The Struggles of Getting Into the App Store

itwbennett writes "You've heard the horror stories about the App Store approval process driving developers away, but what really makes it so bad isn't the 6-8 day waiting period or even rejection. What make it so bad is the lack of access to a human problem-solver at who can loosen the stranglehold of Apple's protocol machine, says Matthew Mombrea, who recounts in excruciating detail his company's experience publishing iOS apps, and, worse, updates to iOS apps."

Comments

Yes, it sucks

[solidtransient]

I can tell you from going through numerous reviews that it's a terribly inconsistent process and has lead to a lot of frustration. I've been denied before for extremely petty reasons, only to get through on the 3rd or 4th try. Good luck trying to get an idea of how long it will take also. It has taken 45 days or longer from initial submission to being 'ready for sale'. I understand they want to keep control of their market, but their denials really interfere with my motivation to continue developing on their platform. However, on Android I've made far far less revenue on the same apps, only to see my app get 'returned' daily and probably pirated. It's worth the pain still at this point to hit iOS first and Android afterwards, especially to make 3X to 4X revenue on iOS. It's why I hope Microsoft's approvals for Win 8 and RT can be somewhere in the middle.

Re:Yes, it sucks

[jtownatpunk.net]

Serious question: How does Win8's fragmentation figure in your decision to potentially develop for their mobile platforms?

From what I can tell, to have full support across all of their portable devices, you'll need to have 3 versions of each app. One for the Windows Phone 8, one for Windows RT 8, and one for x86/x64 Windows 8. I've seen reports that RT tablets won't be able to run phone apps and phones won't be able to run RT apps so that means two ARM builds. And there are also a lot of x86 tablets in the pipeline that will be running the full x86 32 and 64 bit versions of Windows 8 so you'll need to cover them, too.

Seems like that would be a significant barrier to entry unless Microsoft has provided some pretty strong tools to port between platforms.

Re:Yes, it sucks

[Osty]

From what I can tell, to have full support across all of their portable devices, you'll need to have 3 versions of each app. One for the Windows Phone 8, one for Windows RT 8, and one for x86/x64 Windows 8. I've seen reports that RT tablets won't be able to run phone apps and phones won't be able to run RT apps so that means two ARM builds. And there are also a lot of x86 tablets in the pipeline that will be running the full x86 32 and 64 bit versions of Windows 8 so you'll need to cover them, too.

It depends on how you're writing your app. If you use the HTML5+JS framework or C#, you can write platform-neutral apps that will run on x86, x64, and ARM Windows 8 machines (including RT). You of course also have the option of specifically targeting one or more platform, which is good for games, but I would expect most apps will be platform neutral

That gets you down to two platforms -- Windows 8 and Windows Phone 8. The Windows Phone 8 SDK has yet to be released except to hand-picked developers under strict NDA, so nobody really knows what's in there yet. It could be binary-compatible with Windows 8. We just don't know.

Re:Yes, it sucks

[Bogtha]

Yes, I'm an app developer and quite a few of the apps I've built have had to go through the approval process, and it can be extremely inconsistent and frustrating.

There have been times when Apple have rejected an app with what is for all intents and purposes zero feedback. There have been times when the only person I have communicated with has admitted that they haven't actually used the app. There have been times when they have rejected an app for things that aren't in their rules. They have been times when they have rejected an app for doing things in a certain (sensible, not against the rules) way, and have refused to tell me if the alternative approach we were considering was acceptable to them or not. There have been times when they have rejected an app for something that is present in a great deal of other apps. There have been times when I've been pretty sure that for whatever reason, the reviewer has psychological issues and decided he hates us. And there have been times when they have reviewed and approved an app almost straight away.

Apple's biggest problem is not so much the inconsistency as the terrible communication. When dealing with things at their scale, there's bound to be fuckups. If something gets rejected, I can't simply drop somebody an email saying "Er, I think you've made a mistake here", or "If that's no good, how about this?" I've got to go through an appeals process, and I've got to type up the appeal in a shitty web form coded by somebody who's halfway through reading Web Development for Dummies. And at the end of it, it's quite likely that I'll still get no useful information.

Re:Why?

[geekboybt]

That's simple: the walled garden is where the money is.

Summary: app developer breaks rules, is denied.

[whoever57]

The App Store deemed that we were forcing the user to make a purchase away from the app store in order to use the app, which is partly true.

The article does not describe any actions they take to make the above not true, so it appears that they broke Apple's rules. What can they expect?

Re:This is why iPADS are not business ready

[Anonymous Coward]

Um. No. It's simple to set up enterprise distribution with your provisioning profile, which will allow you install any of your signed apps on any of your devices. You can even push the apps OTA.

Have a clue before you make stuff up.

Not all developers have the same problems

[rworne]

My experience with the app store has been totally different.

While I do embedded code for a living, I wanted to learn to write iOS apps. I am by no means a really good Obj-C programmer (but I am improving). My first hobby app suddenly looked like it might be marketable and I prepped it for app store submission.

When I got my one app rejection (on my first submission) I got an electronically generated letter that was sort of vague as to the reason. I responded to it, I got a response by a human in only an hour or two explaining in simpler terms what the issue was and what they expected. I resubmitted that afternoon and in a few days it was up and on sale. There have been no rejections over any of my subsequent updates.

I also had to push out an update about 4-5 days before the iOS 6 release due to a stupid coding error that iOS 6 would no longer let me get away with. It sat in the queue until iOS 6 was released then suddenly the app went from waiting, to in review to ready for sale in a few seconds. It came out when they did a dump of all the other iOS 6 apps. I suppose if an app has a certain number of sales and decent feedback they do not spend much time on it during reviews when crunch time is upon them. This has happened more than once - on the 5.0 update and the 4.0 update too.

Releasing at other times, I usually have 5-6 day waits. My last release (approved today) took a bit more than 8 days.

I have no complaints so far in my 2+ years on the app store.

Re:Android for the first $1250

[jtownatpunk.net]

Unless one is in an early stage startup and needs the Android revenue to afford the $1250 startup cost for iOS development ($650 Mac mini, $500 iPad, $100 certificate).

Dude, if you can't afford to invest $1250 in your startup, you can't afford to invest in your startup. The guy who rides the ice cream bike around the 'hood had a higher startup cost what with the custom cooler-bike, dry ice, ice cream, and business license.

Re:What we have here...

[Mitreya]

What we have here...Is failure to communicate.

What we have here ... Is a deliberate failure to communicate.

FTFY.
Explaining policies would expose inconsistencies and cost money in additional staff hours.
Apple is not the first company that decided to create a couple of layers between customer support and customers.

how to upload to own device?

[Chirs]

Last time I looked I was unable to find a way to upload an app that I wrote to my mom's iPhone without a developer license (or jailbreaking the phone, which wasn't an option since it was a work phone).

Re:What we have here...

[immaterial]

It sucks that he can't get through to the reviewers. That said, his app is clearly violating Apple's guidelines. There's no ambiguity or inconsistency here: you cannot use your app to direct users to buy things from you without using the in-app purchase system. (Yes, this requirement blows goats. But it is clear and straightforward.) He gets rejected once for directing users to purchase an account at their website in the app description. His solution to this isn't the logical step of *remove the offending bit*, it's *remove it and replace it with a button that does the same thing.* And he's surprised it gets rejected again? If ever he does get ahold of the review team, they aren't going to give a shit about his "but it isn't convenient or sensible for us or our users" excuse - of course it isn't! This rule wasn't convenient or sensible for the Kindle app either, but them's the rules in the walled garden and the reviewers aren't going to give him special treatment. (TBH I wouldn't be surprised if they ultra-low-prioritized his requests in favor of responding to developers who have actual fixable issues.)

Mod parent up

[immaterial]

AC is right on about the enterprise distribution system. No Apple App Store involved.

Re:Android for the first $1250

[Fallingcow]

Really wish people would stop whining about $100 development certificate. It's a negligible cost in the face of the actual App development cost.

I'd bet the nicer docs and generally better API save way more than $100 in developer time anyway.

The Bigger Picture

[SuperKendall]

The entire Apple ecosystem is way overpriced, from their consumer products to their stock, as well as all the little "apps" that run on those things.

Get out of the cabin much? I guess not when you are claiming apps that range generally in price for $1 to $5 are "way overpriced".

I would call you gramps but you have that really high UID...

I resent the idea that I'm supposed to waste so much of my time to fiddle with some little pocket device encumbered with a thousand patents to text and email people who don't have the time to communicate in real life

Only fools live to suit the devices they own.

I do none of that, instead my device is there to serve as *I* wish, providing data on demand. How much poorer a life when you do not have that ability on tap constantly.

You need to look at the big picture of what you're developing apps for. Someday people will realize and learn to work with the inherent limitations of interfacing with a little piece-of-junk device that fits in your pocket,

Funny you should mention the big picture; I have already seen it. It's a world where people find the small devices rock-solid compared to the "fiddly" world of PC's they came from. That's what you fail to understand, for non-technical users the desktop is the thing that is limiting and fiddly, the pocket devices the thing they turn to when the just want to do something without fuss and have vastly greater ability to use software to amplify human ability.

It is why I had been looking for a way to switch into mobile development full time since the early smart phone days, and jumped into it full time with the release of the iOS SDK. You don't have to be a genius to see which way the world will go, you just have to stop and consider what most people will probably do.

That is a truth that lives outside of brand; even if iOS faltered Android of WP8 would simply take over the same role. The PC is not a thing most people would want to use, tablets and mobile smartphones are.