4 ms·

I too noticed the similarity to the console game development. Usually console game developers have to go through lengthy approval process of the platform provi

by shiro 17y ago

I too noticed the similarity to the console game development. Usually console game developers have to go through lengthy approval process of the platform provider. Still developers accept that (although grudgingly), since once approved and the released, that will be the end of the process; no more bug fixes; the team dissolves and everybody starts working on the next project. (PC games are different, and certainly network games are continuous development, but console games have this feeling of "done is done"). Part of it may be a byproduct of the way the console games distributed on ROMs or disks. That may change, for consoles nowadays have network connection and can get updates anytime. There's another part, however, that some type of games fits this "done is done" philosophy. Like novels or movies, which you don't expect them to be improved over time. Well, I don't defend the app store process either, and I believe majority of software should be developed in the iterative process. It's just interesting that games may be a marginal area that has some peculiar properties.

ams6110 17y ago
Here's my guess about Apple's thinking. Note that I don't own an iPhone or iTouch. So I don't have any experience with the App Store or submitting applications to it, and can't say that it is or is not working this way but.... Apple wants iPhone apps to "just work" They don't want a plethora of buggy, half-baked, inconsistent apps in their store, because this would diminish the brand. It would be like a typical Linux distribution where half the apps implement their own peculiar UI conventions, crash often, or just don't work at all. So it is like developing a game. You get one release, one chance, to get it right. It needs to work. Maybe a lot of app developers don't get this. There are published standards about conventions, icons, behavior, etc. The app is expected to be FINISHED and WORKING before you submit it to the store. Don't count on deploying 27 follow up patches and updates to customers -- imagine the chaos if every iPhone app needed updates multiple times. Users (most of whom are not hackers) would, after a while, just give up and abandon the platform. So, when an app is submitted, it is reviewed, and if it's found to be buggy, or it doesn't work, or it works in an unconventional way, then they don't want it. And they're not in a particular hurry to waste more time on you when you didn't follow the instructions the first time. I don't know, I'm just speculating. But this seems plausible to me.
- alttab 17y ago
  I agree. I've recently posted a comment about this in another App Store thread here on HN. I think this is a good "oh yeah, this is why we do it" argument, but is probably more of a by-product of the review process and less of Apple's original incentive. A lot of the technical decisions that are made are motivated by business and profit. Not to say that this is a negative thing - Apple is a corporation after all. There are plenty of things I've seen done that are dumb as hell at my employer (at a technical level) but are motivated by external reasons that seem implausible or illogical because the guy writing code is too far removed from the information and the decision.
- mkramlich 17y ago
  good theory ams6110, and well explained. however, speaking as a guy who has went through the process for 8+ apps so far, that's not the pain point. It's more about repeatedly encountering dumbass reasons for rejections, and dumbass long delays to get feedback on things that should take about 1 minute, not 2-4 weeks to get feedback on. It's about getting rejected for 1 thing, and then they don't bother to finish reviewing the app and discover the other 2 things that they know they would reject it on during the next submission, so you don't find those out until 2-4 weeks later, and so on, ad nauseum. It's about rejecting for inane reasons (that they can "fix", if they wanted to, and had a brain, by running a small piece of software on, shotgun-style) like 'this config value over here doesn't match this value over there, so please make those the same', or even worse, vague mysteriously-worded rejections, or rejections that contain explicit instructions for "fixing" the issue and then you follow them, resubmit and they reject again. Dumbasses. I keep coming back to that word over and over again when dealing with their review process/people. We're talking about a company with supposedly billions of dollars in cash in the bank and until a few months ago or so reportedly had what 50 full-time reviewers on staff? (Do the math on what it would cost to even triple that staff and you'll see it's a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the profits that keep rolling in.) Device? Love it. OS? Love it. Design sense? Love it. App Store submission/review process? Dumbasses.

by shiro 17y ago

ams6110 17y ago

Here's my guess about Apple's thinking. Note that I don't own an iPhone or iTouch. So I don't have any experience with the App Store or submitting applications to it, and can't say that it is or is not working this way but.... Apple wants iPhone apps to "just work" They don't want a plethora of buggy, half-baked, inconsistent apps in their store, because this would diminish the brand. It would be like a typical Linux distribution where half the apps implement their own peculiar UI conventions, crash often, or just don't work at all. So it is like developing a game. You get one release, one chance, to get it right. It needs to work. Maybe a lot of app developers don't get this. There are published standards about conventions, icons, behavior, etc. The app is expected to be FINISHED and WORKING before you submit it to the store. Don't count on deploying 27 follow up patches and updates to customers -- imagine the chaos if every iPhone app needed updates multiple times. Users (most of whom are not hackers) would, after a while, just give up and abandon the platform. So, when an app is submitted, it is reviewed, and if it's found to be buggy, or it doesn't work, or it works in an unconventional way, then they don't want it. And they're not in a particular hurry to waste more time on you when you didn't follow the instructions the first time. I don't know, I'm just speculating. But this seems plausible to me.

alttab 17y ago
I agree. I've recently posted a comment about this in another App Store thread here on HN. I think this is a good "oh yeah, this is why we do it" argument, but is probably more of a by-product of the review process and less of Apple's original incentive. A lot of the technical decisions that are made are motivated by business and profit. Not to say that this is a negative thing - Apple is a corporation after all. There are plenty of things I've seen done that are dumb as hell at my employer (at a technical level) but are motivated by external reasons that seem implausible or illogical because the guy writing code is too far removed from the information and the decision.
mkramlich 17y ago
good theory ams6110, and well explained. however, speaking as a guy who has went through the process for 8+ apps so far, that's not the pain point. It's more about repeatedly encountering dumbass reasons for rejections, and dumbass long delays to get feedback on things that should take about 1 minute, not 2-4 weeks to get feedback on. It's about getting rejected for 1 thing, and then they don't bother to finish reviewing the app and discover the other 2 things that they know they would reject it on during the next submission, so you don't find those out until 2-4 weeks later, and so on, ad nauseum. It's about rejecting for inane reasons (that they can "fix", if they wanted to, and had a brain, by running a small piece of software on, shotgun-style) like 'this config value over here doesn't match this value over there, so please make those the same', or even worse, vague mysteriously-worded rejections, or rejections that contain explicit instructions for "fixing" the issue and then you follow them, resubmit and they reject again. Dumbasses. I keep coming back to that word over and over again when dealing with their review process/people. We're talking about a company with supposedly billions of dollars in cash in the bank and until a few months ago or so reportedly had what 50 full-time reviewers on staff? (Do the math on what it would cost to even triple that staff and you'll see it's a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the profits that keep rolling in.) Device? Love it. OS? Love it. Design sense? Love it. App Store submission/review process? Dumbasses.