3 ms·

Respected developers begin fleeing from App Store platform

25 points by araneae 17y ago

gfodor 17y ago
There are two problems with the app store, but they are usually not recognized as separate problems: - Apple unreasonably rejects applications. - It takes 2 to 3 weeks to be told you've been rejected, and even then you only are given one reason even if there are several problems that need to be addressed. My overall impression is that most of the complaints about the first point are simply due to the frustration borne of the second. It's not the rejection over the stupidest things that stings, it's the fact that you had to wait forever to be told "you need to change your icon." Then, after your five minute fix, it's back in the hopper for another three weeks. All the while competitors appear in the App Store, clients get pissed, and cash burns. It's incredible to me that the embarassingly parallel problem of app approval wait time has not only been left unsolved, but has apparently gotten worse. Imagine if the turnaround time on these things dropped from 3 weeks to a few hours. Being rejected would turn from a devestating event to a minor inconvenience, and I'd imagine that all this bad press would evaporate. Sure, you'd have some developers complain that their apps would never be approved due to impasses between them and Apple in terms of service violations, but I think these folks would be in the minority since most violations can be fixed once you're made aware of them.
- MindTwister 17y ago
  A recent example of your second point is with Twitter lists, all Twitter clients became instantly obsolete, and the clients for the iPhone moreso since they wouldn't be able to push an update for 2-3 weeks, as a developer I would find that extremely dissatisfying since I wouldn't be able to give my customers the best possible service.
- DenisM 17y ago
  The thing is that apps do not get reviewed for two weeks, they sit in a queue for two weeks and then get reviewd in a day. You can not increase throughput by increasing wait times. I think the reason why it takes two weeks is that some developers submit new version as soon as the last one is approved just to enjoy the ratings of "new stuff". A better model would be to allow developers rolling 24 updates per year, and you can chose how to spend them. This would prevent the spam problem and allow updates to publish quickly once they are done. Personally I now publish new update the moment last one is approved (provided I have anything new at all), for a simple reason - it's better to submit any feature for approval however small ASAP than wait for it to be rejected when I really wanted to ship large bucket of features.
  - jerf 17y ago
    And if everybody follows your strategy, approval bogs down even more as submissions explode. I don't blame you. That's a perfectly rational response and everybody should follow your strategy if they know what's good for them. It's Apple's fault for creating the incentive structure wherein that's the locally-optimal strategy.
    - DenisM 17y ago
      Yes, the irony of this situation is not lost on me. :-)
protomyth 17y ago
Given the current news on iLike, I have a little bit of a problem with someone from Facebook complaining about Apple. Apple has a lot to answer for, but I am wondering if the price a developer pays ($99 a year) is too low and if Palm's pay per app ($99 year + $50 per app) a more realistic model to pay for more people to review apps?
elblanco 17y ago
Well that took a surprisingly long time. Considering the relative hostility Apple has had to iPhone app developers, and their "if you aren't making us money you can go stick it" response to simple developer requests... Apple is going to have to work hard to turn this boat around, at this point their only real choice might be to open the platform.
alexforster 17y ago
Even though they haven't publicly addressed the problem, I'm sure they knew that the current model was proving unsustainable well before any of us. You have to imagine that for every 100,000 apps their small review team has accepted, they must have also rejected 100,000 more. Apple doesn't admit when things are shitty until after they've fixed the problem. They're smart like that. As far as solutions, I like the pay-per-app model the best. The signal-to-noise ratio in the app store is way too high (low?). It doesn't need to be too expensive to publish an app, it just needs to deter the kinds of publishers that are writing one app and rebranding it hundreds of times (per sports team, per state, etc). You even have people taking public domain novels and throwing thousands of them up as $0.99 ebooks, just on the chance that the sheer volume of them will make a profit. There are of course thousands of great apps, too, but the chances of stumbling across any of them are becoming smaller and smaller.
- forensic 17y ago
  >The signal-to-noise ratio in the app store is way too high (low?). Think of it like a fraction. Signal/noise. Signal divided by noise. I assume you were saying it was a low fraction. :) Good post, by the way, I hope Apple steals your idea.

25 points by araneae 17y ago

There are two problems with the app store, but they are usually not recognized as separate problems: - Apple unreasonably rejects applications. - It takes 2 to 3 weeks to be told you've been rejected, and even then you only are given one reason even if there are several problems that need to be addressed. My overall impression is that most of the complaints about the first point are simply due to the frustration borne of the second. It's not the rejection over the stupidest things that stings, it's the fact that you had to wait forever to be told "you need to change your icon." Then, after your five minute fix, it's back in the hopper for another three weeks. All the while competitors appear in the App Store, clients get pissed, and cash burns. It's incredible to me that the embarassingly parallel problem of app approval wait time has not only been left unsolved, but has apparently gotten worse. Imagine if the turnaround time on these things dropped from 3 weeks to a few hours. Being rejected would turn from a devestating event to a minor inconvenience, and I'd imagine that all this bad press would evaporate. Sure, you'd have some developers complain that their apps would never be approved due to impasses between them and Apple in terms of service violations, but I think these folks would be in the minority since most violations can be fixed once you're made aware of them.

MindTwister 17y ago
A recent example of your second point is with Twitter lists, all Twitter clients became instantly obsolete, and the clients for the iPhone moreso since they wouldn't be able to push an update for 2-3 weeks, as a developer I would find that extremely dissatisfying since I wouldn't be able to give my customers the best possible service.
DenisM 17y ago
The thing is that apps do not get reviewed for two weeks, they sit in a queue for two weeks and then get reviewd in a day. You can not increase throughput by increasing wait times. I think the reason why it takes two weeks is that some developers submit new version as soon as the last one is approved just to enjoy the ratings of "new stuff". A better model would be to allow developers rolling 24 updates per year, and you can chose how to spend them. This would prevent the spam problem and allow updates to publish quickly once they are done. Personally I now publish new update the moment last one is approved (provided I have anything new at all), for a simple reason - it's better to submit any feature for approval however small ASAP than wait for it to be rejected when I really wanted to ship large bucket of features.
- jerf 17y ago
  And if everybody follows your strategy, approval bogs down even more as submissions explode. I don't blame you. That's a perfectly rational response and everybody should follow your strategy if they know what's good for them. It's Apple's fault for creating the incentive structure wherein that's the locally-optimal strategy.
  - DenisM 17y ago
    Yes, the irony of this situation is not lost on me. :-)

protomyth 17y ago

Given the current news on iLike, I have a little bit of a problem with someone from Facebook complaining about Apple. Apple has a lot to answer for, but I am wondering if the price a developer pays ($99 a year) is too low and if Palm's pay per app ($99 year + $50 per app) a more realistic model to pay for more people to review apps?

elblanco 17y ago

Well that took a surprisingly long time. Considering the relative hostility Apple has had to iPhone app developers, and their "if you aren't making us money you can go stick it" response to simple developer requests... Apple is going to have to work hard to turn this boat around, at this point their only real choice might be to open the platform.

alexforster 17y ago

Even though they haven't publicly addressed the problem, I'm sure they knew that the current model was proving unsustainable well before any of us. You have to imagine that for every 100,000 apps their small review team has accepted, they must have also rejected 100,000 more. Apple doesn't admit when things are shitty until after they've fixed the problem. They're smart like that. As far as solutions, I like the pay-per-app model the best. The signal-to-noise ratio in the app store is way too high (low?). It doesn't need to be too expensive to publish an app, it just needs to deter the kinds of publishers that are writing one app and rebranding it hundreds of times (per sports team, per state, etc). You even have people taking public domain novels and throwing thousands of them up as $0.99 ebooks, just on the chance that the sheer volume of them will make a profit. There are of course thousands of great apps, too, but the chances of stumbling across any of them are becoming smaller and smaller.

forensic 17y ago
>The signal-to-noise ratio in the app store is way too high (low?). Think of it like a fraction. Signal/noise. Signal divided by noise. I assume you were saying it was a low fraction. :) Good post, by the way, I hope Apple steals your idea.