5 ms·

If you get a permission to publish on the App Store the first time, shouldn't that be permanent? Why do developers have to justify _every_ new update?

saagarjha 5y ago
Because apps change.
- croes 5y ago
  But you can't suddenly rate it as spam just because other similar apps exist. Certain criterias are only valid for the initial release and not for updates.
Closi 5y ago
Because developers will just submit a first version which follows the rules, and then just put anything non-compliant in the update.
- peterburkimsher 5y ago
  That would be treachery of Epic proportions ;)
shreddit 5y ago
In theory, you could do a 180 turn on the content of your app with every update. So a permanent green light would do more bad than good
- flatiron 5y ago
  Totally. But there has to be some middle ground. If you did a 180 then do a manual review. If the app is fundamentally the same with a minor bug fix then why review it?
  - Someone 5y ago
    How do you suggest Apple determines whether an update does a 180 or just has a minor bug fix? Trust the submitter?
    - flatiron 5y ago
      I’ve only worked with the chrome store which is obviously open source so static analysis doesn’t work here like it does there. It’s a good question. My hot take is diff the syscalls. Easy enough to do. If you changed a bunch of them then big review. It’s not perfect but in 30 seconds I couldn’t think of anything better. My first hot take was app submit its own test scripts for an emulator but that could easily be gamed.
    - gpm 5y ago
      By opening both versions of the app side by side, and by default not objecting to things that are in the already approved version?
      - Someone 5y ago
        I call that a review. “If you did a 180 then do a manual review. If the app is fundamentally the same with a minor bug fix then why review it?” would have to be a different thing.
Razengan 5y ago
Apply that logic to any service where access is a privilege and see how that works. (i.e. getting away with doing whatever you want once you are inside restaurants, forums, HN, etc.)
concinds 5y ago
That's how Steam works. I think it's a much more dev-friendly policy, because in practice there's really zero reason to review Adobe or Microsoft or OmniGroup app updates since you know they won't turn into scam apps overnight; it's weird to me Apple hasn't done a "Trusted Developer" program to exempt the biggest devs from this headache. There's no reason why the weird clone apps (like the app that shows up 3 results down, when you search for "1Password", that trashily has the exact same blue ring and keyhole but slightly different background) should be treated the same as apps by hardworking, honest, trustworthy developers. People would cry foul for unfairness but there's also no way of letting the hundreds of thousands of App Store devs all submit updates with no review, you'd end up with something like the Chrome Web Store where apps get bought and filled with malware all the time.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  This. Reputation based review standards is pretty low hanging fruit. You literally already have an ongoing relationship with the party in question, which is usually one of the biggest hurdles to reputation systems (new users). I expect the real reason they haven't moved in this direction is fundamentally App Store review is seen as a tool of ongoing control rather than quality. So the more frequently something has to pass through it, the better. If Apple can "find an issue" with your app every time you update, that's a very different relationship than an ongoing approval. PS: Would also require developers to inform Apple of any company sale / dev team replacement to prevent abuse (Didn't mention you sold your company? Ban).
  - BrightGlow 5y ago
    With a reputation system you'd still want to do your due diligence and manually check things. Even the most trustworthy people make honest mistakes sometimes.
- siva7 5y ago
  The problem with this is that these big trusted tech giants have abused the trust put in them to break compliance rules of the app store because they can (facebook for example).
siva7 5y ago
For security/compliance reasons as in don't trust the developer by default. To be honest, i appreciate this concept as it makes the store more secure for the users.
xvector 5y ago
Because it makes being malicious trivial if all you have to do is get approved once
david_allison 5y ago
There are apps on the Play Store which get updated, and now sideload malware. It's not feasible to get in touch with Google to fix/remove these. It's a hard issue to solve; Apple are erring on the side of user safety.
- oauea 5y ago
  I feel very safe knowing blind people aren't allowed to play hangman.
  - BrightGlow 5y ago
    Blind people can also get malware...
    - oauea 5y ago
      Apple checking for malware is great. Their million militant little rules less so, which caused OPs rejection.
kmeisthax 5y ago
No. Apple absolutely does not want to have "App Store case law". They want the rules to be what the agreement says and no more. In fact, trying to cite other approvals in an argument in App Review is usually a good way to get other developers' apps pulled.
- kall 5y ago
  In the emails from the Epic trial, they had a special acronym just for this: UTB (under the bus) that was used in multiple contexts (so probably not a one off joke).
- saagarjha 5y ago
  Apple absolutely runs an internal App Store case law. In fact this specific case law has caused issues in the past, when I knew they had case law covering the thing I was submitting and their low-level reviewers didn't, and resolving this obviously took work.
labster 5y ago
You have it backwards. If Apple doesn’t review every update, how can they justify 30% transaction fees?
- threeseed 5y ago
  The same way every digital and retail store does: as a "channel to market" cost. Apple hands you willing buyers on a silver platter and you pay for it.

saagarjha 5y ago

Because apps change.

croes 5y ago
But you can't suddenly rate it as spam just because other similar apps exist. Certain criterias are only valid for the initial release and not for updates.

Closi 5y ago

Because developers will just submit a first version which follows the rules, and then just put anything non-compliant in the update.

peterburkimsher 5y ago
That would be treachery of Epic proportions ;)

shreddit 5y ago

In theory, you could do a 180 turn on the content of your app with every update. So a permanent green light would do more bad than good

flatiron 5y ago
Totally. But there has to be some middle ground. If you did a 180 then do a manual review. If the app is fundamentally the same with a minor bug fix then why review it?
- Someone 5y ago
  How do you suggest Apple determines whether an update does a 180 or just has a minor bug fix? Trust the submitter?
  - flatiron 5y ago
    I’ve only worked with the chrome store which is obviously open source so static analysis doesn’t work here like it does there. It’s a good question. My hot take is diff the syscalls. Easy enough to do. If you changed a bunch of them then big review. It’s not perfect but in 30 seconds I couldn’t think of anything better. My first hot take was app submit its own test scripts for an emulator but that could easily be gamed.
  - gpm 5y ago
    By opening both versions of the app side by side, and by default not objecting to things that are in the already approved version?
    - Someone 5y ago
      I call that a review. “If you did a 180 then do a manual review. If the app is fundamentally the same with a minor bug fix then why review it?” would have to be a different thing.

Razengan 5y ago

Apply that logic to any service where access is a privilege and see how that works. (i.e. getting away with doing whatever you want once you are inside restaurants, forums, HN, etc.)

concinds 5y ago

That's how Steam works. I think it's a much more dev-friendly policy, because in practice there's really zero reason to review Adobe or Microsoft or OmniGroup app updates since you know they won't turn into scam apps overnight; it's weird to me Apple hasn't done a "Trusted Developer" program to exempt the biggest devs from this headache. There's no reason why the weird clone apps (like the app that shows up 3 results down, when you search for "1Password", that trashily has the exact same blue ring and keyhole but slightly different background) should be treated the same as apps by hardworking, honest, trustworthy developers. People would cry foul for unfairness but there's also no way of letting the hundreds of thousands of App Store devs all submit updates with no review, you'd end up with something like the Chrome Web Store where apps get bought and filled with malware all the time.

ethbr0 5y ago
This. Reputation based review standards is pretty low hanging fruit. You literally already have an ongoing relationship with the party in question, which is usually one of the biggest hurdles to reputation systems (new users). I expect the real reason they haven't moved in this direction is fundamentally App Store review is seen as a tool of ongoing control rather than quality. So the more frequently something has to pass through it, the better. If Apple can "find an issue" with your app every time you update, that's a very different relationship than an ongoing approval. PS: Would also require developers to inform Apple of any company sale / dev team replacement to prevent abuse (Didn't mention you sold your company? Ban).
- BrightGlow 5y ago
  With a reputation system you'd still want to do your due diligence and manually check things. Even the most trustworthy people make honest mistakes sometimes.
siva7 5y ago
The problem with this is that these big trusted tech giants have abused the trust put in them to break compliance rules of the app store because they can (facebook for example).

siva7 5y ago

For security/compliance reasons as in don't trust the developer by default. To be honest, i appreciate this concept as it makes the store more secure for the users.

xvector 5y ago

Because it makes being malicious trivial if all you have to do is get approved once

david_allison 5y ago

There are apps on the Play Store which get updated, and now sideload malware. It's not feasible to get in touch with Google to fix/remove these. It's a hard issue to solve; Apple are erring on the side of user safety.

oauea 5y ago
I feel very safe knowing blind people aren't allowed to play hangman.
- BrightGlow 5y ago
  Blind people can also get malware...
  - oauea 5y ago
    Apple checking for malware is great. Their million militant little rules less so, which caused OPs rejection.

kmeisthax 5y ago

No. Apple absolutely does not want to have "App Store case law". They want the rules to be what the agreement says and no more. In fact, trying to cite other approvals in an argument in App Review is usually a good way to get other developers' apps pulled.

kall 5y ago
In the emails from the Epic trial, they had a special acronym just for this: UTB (under the bus) that was used in multiple contexts (so probably not a one off joke).
saagarjha 5y ago
Apple absolutely runs an internal App Store case law. In fact this specific case law has caused issues in the past, when I knew they had case law covering the thing I was submitting and their low-level reviewers didn't, and resolving this obviously took work.

labster 5y ago

You have it backwards. If Apple doesn’t review every update, how can they justify 30% transaction fees?

threeseed 5y ago
The same way every digital and retail store does: as a "channel to market" cost. Apple hands you willing buyers on a silver platter and you pay for it.