4 ms·
The human review process in the app store leaves a lot to be desired for consistency. I've worked on multiple apps that were denied during an update renewal fo
by lb504 6y ago
The human review process in the app store leaves a lot to be desired for consistency. I've worked on multiple apps that were denied during an update renewal for something that wasn't part of the update and was already approved. If a specific app gets approved or denied often has a lot to do with which reviewer picks it up.
While it seems like bad press has changed the review outcome it is plausible to me that the stance would be reversed regardless because it's such a grey area in the rules.
- parasubvert 6y agoI’m not sure there any evidence the PR had any effect. This was about apple’s appeal process working as intended. Id much rather have a human involved with some inconsistency and an appeal process, than an automated algorithm or rigid process that is consistently wrong.
- LeoNatan25 6y agoThere has been enough anecdotal evidence by now to show a pattern. The silent appeals often fail, while publicized appeals, accompanied by public outrage, are often successful. Hardly “working as intended”.
- Twisell 6y agoCan you provide some examples of legitimate but failed silent appeal, because on the other hand I think of quite a few publicized illegitimate appeal that failed not matter what. Fortnite being the incontestable leader of this category. You may be right but we should gather some metrics before jumping to claims about correlation between publicity/outcome. Perception bias is inevitable when remembering anecdotal evidences.
- rzzzt 6y agoHow can an appeal be publicized and silent at the same time?
- Twisell 6y agoWell it would be nice to have an independent plateform to track and compare review process of the different appstore. Maybe EFF or a news outlet could think of that. As a developer you may not have enought follower to publicize widely but you could fill a report. Theses report could then be audited by the independent plateform to label claims as legitimate or not (and maybe publicized or not). I acknowledge this is a huge work, but this would be a good way to make a strong case and eventually go to court together. Collecting anecdotal evidence is not enough and is always biases toward publicized cases.
- hutzlibu 6y ago"Hardly “working as intended”. " Why not? Their intention is to make money (they do). And to do so, they have to maintain a good image and please different crowds. Some of them want very restrictive regulation, some none at all. Not possible to make them all happy and very expensive to try. So they indeed make decisions based on public "feedback". Is this fair? No. But walled gardens by monopolists are never fair. But this is sadly where the money is.
- parasubvert 6y agoExcept that Apple isn’t, by any legal or economic definition, a monopolist.
- parasubvert 6y agoPlenty of anecdotal evidence on this thread saying the opposite: that the appeals process works and doesn’t require a PR drama.
- jb1991 6y agoFor what it’s worth, non-human review processes are equally problematic. Just look at all the automated shutdowns of YouTube channels for bogus reasons.
- izacus 6y agoYeah, hence the problem itself is the fact that a "review process" exists with no alternative option. Why does your software need an approval from some random American corporation to deploy on hardware?
- thatfunkymunki 6y agoBecause otherwise, unscrupulous company X can harm paying Apple customers with unvetted malicious apps