> I believe Apple does all of these things to encourage developers to do a better job testing their apps prior to submission and to prevent high volume developers from hogging the review team's time.
I'm kind of tired of bring this up, as I'm sure others are tired of the same sort of comments, but the App Store has been bothering me quite a bit lately. This doesn't seem like the way things should work. We shouldn't be spending time thinking up clever and logical explanations of what hoops Apple puts the very developers that make its platform interesting through.
Am I wrong? I don't (yet) write iPhone apps, and I am honestly seeking sane opinions of those who do.
As a student, I am currently learning everything I can about everything that goes on my computer and how it works, and realizing that almost nothing I currently know would be possible without all the open-source tools that are used in every one of our courses (none of the lab machines in the CS department here run Windows). The very core idea of being able to tinker and learn about each moving part of software, like a mechanism made of semi-transparent gears, is what attracted me personally into the industry in the first place. Developers' ideas seem to only be guided by what they are able to dream up and code, and anyone can participate and improve things collaboratively creating something beautiful and useful.
And now I'm learning that one of the supposedly more exciting ways to make a living using the acquired knowledge is to do things in very particular restricted ways, according to the rules set out by one company, using the tools they deemed fit. Perhaps I'm overdramatizing, but there is just something very fishy about the entire concept, and I can't tell whether my confusion stems from lack of knowledge, the fact that I'm looking at it from a fresh point of view that others are just too deep in the trenches to see, or both.
For Historical background: An awful lot of money in software/computing has been made in proprietry systems.
Where Open Source is supported by companies is where it is a complement to their main line of business. So Google support OS browsers so that people will be online more and click on more ads. IBM likes Linux because people might buy more IBM hardware. 37signals makes web-apps and benefits from Rails.
There's enough of those complements (plus altruistic applications -- think Torvalds or _Why) that we have a full ecosystem that everyone benefits from.
The money is in the closed source stuff (Google doesn't OS adsense or their core search or cluster stuff, IBM doesn't OS zOS or WebSphere, 37signals doesn't OS basecamp)
I don't agree with this at all. If there's any preferential treatment that I've seen in the review line, it has everything to do with which category the app is in and how popular the app is.
I've self rejected an app that was in the top 20 of a category many times. I can't even think of a time we submitted an update that we didn't self reject at least once. This app still gets much quicker review times for updates than another app which is much less popular.
I guess I'd like to see more than "here's how i think it works" and instead some explanation as to why this guy thinks it works how he thinks.
I'd add this: when you receive the "your app needs more time to review" email, it seems like your app is bumped into a "needs supervisor approval" queue.
In my experience, it takes up to 24 hours for Apple Developer Relations to call you and explain the cause of the hold up.
I've seen this multiple times and it's always for some specific situations that are not explicitly covered in the guidelines - i.e. they need further clarification about copyright ownership, or maybe they just need to explain what needs to be changed in order to pass their review.
I'm even convinced that updates are processed programatically in many cases, and that a human doesn't even see it if it marches certain criteria.
We ran a website that let users create their own iPhone apps so bugfixes to the platform required 55+ apps to be rebuilt and resubmitted at the same time. Emails for all 55 apps would come in at the same time every time they changed state (30 or so seconds to receive all 55) and was very consistent through all of our updates.
FWIW, some more anecdotal evidence
1) after the switch to 4.0, updates to my apps that added background audio and support for the high res screen were through in 2 days. during this same period, normal bug fixes took around 12 calendar days
2) just updating images and names can take upwards of 3 weeks for non-popular apps (you think it'd be the opposite)
To me, it sounds like the author reading too much into the (rather opaque) process to try and make sense of it.
Sometimes its fast, other times its not. Its usually consistent, but sometimes they mess up. Thats all we know for sure.
FWIW, my experience is app reviews take the same amount of time -- a week, plus or minus two days. This is regardless of if the submission is of a new app or an update for an existing one. Recent update, fixing something that caused a rejection or the first update in a few months.
Fair enough. I'm certainly going only from my own experiences and the review process certainly is opaque. I asked @pschiller so perhaps he'll grace us with some info. :)
I would also add that if your app requires Apple to update its internal approval guidelines it will take you forever to get approved. So if you're innovating on your app's business model or something like that - be prepared.
We've been getting 2-3 week update approvals and it is killing us on getting bug fixes out. Last year we'd often get 3 day updates. If there is a priority queue, We are on the wrong end of it.
If there is a really important update you need to put out, explain it, and send an email. The keyword is "expedited review." If you ask nicely and don't ask too often, they will usually have your update out in two days.
Their "[X]% of new apps are reviewed within 7 days" board on the dev site hasn't been updated in a while. It seems they have slipped from the awesome 3-day turnarounds we were seeing around this same time last year.
I've actually seen my review time go down as I've made more and more money on my app per day. I was getting 8-9 day turnarounds at the start but now average 2-4 days with only the occasional spike.
I think most developers were seeing 3 day approvals at times last year. I recall Apple boasting about their fast turn-around at some point (high 90th percentile in 7 days, IIRC).
We got a three day turnaround last year after the iTC holiday shutdown. Submitted on December 29 or 30 I think, and it was approved by the 2nd of january. Guess everybody was trying to get in before the holidays, and then just took a break, meanwhile Apple had beefed up their team for the holiday spike.
I'm kind of tired of bring this up, as I'm sure others are tired of the same sort of comments, but the App Store has been bothering me quite a bit lately. This doesn't seem like the way things should work. We shouldn't be spending time thinking up clever and logical explanations of what hoops Apple puts the very developers that make its platform interesting through.
Am I wrong? I don't (yet) write iPhone apps, and I am honestly seeking sane opinions of those who do.
As a student, I am currently learning everything I can about everything that goes on my computer and how it works, and realizing that almost nothing I currently know would be possible without all the open-source tools that are used in every one of our courses (none of the lab machines in the CS department here run Windows). The very core idea of being able to tinker and learn about each moving part of software, like a mechanism made of semi-transparent gears, is what attracted me personally into the industry in the first place. Developers' ideas seem to only be guided by what they are able to dream up and code, and anyone can participate and improve things collaboratively creating something beautiful and useful.
And now I'm learning that one of the supposedly more exciting ways to make a living using the acquired knowledge is to do things in very particular restricted ways, according to the rules set out by one company, using the tools they deemed fit. Perhaps I'm overdramatizing, but there is just something very fishy about the entire concept, and I can't tell whether my confusion stems from lack of knowledge, the fact that I'm looking at it from a fresh point of view that others are just too deep in the trenches to see, or both.