

Windows 8 Doesn’t Want Your App. Try Again Later - sutro
http://themissingbit.blogspot.be/2012/10/windows-8-doesnt-want-your-app-try.html

======
mgkimsal
What's so odd about all this is that lack of transparency why things fail was
(is?) a huge issue in the Apple App Store process, and MS has had years to
learn about what went wrong with the Apple process, and design around those
issues. They seem to have baked those faults in to their own process.

"We're backed up with submissions".

WTF? They've been doing roadshows and having dev evangelists push the heck out
of "develop apps for the app store!" messaging. That's fine. Staff up
appropriately. For a company who understands this is a pivot, they need
momentum, good press, etc., plus have had years watching Apple's mistakes in
this area - there's just _no excuse_ for not staffing (or ramping up quickly)
on the app store processing.

~~~
coderdude
>MS has had years to learn about what went wrong with the Apple process, and
design around those issues.

All that time spent learning about what and why Apple does what they do might
have brought them to the conclusion that they ought to be doing the same
thing.

Or maybe they're "backed up" while they take it all in, figure out what's crap
and what's not crap, create a good initial sorting of non-crap -> crap, and
then open the flood gates a little more.

You have to imagine that they've just suddenly become inundated by thousands
(10s of thousands? More?) submissions and the majority of them will be awful
crapware that needs to be sifted through. It takes a lot of time I'm sure -- I
don't care how many people you put on staff.

~~~
mgkimsal
"All that time spent learning about what and why Apple does what they do might
have brought them to the conclusion that they ought to be doing the same
thing."

I fear that conclusion.

But, really... concluding that courting developers pissed off with an
arbitrary opaque process by giving them the same arbitrary opaque process
makes sense to ... who?

"You have to imagine that they've just suddenly become inundated by thousands
(10s of thousands? More?) submissions and the majority of them will be awful
crapware that needs to be sifted through. "

But... they've had more than a year to prepare for it, they _need_ people to
want to write for this platform (ios/android still have a the lion's
mindshare), and MS is one of the few companies that could _afford_
(financially) to make this experience better than it has. Stop the dividend
payouts for a few quarters and use that money to beef up what they seem to be
saying is the new direction of the company.

~~~
coderdude
I'm just speculating like everyone else. It's difficult to extrapolate from a
single person's nightmarish experience what the experience will be like for an
unknown but large number of developers. I hope that gets sorted out quickly.
From some other comments it sounds like they still have some bugs in their
process.

Unless Microsoft is purposely being opaque with details of why something has
failed for the purpose of thwarting malicious or wayward developers, then they
should take this as a hint that they need to provide developers with more
information so they can track down issues and fix them.

------
lini
I can relate a bit about this article and the Windows Store submission process
- I have been using it since the end of July. The requirements mentioned in
the post (1.2, 3.2, 3.8, etc.) are part of a big document that tries to
clearly outline what an app should and shouldn't do. They are defined rather
well, but sometimes will leave you wandering what the hell is going on.

I submitted an HTML app that was accepted, then after some minor changes
failed validation the second time I submitted it. The problem was "Requirement
3.2: The app crashes", however, nothing I changed could cause a crash. I
resubmitted the app with a bumped version and no other changes and it passed
validation the second time.

This led me to believe that MS are either still fixing bugs in the
certification process or that my app ended up on a faulty test device that
crashed. Still, I would LOVE IT if MS provided actual stack trace or other
useful information if a crash occurs.

The biggest problem with the Store right now is the time it takes to pass a
new release. In the last couple of days the Microsoft built-in applications
(video, finance, sports) have been updated multiple times, but my last
submission took 5 days to pass the Content Compliance step. If Microsoft wants
more apps in the Store, they need to scale up their review/certification
infrastructure and team.

~~~
mgkimsal
"Requirement 3.2: The app crashes"

Really? They've listed a 'requirement' as 'app crashes'?

~~~
alexkus
No. "The app crashes" is the reason that it has failed on Requirement 3.2.

A bit of googling gives this which contains the full text of Requirement 3.2:-

[http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-
us/library/windows/apps/Hh92158...](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-
us/library/windows/apps/Hh921583.aspx)

~~~
alexkus
Also note that one of the common reasons for failing Requirement 3.2 now
includes a reference to using CurrentAppSimulator that wasn't in the one
linked in the original article.

I guess the OP just got stung by being an early adopter and the
FAQ/requirement pages not being anywhere near complete as not enough people
had gone through the certification process for MSFT to find all of the common
reasons for rejection.

------
mcherm
Look, if Apple can't manage to do a curated app store in a way that "works"
for developers, if Microsoft can't manage to do it... maybe a curated app
store isn't a good idea. I mean, it's obviously a good idea for whoever
curates the app store (they can leverage their power in all kinds of ways),
but perhaps the problems for developers is not because these companies are
doing it poorly, but just that injecting a review process by a third party
between the developer and their customers is NATURALLY bad for developers.

~~~
WayneDB
I don't want to have to go through _anybody_ to be able to get my app to my
customers.

This tendency towards closed-off app stores is really depressing.

~~~
run4yourlives
As a phone user though, I WANT you to be vetted, because I don't want your
"stock quote app" to suddenly brick my phone unless I send you $59.99 to get
the "fix".

I don't trust you. I trust apple. Deal with it.

~~~
WayneDB
You don't download software off the net unless it's vetted first by Apple?
Have you never installed Chrome, Office or Photoshop?

Maybe you haven't considered the alternative. It's something that Apple users
don't really get much of, but there's a thing called _choice_.

Why can't we have an app store AND allow side-loading? That'd be a nice
choice. That way, the people who want to trade freedom for security can do so
and the people who want freedom can have it. A third option would be to allow
competing app stores (as well as side-loading).

You're on the wrong side in the war on general purpose computing. If you want
to see general purpose computing go away, by all means...keep trading your
freedoms in.

~~~
bitwize
Just about the only proven method to really mitigate the malware problem is
with whitelisting. In the future, virtually all end-user computing platforms
will be mandatorily whitelisted. The company I just left was in the process of
requiring whitelisting (through Bit9) for ALL Windows AND Linux desktops.
Which is a pain in the ass if you're a dev, but when it comes down to that or
watching all your IP go across the sea, guess which option upper management is
going to choose?

Apple has brought the benefits of whitelisting to the masses with its App
Store certification process. The result is an extremely popular, superior
smartphone platform with virtually no malware. Android? Malware city. Platform
vendors in the future are going to handle app distribution the Apple way or
they'll be out of the game entirely.

~~~
WayneDB
Whitelisting is a wholly different concept than being locked into a single
vendor's app store.

Being forced to abide by a single whitelist provider would be similar, but I
personally won't be buying into those platforms and if I don't have a choice,
I'll be jailbreaking...barring that, well we simply wouldn't be living in a
free society at that point so I think I'd have bigger issues to deal with than
computing freedom.

------
CodeCube
I didn't have quite as bad an experience submitting my app
([http://codecube.net/2012/09/introducing-viewer-for-khan-
acad...](http://codecube.net/2012/09/introducing-viewer-for-khan-academy-
windows-8/)) to the w8 store. But it did fail the first time and I was quite
annoyed at the reason. It failed for requirement 4.1.1:

"If your app has the technical ability to transmit any user's personal
information, you must maintain a privacy policy. You must provide access to
your privacy policy in the Description page of your app, as well as in the
app’s settings as displayed in the Windows Settings charm."

Now, my app is open source, and doesn't collect any user information
whatsoever. And not only that, but the app's meta data during submission has
an __optional __field for a privacy policy URL.

So I just ginned up a quick privacy policy that says we don't capture any
personal info (<http://codecube.net/khanacademy/privacy/>), added it to the
settings charm, and resubmitted. It passed.

But it was annoying.

~~~
madoublet
Exact same problem I had. I am waiting for approval right now. If they are
going to require a privacy policy, why not include it by default when you
start a project? And, why do you have to go through another 7 day waiting
period when you submit the app again. Shouldn't re-submissions be fast
tracked?

~~~
NeutronBoy
> If they are going to require a privacy policy, why not include it by default
> when you start a project?

They might include a blank one, but I imagine they tried to aviod including a
boiler-plate policy, otherwise you'd probably find 95% of app submissions
would just use the template.

------
ja27
I haven't submitted a Windows 8 app yet (soon) but I've had apps rejected by
Apple and Nook. I have to say that Apple's rejections so far have been very
clear on what needs to change. Nook has been 50-50. One rejection was clear,
but another just gave me a useless numeric code. To defend Microsoft a little
bit, at least you have developer evangelists available to help escalate
things, even if that isn't working in this case.

~~~
jarjoura
Apple also has evangelists who will help escalate/interpret things.

------
n9com
Most of the rejections were due to problems with your app.

We have found the Microsoft team and review process to be excellent - far
better than anything we have experienced before.

They go beyond the call of duty to help developers get their app onto the
store and even give some great feedback on how the app could be even better.

I guess it depends on who you deal with, but our personal experience in
releasing our edutainment app called Magic Math (
[http://apps.microsoft.com/webpdp/en-us/app/magic-
math/ba5eb1...](http://apps.microsoft.com/webpdp/en-us/app/magic-
math/ba5eb1c6-7592-45ca-80cc-60c1c53128a5) ) was fantastic.

~~~
OmIsMyShield
> Most of the rejections were due to problems with your app

Agree, and the article seems to acknowledge this. Seems that the feedback
wasn't detailed enough, though.

I'd be interested to know if you found the feedback to be better, and theories
about the causes of the disparity if that is the case?

~~~
n9com
Our app was approved first time, but we had a few 'pre-reviews' where they
gave us early feedback so that when it came to the actual review, it went
through smoothly, took less than 5 days to get approved.

------
mariusmg
There are 2 big problems with the Windows Store submission right now:

\- it takes a LOT of time to get a answer. From my experience it took 2 weeks
(working days) until i got a answer back.

\- they don't list at first submission ALL of the reasons for which the app
"fails". This leads to the following cycle : submit app, wait 2 weeks to get
rejected for lame reasons, fix issue in couple hours, submit again, wait 2
weeks etc

Hopefully things will improve in the near future but right now trying to get a
app into Windows Store is a pretty long and annoying process.

------
unwind
It took a click on the self-named application link in the beginning of the
(very long) article, and some reading, before the name finally clicked.
Memorylage is a portmanteau of "memory" and "collage", since the application
shows a collage of your digital images.

Or, hm, since "memory" is actually fully in there, perhaps that disqualifies
it as a portmanteau ... then it might be a blend, instead
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blend>).

------
CF_HoneyBadger
As a developer (albeit not of Appstore Apps) I can understand the frustration
of being told "It crashes" without being told _why_.

However, there was a very interesting comment on the actual blog itself
suggesting something along the line of "re-submit the app under a different
name". I actually think that may not be that bad of an idea. If you have done
as much verification as possible as to the stability and performance of your
product, sometimes you have to do some sideways thinking to get it approved by
the powers that be.

I would like to see (just as an experiment) what would happen if the original
developer would try this, and see what happens. The worst thing that could
happen is that he could get told no (again).

------
paulbz
I've submitted multiple apps to the Windows Store.

They're not desperate and they don't want crap, which is why they have a high
bar. The problem is the testing procedures aren't always consistent, so
something may pass once and get rejected when you do your next update for a
bug that existed in a previous version. But, that's the nature of testing -
the same thing has happened for us on Apple's app store.

Android appears to be the only store that lets you ship anything you want.

~~~
n9com
They don't want crap? Have you seen some of the apps on the Windows Store?

~~~
paulbz
touché

------
BinRoo
That's really strange. My friends and I from the University of Virginia
published a couple apps (total 5 apps) and we each got through on our first
round.

My app is a simple Truth Table application that reduces boolean algebra
[http://apps.microsoft.com/webpdp/en-US/app/truth-
table/9e87b...](http://apps.microsoft.com/webpdp/en-US/app/truth-
table/9e87b727-55ab-4804-a5a8-17fd7a03e78d)

Our apps didn't required internet connection, so that might explain the
success-rate. So I guess if you want your app in he store as soon as possible,
build version 1.0 without internet features.

------
Sumaso
Ah the pains of deploying an app store. I can't even count how many articles
I've read about the apple app store rejecting someone's app for some reason or
another.

If you want a closed eco systems, these are the types of growing pains your
going to have to go through.

------
TallGuyShort
This is not an isolated case. I heard two reports from Microsoft employees
this morning of their own apps being repeatedly rejected for weeks with little
transparency.

------
bringking
I have to admit I have had some problems with submitting to the Windows Phone
7 app store, however when the app failed certification the tester included
step by step walkthroughs on how re-create the problem. I was generally able
to recreate the problem. However, more than a few times I could not and just
re-submitted, and it passed. :/

------
panda_person
I downloaded the RTM through Dreamspark, because Dreamspark students get a
free Windows Store account (I have some asp.net and WP7 apps I wanted to port
over to Win 8). Turns out, you still have to submit a credit card even if you
have a Dreamspark account, which instantly turned me off.

------
riviera
Tell me about this. I got 3 rejections, the last 2 about point 3.2 ("the app
crashes"), after neither anyone in my team nor at our MS contact team was able
to experience any problems. And the only feedback was a PDF showing a snapshot
of the Windows desktop and some text that the JPEG compression had rendered
unreadable. I thought it was a joke. Luckily a support person was nice enough
to spend time reviewing the app and helped me discover the problem. Which was
due to unclear and misleading expectations about the review process. Oh
well...

------
love4code
I have an app in the Windows Store. The author of the post is complaining, but
he should read the manual before submitting his app. Excluding
CurrentAppSimulator is documented in docs a thousand times. Stop whining, fix
your crashing app and don't submit it until its working. Why would they want
your crashing buggy app on the day of launch?

------
metabrew
tl;dr - submitting stuff to app stores can be a nightmare, regardless of who
runs the app store.

~~~
mtgx
I've heard you can get your app and its updates published on the Play Store
almost immediately, or within a day.

~~~
CodeCube
Usually takes about an hour to be replicated out to the store when you upload
an APK ... but no humans are involved in that process.

------
Aaronontheweb
If the OP reads HN, send me an email to aaron AT markedup DOT com

I used to work on the evangelism team in the US for Microsoft (left in August
to start my own company;) I can connect you with folks who can help you with
the certification process.

~~~
masklinn
The article notes that he already got plenty of connections throughout the
process.

------
Zaheer
I don't think the Apple AppStore is much better. I recently submitted an app
and got back a very generic message saying what was wrong with my app. No help
at all in trying to figure out what the problem really is.

------
jheriko
I agree that the store process is not great in providing feedback - however
several of the problems mentioned could have been mitigated by good practice.

------
dscrd
I really don't get why people continue to bang their heads against the wall
that is Microsoft. We have plenty of better options, why them?

------
jamesjguthrie
I think now, I will wait maybe 6 months before building anything for the
Windows Store.

------
shmerl
> Try Again Later

I'd say - dump MS. Try something that treats developers as humans.

------
raverbashing
Easy

Don't waste your time with MS (or Apple, or anyone for that matter)

They already cost more of your time than you can make back.

Typical MS thinking all you need is a shallow copy of something to be
successful. Oh well, it worked for them a couple of times.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
Perhaps the Windows 8 Store is a "shallow copy" of the Mac/iOS App Store.

But the Windows 8 experience as a whole certainly isn't.

~~~
raverbashing
Exactly what I meant.

The main problem with Windows 8 is not the innovation (or lack of), but the
legacy elements and the awkwardness resulting from it.

------
wrath
Instead of these negative articles I'd like to see people write articles
helping other have a better experience then they had. You're on the cutting
edge of technology and the consequence is that you'll have problems. I've
never personally submitted an app to an appstore but from what I've read Apple
had similar problems when they first launched.

~~~
simonw
There was lots of useful advice in this article about getting through the
approval process.

