can really never happen. There is never an assurance that anyone can play in a marketplace. Simply because marketplaces are dynamic and beyond the control of even developers and Apple. They are controlled by undefined micro and macro economic forces. The day consumers choose not to use the iPhone for some unseen reason then the app market is over no matter Apple's approval policies. Yes, there are two bigger issues than getting your app rejected 1) someone develops a better product and 2) the consumers move on and play with something else. Any of those two things are more detrimental to a business than Apple's rejection. You can fix Apple's rejection reasons and get approved. But, the other two are cases of trains that left the station. No amount of approvals by Apple will help you there. The above said, you are correct about managing risk. Each of us choose how to do that, and you have chosen to curtail your investment because of Apple's approval process. A fair response, I would say. I do respect highly that you stick with it, and hopefully there will be some resolve that allows for less risk in app development. Somehow though, since markets are dynamic like I mention above, I just do not see that happening with much success. Apple may develop better approval rules today, but in short order the market will create new unseen issues to be dealt with. Business, like success, is a moving target. I doubt Apple or anyone else can keep up with it. Now that is the fundamental risk all us developers need to decide if we are comfortable with. Thanks again for the thoughtful reply. I appreciate the above board and professional exchange.
eagle: Apple's store adds a whole new layer of risk, on top of all the other risks you list with developing software. And Apple's risk is of a capricious nature. Just look at what Apple did with the existing, approved apps that enabled accessing Google Voice. I guess they 'confused' users only after Apple started reviewing (as it hasn't been rejected yet) Google's GV app. And now those developers are responsible for 142% of any money they received from the sale of those apps, as they only received 70% of the sale price, but now have to refund 100% of the sale price. And you don't even get any meaningful way to appeal either your app being removed OR any of these refunds.
And it appears the only method of manage the risk of Apple rejecting for some stupid reason or not even bothering to reject, but just hold the app in purgatory, neither approving nor rejecting it, is to publish your story on the internet and try to get it noticed by Apple News web sites.
Regardless of how large or small the percentage of apps being rejected by Apple, the fact is this is having a real impact. It's an impact both on developers contemplating developing for this platform, and end users contemplating purchasing an iPhone / iPod Touch vs competing devices. Apple needs to do something big to turn around the perception that is being created about their platform due to the whole App store approval process. They're playing in a market where competition is going to become very tough in the coming years.
Hi David,
I share your same concerns, and agreed with you up until the point where you said that "the review process can be a success without being transparent." I sincerely believe that transparency in the right places holds the key to giving both independent and commercial developers more piece of mind when investing in Apple's platform.
My current line of thought is that Apple publish something akin to Java Verified's Unified Testing Criteria. The UTC is an open document used to pass or fail applications on the J2ME platform. It codifies the unavoidable concerns of manufacturers & carriers (Apple/AT&T), and provides a script for testers and developers alike to follow. Don't get me wrong, Java Verified & UTC is by no means without issue, but I think that documenting the guidelines (strict, unfair or otherwise) is the first step in fixing some of the problems you're concerned about.
I've written a little bit more about this idea on my blog:
http://www.atnan.com/2009/8/9/apple-s-app-store-submission-process-java-verified
Cheers,
Nathan de Vries
Dave: Points very well taken. There is a new risk there ref the app store as you cite. I must admit being a bit used to the sometimes blind-sided nature of business. For example, a store like Walmart ordering a product then a complaint from a couple customers and they drop it - leaving the maker with the cost of 10,000 unsold goods plus the cost of return shipping. So, in business this happens all the time for so many, unforeseeable, unpredictable reasons. It is a cost of doing business, and the larger companies buy insurance to cover such events.
However, I do agree the refund policy does hit hard and favors larger established businesses, not indie developers. Simply because those businesses have the cash flow and backing to take the loss. Maybe, a reprieve of the Apple commission for sales under 500 units would go a long way.
The purgatory issue should be fixed also - an up and down vote in 30 days max guarantee would also go a long way.
I love this post -- it has a kind of Samuel Beckett "I can't go on / I must go on" quality. Yes, the iPhone is a creative turn on. Yes, you do have to just put your head down and ignore the noise about rejections. Yes, as a business platform the app store has a LONGGG way to go. But, for having fun and just releasing some cool stuff into the world, the iPhone is where blogs were years ago. The only remaining question -- and I think you are right on the money here -- is if Apple is going to be open enough to let the apps develop their own market.
Thanks for this article.
On the subject of pricing, currently Apps in the top 25 list get the bulk of the income. I feel strongly that Apple has created the "race to the bottom" by ranking Apps by downloads only, since a 99 cent App will generally have a greater volume of downloads than a $10 app. If we ranked cars by volume sold, I imagine that a Toyota Corolla or a Honda Civic would outrank all the Lexis or BMW models.
The pressure to get onto the top 25 list is so great that many $10 Apps have wound up priced at 99 cents. Basically, the flower garden is too small for the many flowers (Apps) to flourish. We need more space for additional App gardens.
I believe that ranking by dollar sales would ease the pressure to lower prices and produce a more viable environment for developers. But beyond that, I hope for an expansion of the ranking system to something closer to Amazon's. Obviously, that is a large undertaking, but hopefully one that that Apple will undertake. Otherwise, there will be many developers who won't be able to sustain their efforts. Of course, some Apps will not sell, because they don't match the sophistication of resent apps. But there are many Apps that will produce an adequate income if the buyers can find them. Apple has taken steps in that direction with the key word lists. Hopefully they will continue to enhance the iTunes store to make it more viable as a business for developers.