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 2 of 4)
clearThumbtack said 3:49PM on 8-07-2008
I am Rich is a "stupid" app, but it doesn't claim anything falsely. I don't see why it doesn't have just as much right to be there as any other app does. Maybe it is exactly what someone wants?
I do have my problems with the app store, such as how Apple plays favorites when approving updates etc. I had a "big name" app get 2 updates in the same day yesterday. When I submit updates for my app, they take at least 3 days.
Reply
tironius said 3:52PM on 8-07-2008
But Noza, applications *aren't* music, movies, podcasts, or ham sandwiches. Applications are applications. Apple *does* select what applications are physically located in its retail locations, and should be afforded the same opportunity to nix the steamy piles from the online version.
And for the "they deserve" what they get in regards to buying that app, do we really want a story where that kind of thing happens? Do you think Apple wants that? Subjectivity is a good thing.
Reply
John Kirk said 4:26PM on 8-07-2008
I think it's proper and necessary to point out the flaws in the App Store. But let us all continually remind ourselves that the store is FOUR WEEKS old.
The last I heard there were over 1,300 hundred Apps in the store which means that Apple has approved over 800 Apps since launch or 200 Apps a week. Maybe, just maybe, we should give them just a teensy weensy bit of a break.
Reply
jim said 4:09PM on 8-07-2008
I think apple should be allowed to freely decided what they do and do not sell at their store. I can't imagine someone walking into a retail store and demanding that certain items be stocked on the shelves.
Reply
3g-er said 5:10PM on 8-07-2008
people don't demand things be sold at a given store...because we are free to shop at other stores that have it. The real problem here is not what Apple allows in the store it owns and maintains. The problem is their draconian restrictions and monopoly on how to get and install the software. It still amazes me that I don't read more grief from people about this. Guess the ones that care have already pwned and are modifying the phone to make it more productive (intelliscreen) and more appealing to me (winterboard). So happy to be free of the walled garden!
yubo said 4:06PM on 8-07-2008
I had a discussion, okay an argument, with someone on Tuaw about a month ago. His take was that Apple should let every single App in. Period. I responded that who wants to wade through 100 To Do apps to find one they like. He disagreed which is his right. I'd like to know his opinion now that we have over 30 Tip Apps and the I am Rich App.
For those of you who still think that the I am Rich App should be allowed in, what would you think if all of a sudden we had 500 of those apps in the store and whats to keep them from coming in?
Hell, I have $100 to spend. I think I'd like to make an app that shows all my family members faces. Tap on each face and we'll sing you happy birthday. (No fair using that) Or how about I'll just make an app that lets you cycle my entire family album. It'll cost $99.99 and no one will ever buy it but it'll be there along with thousands of other families who wanted to "make it onto the App Store".
Please Apple: Get some quality control in place and weed out the crap apps. (Don't bother checking godaddy - it's gone)
Reply
John Kirk said 4:30PM on 8-07-2008
I think your friend is right. Tell me. Which of the 30 "to do" apps would you exclude? By what criteria would you judge one to be superior to another? And how much of Apples' time and resources do you want them to spend on comparing Apps in order to see whether a new App is "Appleworthy" compared to an existing App? When you think about it, such vetting would be totally impossible. Why not let the market decide?
GJD said 5:20PM on 8-07-2008
Apple has just as much right to choose the apps it sells through its App Store as it does to choose the accessories it sells in the Apple Store. I'm sure the makers of those iPod compatible vibrators would love shelf space in the Fifth Avenue Apple Store, but clearly that's not going to happen.
Selling crappy apps - either buggy or just plain pointless - will have a detrimental effect on Apple's hard-earned reputation for quality.
That Apple isn't vetting apps more carefully is very puzzling.
Nicholas Moline said 3:44PM on 8-08-2008
The problem with your line of reasoning is that with the 30 tip apps you mentioned, some cost, some are free, and some offer different feature sets, but all deserve their chance.
The App Store is the only way to get your application on to end user's iPhones and iPod Touches (unless you want to be limited to only 100 devices total), if I were to write an awesome Tip app with some incredible new feature or interface and a bunch of people want it, it should not be refused simply because the App Store already has a Tip app, it deserves the same chance to be a successful piece of software as any other application.
It would be one thing if there were other ways to distribute applications legitimately, but as there is not, you shouldn't say that only one app of a particular type should be allowed.
As for the I am rich app, it's a joke, but you know what it did exactly what it said it would do, it didn't lie to the few people who bought it, they knew what they were getting into, it was a quick way for a guy to make a buck and people who bought the app did so purely for the humor of it.
As long as the app does not violate the Terms Apple has set for the security of it's users, it should be allowed, period, someone will want it, and the developer spent good time and energy to create it.
Steve said 4:02PM on 8-07-2008
My problem with I Am Rich was that this was clearly a marketing ploy to get attention for his other apps.
In that light, he was using an app as a gimmick and I felt it should be removed. Otherwise, the app store will have 90% trash. Developers will make 27 versions of their app, each starting with a different letter of the alphabet, etc, etc, etc.
There has to be a line somewhere.
Reply
ulkesh said 4:17PM on 8-07-2008
Well, I see both sides of this coin and understand both quite plainly. On one hand, here's Apple, which we will compare to Walmart. Walmart can pick and choose, through a rigorous process from what I understand, what products they will put on the shelves. There's no "free market" decision-making to my knowledge. Apple has just as much right to be as objective or as subjective as they wish.
However, on the other hand, there is a sense of responsibility on Apple's part to provide a fair, well-balanced AppStore since it's technically a service they provide to iPhone customers. And there in lies the problem. "Fair" and "well-balanced" mean very different things to many different people. Objectivity would be ideal, but Apple is made up of human beings, not automatons.
To put it into perspective, does anyone honestly expect Apple to allow an app that touts satan worshiping or sex or anything else found offensive to some people even if it passes objective criteria? Now, granted, some of the objective criteria could say "If the app displays anything of paganistic, discriminatory, or sexual connotation, it is not allowed." But then someone could come back and state that that is subjective, and not objective.
Hopefully Apple has some sort of oversight committee which is designed to help weed out applications of a certain kind, though I don't know how "I am Rich" would've gotten through such a committee.
While I believe in the software maker's right to create a $1000 "I am Rich" app, I do not condone the attitude that it's their right for the AppStore to distribute it. If they would like to find a way to distribute the app themselves, so be it.
Reply
John Kirk said 4:33PM on 8-07-2008
Excluding an App because it's offensive or pornographic is much easier that making a judgment call as to which App is superior or inferior.
ulkesh said 9:33AM on 8-08-2008
Agreed, but the point is still the same. It's Apple's AppStore, not the public's. And let's be honest, if they were truly playing God with determining App superiority, we certainly wouldn't be seeing multiple apps that do nothing but display a white (or other color) screen and claim it's a flashlight which some charge money for it. (And to be fair here, I'm pretty sure Erica's flashlight was first, why all the clones?)
I feel Apple has probably been too lenient with what they're allowing to clutter the AppStore. We need functional apps, not $1000 waste of scrolling time or $0.99 monochrome-filled screens. (And yes, I get it that if I don't like it I don't have to buy it/download it, but I shouldn't be forced to wade through what many would consider are useless apps...but then, it's Apple's AppStore, not mine :) ).
ulkesh said 9:33AM on 8-08-2008
Agreed, but the point is still the same. It's Apple's AppStore, not the public's. And let's be honest, if they were truly playing God with determining App superiority, we certainly wouldn't be seeing multiple apps that do nothing but display a white (or other color) screen and claim it's a flashlight which some charge money for it. (And to be fair here, I'm pretty sure Erica's flashlight was first, why all the clones?)
I feel Apple has probably been too lenient with what they're allowing to clutter the AppStore. We need functional apps, not $1000 waste of scrolling time or $0.99 monochrome-filled screens. (And yes, I get it that if I don't like it I don't have to buy it/download it, but I shouldn't be forced to wade through what many would consider are useless apps...but then, it's Apple's AppStore, not mine :) ).
Robert said 4:18PM on 8-07-2008
I would like to see it pretty much opened up.
The only things that I would like to see apple review for is security and perhaps basic stability. Perhaps also that the description matches the software - although that is much harder to do.
I would also like to see reviews only by people who have actually used the application. There are way too many "This is stupid" comments from people who don't even understand what the application is for and have never downloaded it.
Reply
InkFreq said 4:26PM on 8-07-2008
I agree with Apple's decision to pull "I am Rich", and not based on the uselessness of the app. I agree it should have been pulled to protect consumers from accidentally purchasing it, since Apple has a zero refund policy on iTunes and App Store purchases. If someone misreads and sees 99 cents vs. $999.99, that could be someone's mortgage payment. While it would be the consumer's fault, Apple set the App Store up to protect consumers and control their product. Correct decision made in this case.
Reply
Rob said 5:00PM on 8-07-2008
If accidental purchase of high priced apps is such a concern, then why not either put in extra confirmation checks (eg: require the user to re-enter their password, even if they've already saved it) or just prevent developers from entering such high prices.
Hypothetically, if someone actually did release an incredibly useful application that was worth $1000 to the right market (there's plenty of desktop apps that cost more than $1000), should Apple still block it cause someone could accidentally buy it?
THJ said 5:30PM on 8-07-2008
I agree with Rob. There should be a threshhold (either fixed or user-settable) for expensive apps.
For example - any app over X$ or X% over the median cost of all apps would have a screen that had something like:
This application costs
(Imagine big red text) $999.99
Please enter your password:
And your CCV number:
That would help ensure against misclicks (for those that have the auto-purchase option enabled) and junior wiping out Dad's bank account (CCV).
InkFreq said 1:58AM on 8-08-2008
If someone made an incredibly useful app for $1,000, then I would say allow it. However, this app was not useful, and was really intended for "accidental" sales.
I do not believe for a moment that it was really a gimmick app for rich people to blow a grand on. Rich people don't get rich by blowing their money stupidly.
This app was intended to be placed where people may accidentally click and spend a thousand non-refundable dollars.
Further more, Apple has a responsibility to the consumer to filter through the crap and remove the apps that will not only be worthless to the customer, but deteriorate the overall quality and appeal of their product.
Argue all you want for a "free market society" but in reality it's not smart business to for a company to take that approach. Companies like Apple maintain their business by keeping their product's quality, and one of their current products is the App Store.
If Apple allowed any app regardless of design, cost, or function in the store, a year from now all of these same people would be complaining about how difficult it is to find a good app amongst the sea of junk.
Jeremy said 4:36PM on 8-07-2008
More pot-stirring from TUAW. ;)
While as developers you may be privy to information I as a customer do not have, you haven't mentioned anything in the article about that so I have to assume that we are all on the same page.
If that's so, then this is just more scare-mongering "click-whore" stuff from this site IMO.
What one would expect primarily in a policy are like this is that the review process would be *transparent* and "user-driven." I won't buy into your assertion that it should be objective or consistent, because to me those are givens for almost everything and there is no reason given to think that this is not the case with the approval process in place now.
By "user-driven" i mean *end* user driven, i.e. - customers, and I think this is where most of the bloggers, this site included get it completely wrong. It's not about catering to the developers at all. That's like saying you are going to build a coffee house, but design all your store policies around your south american coffee supplier instead of what your customers want. Developers (and the writers of articles like this) are completely blind to this one basic fact IMO.
I have seen absolutely nothing to suggest that Apples policies regarding the app store are anything but completely transparent and above board after reading many articles like this over the last few days.
Did it occur to anyone that as nefarious as the "I am Rich" app is, it was still put in the app store by Apple *because* they don't want to be subjective? Did it not occur to anyone that the reason it might have been pulled down, was due to the clear customer complaints listed on the site?
To me this sounds like exemplary behaviour and exactly the kind of objective, transparent behaviour pleaded for in this article, yet the article uses the "I am Rich" debacle as evidence of the exact opposite! WTF?
Reply