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.
Share
Categories
Should Apple have approved "I Am Rich"? Pretty much everyone agrees that it's a useless application. But once approved, should they have...
Add a Comment
For all those with the "delete now" argument, I have to ask if we should make quality of the product a consideration in ALL of the iTunes store?
I mean, I think an AAC of "My Humps" is a waste of 1s & 0s. I believe that "Hollaback Girl" is utter trash. Still, these items are offered by iTunes regardless of their low quality and the loathing of critics.
Granted, "My Humps" is not $9999.99 -- But that's because iTunes doesn't allow music to cost more than the standard iTunes prices.
All I'm saying is that if "My Humps" DID cost $9999.99 then it would sit in relative obscurity, just like "I'm Rich" will, and eventually the iTunes Powers-That-Be would be able to say, "Well, it's not selling. We have to pull it." and they'd be totally justified.
Let the market pass judgment. It will all work out in the end. People are stupid, but they're not THAT stupid.
This is a no brainer Apple should simply implement the X number of months under 2 stars and your app will be pulled from the online store. Then if the same developer introduces a new app and it intros at less than 2 stars for the first week auto pull it. This keeps the garbage off the app store while still allowing the free market to help weed out the junk that would otherwise just pollute the store.
August 08 2008 at 10:23 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyI gotta take Apple's side on this one... but the app never should have made it on the store to begin with.
August 08 2008 at 8:53 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyHow about an open market app store and a section for "Apple approved" software?
August 08 2008 at 1:21 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyIn the End, regardless of everyone's Opinion here, Apple does and will decide what get's on the App Store. That is as fact as the Sun rises everyday. No additional debate or opinion will change that. They do this today and will always do this.
With the App Store, Apple's role is that of retailer, just like their Apple Store (both online and brick and mortar).
I know this is confusing to many since the App Store exists on iTunes. But you need to understand that with the iTunes Store, Apple's role is that of distributor, not retailer.
Distribution works on much lower profit margins than retail.
App Store = Retail = Higher margins
iTunes Store = Distributor = Lower Margins
At 200 apps a week, or whatever rate anyone in the know wants to chime in with, the App store may be approaching 10,000 apps a year from now. Ouch.
As a consumer, I EXPECT that Apple will filter the Apps that get on the store by whatever means they deem. If anyone doubts this, go to the Apple Store (retail) and see for yourself. Not every application or every product exists there. Only those that Apple decides to put there, exist. We want this. We need this.
Knowing that Apple is in the business of making profits and growing their customer base through the sound economic practice of turning customers into Highly Satisfied Customers, I expect Apple will use all it's resources to determine what Apps they will make available to Apple's iPhone/iPod Touch customers, in the hopes of making them Highly Satisfied Customers.
As with All companies, they'll make good decisions and bad decisions. As with all successful and profitable companies, they will continue to tweak their product line (Apps on the App Store) and gauge their efforts by profits and highly satisfied customers.
Steve jobs is no dummy.
Is there a place where you can get good iPhone App reviews?
Atari had the same problem.
(E.T. is seen as marking the beginning of Atari's downfall and is often viewed as one of the biggest commercial failures in video gaming history, as well as the worst video game ever made. E.T. was a contributing factor to Atari's massive financial losses during 1983 and 1984, and a glut of unsold copies of the game helped contribute to the video game crash of 1983. As a result of overproduction, hundreds of thousands of unsold cartridges were reportedly buried in a New Mexican landfill.)
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_Seal_of_Quality
But these days people can get reviews before you buy for most things.
good riddance i say
you can't let a few bad app(le)s spoil the (imaginary) cart
Did anyone consider that something like "I Am Rich" was just easier to review than the rest of the programs waiting in the queue? It is a static image. What bugs could there possibly be? What grammar issues or interface problems could there have been? Just because some apps are getting rejected or have been waiting for two weeks to make it to the App Store doesn't mean they won't. It just means they haven't yet.
August 07 2008 at 7:55 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyThe main problem here is that Apple DOES review apps and stupid submissions get approved while other, fantastic apps, get delayed. If Apple stopped reviewing all apps, many people (mostly developers) would be relieved; alternatively, Apple could review everything and filter crap like I Am Rich. Either decision would be understandable. But as it stands, Apple's reviewing process is both inefficient and ineffective, and that is the most irritating part of all.
August 07 2008 at 7:27 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyApple should never have posted this app. The app store is already filled with crapapps. I don't want my phone turning into a windows mobile device.
I praise apple for keeping it as closed as they can. It would be nice if the process was even harder, maybe then my phone would crash less.
Hot Apps on TUAW
Deals of the Day
more deals- Refurb Apple MacBook Air Laptops: 12" 64GB SSD for $699 + free shipping
- JVC Motion Sensing Clock Radio with Dual iPod Docks for $55 + free shipping
- Apple iPhone Headset with Mic for $4 + $2 s&h
- miFrame Picture Frame Dock for iPad for $64 + $8 s&h
- Refurb Apple iPod nano 8GB MP3 Player for $99 + free shipping, 16GB for $119
- Hannspree Apple-Shaped 28" 1080p LCD HDTV for $270 + free shipping
Software Updates
more updates- EFI Firmware Update brings Lion Internet Recovery to 2010-model Macs
- OS X Lion 10.7.3 released with Safari 5.1.3, Wi-Fi bug fix
- Aperture updated to 3.2.2, addresses Photo Stream issue
- Apple updates Keynote to address Lion issues
- Google Search app gets new look on iPad
- Apple releases Apple TV Software Update 4.4.3



75 Comments