Filed under: iPod Family, iPhone, App Store
Thoughts on the iPhone App Store review process
Should Apple have approved "I Am Rich"? Pretty much everyone agrees that it's a useless application. But once approved, should they have pulled it? Jason Kottke says it should stay in the App Store. He argues that Apple should be providing an open marketplace rather than a hand-selected boutique.
Say what you will about Apple's App Store shortcomings (no shopping carts? What were they thinking!), iPhone consumers are split between those who'd prefer greater oversight and those who'd rather let the free market decide.
Follow the jump for more thoughts about the App Store review process.
For me, the bigger Apple story here is not whether "I am Rich" is for sale or not but rather how Apple should play its approval role. I've been very fortunate in having access to a wide spectrum of developers. I've been able to listen to their stories as well as to explore App Store submission on my own.
If I've discovered anything, it's that many developers are unsatisfied with the status quo of the App Store review and approval process. These conversations point to areas where Apple should focus on improvement. Here a few points to get the conversation started:
Objectivity. Does Apple uses an objective internal system for App review? Perhaps they do. Developers perceive, however, a great deal of subjectivity. Devs (myself included!) complain that Apple sometimes seems to make up rules as they go along. That's not a behavior that inspires confidence in the review process.
Apple should provide clear guidelines and punch lists to developers. They should state clearly as to what is and is not acceptable for App Store sales. A single objective review scheme would allow developers to know going in whether their application is likely to be approved or denied.
I'm not saying that apps shouldn't be flagged for special review when they fall outside the norm but rather that Apple provide the goal posts so that devs clearly know where to kick the ball. "I Am Rich" shouldn't make the cut when iPhartz can not. (iPhartz does exactly what you'd expect. It's an electronic whoopie cushion.) Yes, they're both stupid -- but I don't see a qualitative difference to the end-user.
If "I Am Rich" shows us anything, it's that a conforming application should be able to find its market, regardless of whether 99.9% of the public thinks it is stupid.
Consistency. Expanding on the notion of objective review, App Store approval should not depend on the assignment of reviewers. If "I Am Rich" passes one reviewer, it should pass them all. Subjective opinion should play a limited role in deciding what hits the shelf. With objective standards and a consistent review process, developers know that their application has just as fair a chance of hitting the shelf as their competitors.
Transparency. Developers should be know where they stand in the review process. In the current state of affairs, applications disappear behind the black walls of Apple for weeks at a time without any status as to their disposition. Should an application meet review flags, Apple should make the developer aware of the expected delays, particularly when the review system gets backlogged due to personnel shortages.
The review process transparency should extend to those situations where developers contest Apple's rulings. Apple should be sending some sort of receipt, acknowledging a challenge so that developers know they're being heard. NullRiver writes that their protests got mislaid.
"August 4, 2008 -- We've finally gotten in contact with Apple. Looks like the lack of communication was due to automated e-mail systems being employed on both ends, which resulted in e-mails being lost in transit. We're working with Apple to get NetShare back up on the AppStore."
A tracking system would certainly helped to mitigate this problem.
By any measure, App Store has been a financial success for Apple. Working on these shortcomings (and, of course, getting rid of that NDA) will only improve developer relations and increase the number of excellent -- as well as, yes, stupid -- applications. Because in the end, happy developers make a successful platform and that's what Apple is all about.
Get a WordPress.com Blog
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
DMcGrew said 3:12PM on 8-07-2008
Apple pulled the I am Rich app. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,399461,00.html
Reply
totoro said 3:43PM on 8-07-2008
Does it say Apple pulled it, or the developer did?
Ramesh said 3:19PM on 8-07-2008
Apple should certainly not pull this app from App Store, as useless as it is. This should be a meritocracy, decided by free market. If there are many people who are willing to pay for this app, let them.
However, there should be oversight on the apps - checking for maliciousness, bad performance and bad user experience (even the last one should be on a advisory basis).
Reply
mark said 4:10PM on 8-07-2008
but it's a headache for Apple if someone accidentally bought it. yeah, i know, how can you accidentally buy something? I don't know how, but i do know it happens.. there are stupid people everywhere. I'll bet there's at least one poor sod that bought this.. TWICE. Apple is right to take this down. Bet the developer might have second thoughts when Apple comes after him for $700 per copy sold because they have to issue refunds.
Danny F. said 6:26PM on 8-07-2008
I agree with Mark. Theres a difference between having the freedom to a open market, and then abusing that freedom.
Apple made the right choice by pulling that app, heck it was common sense to pull it, and hopefully they made some wise choices on how to go about checking apps before being approved again in the future.
josh said 6:46PM on 8-07-2008
apple needs to make sure that there are no malicious threats but they shouldn't take people's apps out of the store they should only make requirements in order to keep your app up on the store eg: if it doesn't sell X copies every month than it is no longer stored on the server
fail said 6:57PM on 8-07-2008
@mark Actually the developer will owe Apple an additional $299.99 on top of the $700 Apple paid him for the sale. Apple keeps their cut regardless of the outcome.
ZeroCorpse said 11:04AM on 8-08-2008
I came in to sing the praises of a meritocracy myself. They could base whether or not something gets space on how many sales/installs it gets within a fiscal quarter, just like any other retail store. If it fails to get any sales at all, then pull it. If it has a large number of downloads, then keep it.
Either way, let the buyers decide.
It's a stupid app, but people will figure that out and not reward the developer for his shenanigans.
...Unless Paris Hilton decides it's trendy and buys a few of them, that is.
Bob S. said 3:20PM on 8-07-2008
Puhleez. *Most* of the apps in there are stupid. Flashlight apps, bible apps, "ebooks" that were "borrowed" from the utterly free Project Gutenberg and suddenly worth 99c, any games that was ever a System 1.1g desk accessory -- they're *all* *stupid*. And once that's true, the price is irrelevant. You're as big a sucker for paying 99c for something you could read online for free as you are for paying nearly a grand for an icon.
Reply
John Kirk said 3:48PM on 8-07-2008
Dear Bob, thank you for telling me what is good and what is useless. But I'm a big boy now and I think I'll make those decisions for myself thank you very much.
Respectfully yours,
The Market
robb said 11:49PM on 8-07-2008
They're not ALL stupid.
There sure are a lot of dumb ones though. Hopefully IUseThis and company will provide a good way of sorting through the chaff.
Buckingham said 3:58PM on 8-07-2008
Yes. Most of the apps there where rehashes from previous mobile apps (Symbian). The device has a lot of potential to change the way things are done in the mobile world--multitouch, accelerometers, geolocation--the current apps just don't take advantage of these. There are also very few games that do not suck. The top game at the moment is some breaker ball thing that had been done in every phone. Clearly there is room for more developers who have vision and not just the coding skills to port a midlet app to Cocoa-touch.
Bob S. said 5:05PM on 8-07-2008
Sorry, The Market (oh aren't *you* full of yourself): If you were working, no one would pay 99c for something that's immediately available for free.
LuminousNerd said 8:51AM on 8-08-2008
Bob S.
You are severely mistaken my friend. You seem to be completely blind to the world around you. People pay for thing all the time, and there are very, very few things that don't have alternatives that don't cost money.
However, these apps save us time. Flashlight, for example, saves me time stumbling around in the freaking dark to find a freaking flashlight. It is SOOO worth 99¢.
The fact that there is competition that is free doesn't make it evil. It is a kind thing for the developers to offer freeware, but people deserve to be paid for work they do.
noza said 3:33PM on 8-07-2008
As an iPhone developer with software in the App Store, it frustrates me that my app is awash in a sea of crap. But on the other hand, Apple doesn't do any content review of the music, TV, movies or podcasts on the App Store. A lot of them are just plain terrible, and no one cries foul about that.
Reply
MoonMan said 5:28PM on 8-07-2008
Who is to say that your App isn't that big stinking floater in the "sea of crap"?
Remember, it isn't your constitutional right to force Apple to sell your crapware through their App Store. It's their App Store, they can decide what's in and what's out, just like any retail store.
Buckingham said 6:02PM on 8-07-2008
There's no need to talk about rights and legal stuff. Just think what's sensible. Right now, we have to acknowledge that the App Store is in its infancy, and Apple will certainly have checks and controls in the near future to keep the store to their level of quality and users' high expectations. Imagine you're in charge of the App Store and you report to Steve Jobs. You want to satisfy developers and give them a free roam of the marketplace, and at the same time you want to give an impression to users that quality is being sold. Imagine for a minute that youtube users can sell their videos through iTunes, and see the difficulty of maintaining the quality environment.
Sam said 8:27PM on 8-07-2008
My app (shameless plug: ChessClock $3) is rated 4.5 stars and seems to have a (very) small but happy following. But daily sales dropped off pretty quick. I'm debating whether it's worth trying to advertise it or just let it sell what it will and focus my effort on other apps.
Even though it's currently unique on the Apple Store, has no complaints, and a very high rating, it's buried under piles of flashlights and tip calculators which get updated twice a week and push it quickly out of any "recent" list on iusethis or RSS feeds. Then the developers complain that Apple isn't processing their updates fast enough! Just release a quality product in the first place, instead of multiple point releases a week!
sodapop said 3:36PM on 8-07-2008
I agree, if the only thing about it that is objectional is the price, whats the harm. Really, any fool who buys it gets what they deserve.
Reply
Reggie said 3:39PM on 8-07-2008
It all depends. If the developer signed or agreed on a contract stating that apps should meet certain qualifications, and the developer still uploaded an app that didn't meet one or more of the qualifications, then it's clear that Apple has the right to remove it.
Reply