3 ms·

SCOtutor iOS Apps - The Current Situation

36 points by thehodge 14y ago

btucker 14y ago
Apple's stance at least seems pretty clear cut: The App Store is for apps, the iTunes/iBooks Stores are for content. Content masquerading as an App will not be allowed in the App Store, but the content is welcome in the iTunes store. I do think they're making a fair distinction between an app that's basically a wrapper around a movie, and an app that allows access to content (eg. http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/5by5-radio/id520847556 http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/5by5-radio/id520847556).
- jurre 14y ago
  Did you read the article? As a side note, it’s impossible for me (or any other independent video trainer) to register to sell video tutorials directly in the iTunes store as suggested in the rejection statement, as I do not meet the requirements of “5 feature-length movies or documentaries that were released theatrically (or) 100 feature-length movies or documentaries that were either released theatrically or direct to video.”
  - btucker 14y ago
    That's how they control the quality of content. I'm not saying I agree with this, it's just how they've chosen to manage the store and it's why there's a multitude of publishers which will help produce your content and get it into the iTunes Store (eg. http://www.tunecore.com/ http://www.tunecore.com/).
  - zhoutong 14y ago
    iBookstore is still possible. With the release of iBooks 2, interactive content can be built fairly easily and I believe that most features in OP's apps can be converted to iBooks easily.
archgrove 14y ago
The worst thing here is the inconsistency. If the App Store had no "training video" type apps, then one might disagree with the policy, but at least it wouldn't feel so arbitrary. Allowing some, but not others - plus changing their mind half way though - puts Apple in a bad light. They also need to ensure that their "suggestions" are possible. In this, I think their policies in one area are just evolving faster than those in another. I'd hope that anyone could submit video content in the not to distant future, as part of a "Tutorial" category or similar. In terms of pragmatics, have you considered doing an interactive iBook? Videos, plus diagrams and text would seem to be more useful than just a video anyway, and (IIRC) anyone can submit an iBook.
padobson 14y ago
Sounds like its time to pivot. Some ideas on how to do that: -Attempt to submit to iTunes anyhow, and handle the rejection if and when it comes. -Create a web app with your videos embedded into it. Provide your free videos for free and your paid videos for a price or subscription. -Deploy your video as a part of the YouTube partner program and monetize there: http://www.youtube.com/yt/creators/partner.html http://www.youtube.com/yt/creators/partner.html -Build an iOS app without videos in it that acts as a companion to your videos - organizes all of them into categories, provides URLs where they can be viewed, organizes the notes and comments on each video, even lets you stream them within that app. This is basically how the Netflix app works, right? If the streaming crosses the line with Apple again, take it out. This will give you a presence in the App Store. -Get vindictive and target Android instead of iOS Bureaucracy is the bane of the small business man. Learn to roll with the punches and move on.
codeka 14y ago
The really horrible part of this story is all the effort he went to, trying to make his app compliant but all in vain. Is there no way to just ask "if I do this or that, will it be acceptable?" rather than just blindly trying things and resubmitting? I guess he's skirting around the fringes of what's acceptable as an app, but at what point do you draw the line between a "movie" and an app with video content? Remember those "interactive movies" that were popular in the 90's? What side of the fence do they sit on?
spaghetti 14y ago
The iOS app review process is astronomically fucked. I've had apps rejected for comically ambiguous reasons such as "app is just a website re-packaged as an app". Right. IMO one can argue this for many apps. I've had apps rejected because "app doesn't use enough native iOS functionality" when the app uses the accelerometer/gyroscope and all sorts of UIKit features. The review process is also hilariously inconsistent. I've had re-skins of my own apps, that are live in the app store, that have solid 5-star reviews across 100s of users, that have 100k+ downloads rejected. On a more positive note the Android development experience has been pretty decent so far. Porting a relatively simple iOS app took about two weeks. This time span includes reading the docs, getting a physical device and downloading the app from Google Play. I've been doing iOS development since the start of the app store. However the "nuances" like provisioning profiles mess, $99/year fee and painfully long review process are getting really old.
sklivvz1971 14y ago
I honestly think the post is a bit ridiculous and whiny. While the iOS review process may be draconian and inconsistent, it's clear that the "apps" in question contain basically no functionality other than video playback - certainly they are not note taking apps, even after the fixes - so how defensible is the position of the author? Now - it's clear that the only video content that Apple can accept is content coming through traditional channels. Why? I am not sure, but probably there are some contractual reasons (e.g. the studios give content only if Apple keeps small fish at bay?). It's certainly not different for songs. I have an album on iTunes and it got there through a major. Three other independent albums were never accepted. Also, while Apple may tolerate, or pretend not to see video hiding in the app store in order to be friendly to developers whilst stretching, bending but not breaking any contractual obligation they probably have, this doesn't mean that they won't stomp such content if and when it's found. They certainly have no obligation whatsoever towards the author to keep his apps in. I find the blog post naive at best and malicious at worst.
- fleitz 14y ago
  The problem is that the app store is massively inconsistent. We don't care why Apple makes it this way, only that it is this way. Apple is not the company we look to for excuses about why things can't be built properly. Half assed, wildly inconsistent, corporate 'droids prevailing over common sense are what we expect from companies like Google with their AdSense/AdWords program. Or doing just about anything with PayPal. The review process is something developers rely on and pay good money for to ensure a functioning marketplace where everyone must play by the same rules. What we have is something inconsistent and frustrating which does not deliver a better experience to the consumer.
  - AznHisoka 14y ago
    Well, you can not pay the $99 fee anytime you wish. Apple really doesn't owe anyone a living. And I can see how they might wish to separate these videos from regular apps. If these types of apps get flooded into the app store, the quality will deteriorate and usage will decline.
iuguy 14y ago
As someone who's downloaded SCOtutor apps I can see his frustration. The SCOtutor apps are really well put together and great tutorials. Rather than moan about Apple lets look at what he can do. The author has a collection of extremely high quality content. He's already taken the effort to turn this into chapters. With a bit more effort he should be able to turn this into a pretty good site. If you look at his actual site[1] you'll see he already has this. But lets put some patio11 thinking onto this. He has a lot of chaptered content that would be really useful to new users. So for each class of content he could create a new site, have a couple of chapters available and the rest behind a paywall, charging per chapter or for the whole thing. He can monetize the content with adverts (for the open areas) and Youtube's partner program. Personally if I were him I'd upload my open videos to Vimeo which provides better quality (IMHO, I could be wrong) and to YouTube and monetize the Youtube content (along with links to his specific websites for further tutorials). He can further monetize by using affiliate links from organisations such as Amazon for accessories for the things he's talking about. For example, a video on how to turn smart cover support on and off could be augmented with an affiliate link in the page to smart covers sold on Amazon. It doesn't have to be spammy or overdone. New versions of iOS and OS X come out on a fairly regular basis. He knows the release dates in advance. As the new release date gets closer he can open up more of the older chapters as he sees fit and then release the new course when the new version comes out. Finally the author might want to look at bundle deal sites. There's tons of them for Mac and the most popular ones tend to get around. If he can get his tutors bundled with something that people would buy on it's own then he's more likely to see more sales. [1] - www.screencastsonline.com
ricardobeat 14y ago
I don't know about his apps, but I'm happy that Apple is finally putting and end to this mess. The app stores are littered with "tutorial" apps, most hoping to fool users into buying it thinking it's the actual app.
franzus 14y ago
The app store is a perfect example of missing competition. It's 4 years old now and has not been improved once inch since its original inception. Search, discoverability and speed are still as bad as on day one. Paired with Apple's kafka-esque bureaucracy and indifference for developers it's a really shitty state the app store is in - and I don't see any improvements anytime soon.
- spaghetti 14y ago
  Serious question: why do app developers choose iOS over Android today? I vaguely recall reading about developers having trouble with paid apps on Google Play. Any other reasons? I was a hardcore Apple fan for the first few years of the app store. However the novelty of the iOS polish that Android is partially missing (but slowly gaining) has long since worn off.
mik4el 14y ago
I hate when apple does that kind of silly stuff. I've heard so many iterations of this kind of story that I doubt Apple will continue to have the best smartphone apps when other ecosystems offers more flexibility. Also, this kind of strict control of content must cost Apple a sizeable buck?

36 points by thehodge 14y ago

Apple's stance at least seems pretty clear cut: The App Store is for apps, the iTunes/iBooks Stores are for content. Content masquerading as an App will not be allowed in the App Store, but the content is welcome in the iTunes store. I do think they're making a fair distinction between an app that's basically a wrapper around a movie, and an app that allows access to content (eg. http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/5by5-radio/id520847556 http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/5by5-radio/id520847556).

jurre 14y ago
Did you read the article? As a side note, it’s impossible for me (or any other independent video trainer) to register to sell video tutorials directly in the iTunes store as suggested in the rejection statement, as I do not meet the requirements of “5 feature-length movies or documentaries that were released theatrically (or) 100 feature-length movies or documentaries that were either released theatrically or direct to video.”
- btucker 14y ago
  That's how they control the quality of content. I'm not saying I agree with this, it's just how they've chosen to manage the store and it's why there's a multitude of publishers which will help produce your content and get it into the iTunes Store (eg. http://www.tunecore.com/ http://www.tunecore.com/).
- zhoutong 14y ago
  iBookstore is still possible. With the release of iBooks 2, interactive content can be built fairly easily and I believe that most features in OP's apps can be converted to iBooks easily.

archgrove 14y ago

The worst thing here is the inconsistency. If the App Store had no "training video" type apps, then one might disagree with the policy, but at least it wouldn't feel so arbitrary. Allowing some, but not others - plus changing their mind half way though - puts Apple in a bad light. They also need to ensure that their "suggestions" are possible. In this, I think their policies in one area are just evolving faster than those in another. I'd hope that anyone could submit video content in the not to distant future, as part of a "Tutorial" category or similar. In terms of pragmatics, have you considered doing an interactive iBook? Videos, plus diagrams and text would seem to be more useful than just a video anyway, and (IIRC) anyone can submit an iBook.

padobson 14y ago

Sounds like its time to pivot. Some ideas on how to do that: -Attempt to submit to iTunes anyhow, and handle the rejection if and when it comes. -Create a web app with your videos embedded into it. Provide your free videos for free and your paid videos for a price or subscription. -Deploy your video as a part of the YouTube partner program and monetize there: http://www.youtube.com/yt/creators/partner.html http://www.youtube.com/yt/creators/partner.html -Build an iOS app without videos in it that acts as a companion to your videos - organizes all of them into categories, provides URLs where they can be viewed, organizes the notes and comments on each video, even lets you stream them within that app. This is basically how the Netflix app works, right? If the streaming crosses the line with Apple again, take it out. This will give you a presence in the App Store. -Get vindictive and target Android instead of iOS Bureaucracy is the bane of the small business man. Learn to roll with the punches and move on.

codeka 14y ago

The really horrible part of this story is all the effort he went to, trying to make his app compliant but all in vain. Is there no way to just ask "if I do this or that, will it be acceptable?" rather than just blindly trying things and resubmitting? I guess he's skirting around the fringes of what's acceptable as an app, but at what point do you draw the line between a "movie" and an app with video content? Remember those "interactive movies" that were popular in the 90's? What side of the fence do they sit on?

spaghetti 14y ago

The iOS app review process is astronomically fucked. I've had apps rejected for comically ambiguous reasons such as "app is just a website re-packaged as an app". Right. IMO one can argue this for many apps. I've had apps rejected because "app doesn't use enough native iOS functionality" when the app uses the accelerometer/gyroscope and all sorts of UIKit features. The review process is also hilariously inconsistent. I've had re-skins of my own apps, that are live in the app store, that have solid 5-star reviews across 100s of users, that have 100k+ downloads rejected. On a more positive note the Android development experience has been pretty decent so far. Porting a relatively simple iOS app took about two weeks. This time span includes reading the docs, getting a physical device and downloading the app from Google Play. I've been doing iOS development since the start of the app store. However the "nuances" like provisioning profiles mess, $99/year fee and painfully long review process are getting really old.

sklivvz1971 14y ago

I honestly think the post is a bit ridiculous and whiny. While the iOS review process may be draconian and inconsistent, it's clear that the "apps" in question contain basically no functionality other than video playback - certainly they are not note taking apps, even after the fixes - so how defensible is the position of the author? Now - it's clear that the only video content that Apple can accept is content coming through traditional channels. Why? I am not sure, but probably there are some contractual reasons (e.g. the studios give content only if Apple keeps small fish at bay?). It's certainly not different for songs. I have an album on iTunes and it got there through a major. Three other independent albums were never accepted. Also, while Apple may tolerate, or pretend not to see video hiding in the app store in order to be friendly to developers whilst stretching, bending but not breaking any contractual obligation they probably have, this doesn't mean that they won't stomp such content if and when it's found. They certainly have no obligation whatsoever towards the author to keep his apps in. I find the blog post naive at best and malicious at worst.

fleitz 14y ago
The problem is that the app store is massively inconsistent. We don't care why Apple makes it this way, only that it is this way. Apple is not the company we look to for excuses about why things can't be built properly. Half assed, wildly inconsistent, corporate 'droids prevailing over common sense are what we expect from companies like Google with their AdSense/AdWords program. Or doing just about anything with PayPal. The review process is something developers rely on and pay good money for to ensure a functioning marketplace where everyone must play by the same rules. What we have is something inconsistent and frustrating which does not deliver a better experience to the consumer.
- AznHisoka 14y ago
  Well, you can not pay the $99 fee anytime you wish. Apple really doesn't owe anyone a living. And I can see how they might wish to separate these videos from regular apps. If these types of apps get flooded into the app store, the quality will deteriorate and usage will decline.

iuguy 14y ago

As someone who's downloaded SCOtutor apps I can see his frustration. The SCOtutor apps are really well put together and great tutorials. Rather than moan about Apple lets look at what he can do. The author has a collection of extremely high quality content. He's already taken the effort to turn this into chapters. With a bit more effort he should be able to turn this into a pretty good site. If you look at his actual site[1] you'll see he already has this. But lets put some patio11 thinking onto this. He has a lot of chaptered content that would be really useful to new users. So for each class of content he could create a new site, have a couple of chapters available and the rest behind a paywall, charging per chapter or for the whole thing. He can monetize the content with adverts (for the open areas) and Youtube's partner program. Personally if I were him I'd upload my open videos to Vimeo which provides better quality (IMHO, I could be wrong) and to YouTube and monetize the Youtube content (along with links to his specific websites for further tutorials). He can further monetize by using affiliate links from organisations such as Amazon for accessories for the things he's talking about. For example, a video on how to turn smart cover support on and off could be augmented with an affiliate link in the page to smart covers sold on Amazon. It doesn't have to be spammy or overdone. New versions of iOS and OS X come out on a fairly regular basis. He knows the release dates in advance. As the new release date gets closer he can open up more of the older chapters as he sees fit and then release the new course when the new version comes out. Finally the author might want to look at bundle deal sites. There's tons of them for Mac and the most popular ones tend to get around. If he can get his tutors bundled with something that people would buy on it's own then he's more likely to see more sales. [1] - www.screencastsonline.com

ricardobeat 14y ago

I don't know about his apps, but I'm happy that Apple is finally putting and end to this mess. The app stores are littered with "tutorial" apps, most hoping to fool users into buying it thinking it's the actual app.

franzus 14y ago

The app store is a perfect example of missing competition. It's 4 years old now and has not been improved once inch since its original inception. Search, discoverability and speed are still as bad as on day one. Paired with Apple's kafka-esque bureaucracy and indifference for developers it's a really shitty state the app store is in - and I don't see any improvements anytime soon.

spaghetti 14y ago
Serious question: why do app developers choose iOS over Android today? I vaguely recall reading about developers having trouble with paid apps on Google Play. Any other reasons? I was a hardcore Apple fan for the first few years of the app store. However the novelty of the iOS polish that Android is partially missing (but slowly gaining) has long since worn off.

mik4el 14y ago

I hate when apple does that kind of silly stuff. I've heard so many iterations of this kind of story that I doubt Apple will continue to have the best smartphone apps when other ecosystems offers more flexibility. Also, this kind of strict control of content must cost Apple a sizeable buck?