

IPhone App in Approval Limbo for 3 Months, Dev Decides to Open Source It - peter123
http://blog.robrhyne.com/post/1015614125/google-voice-says-hi

======
LdS
A few things to consider (I went thru the exact same path):

\- Android: toll to get approved on the Android market is significantly less.
You can release the apk unsigned, they'll install.

\- Use webkit to wrap your app inside some dummy binaries. Apple approves your
app then you keep updating your app leaving on AWS or Google App Engine _your
pick_

\- Don't go full blown. Release a lite app with minimum features, then add
more as you go. Apple tech reviewers are humans. You need to familiarize them
with your app, then you can crank up the features.

\- Blog about it and get the community to be supportive and all jazzed up on
how evil Apple is (IMHO: you did that too late)

\- Release some libraries open source. I am not sure why you released the
whole thing, because I don't think it will help you much beside maybe the buzz
factor (which you would have gotten by writing to techcrunch, hacker news,
slashdot and theregister.

\- Finally, never give up, never surrender. It's a tough world out there and
if it was easy, everyone would be able to do it.

Good luck!

~~~
m_eiman
_\- Blog about it and get the community to be supportive and all jazzed up on
how evil Apple is (IMHO: you did that too late)_

Before you do this, make sure that:

1) You've got a valid complaint. I've seen too many developers complain about
something being rejected when everyone who looks at the rules will instantly
see that they're in violation (if you think it's a dumb rule doesn't matter,
Apple made it up and Apple decides both if you're in violation and the
consequenses of the violation)

2) Be aware that you're most likely burning bridges at Apple and killing any
goodwill you might have with them. Calling them an evil empire just isn't the
kind of thing that's likely to bring them over to your side.

I think that the OP has carefully avoided calling Apple names and such, and
instead focused on the basic facts: he's spent a lot of time and effort to
make the app (which has been received well by people at Apple), but there's a
limit to what resources a small company can spend while waiting for a
response. You'll also note that he's making sure to point out that he'd like
to get back to work on it as soon as possible.

------
d_r
I wonder how many indie developers make a choice to not develop significant
iOS-based products (such as this one) and instead build "unit converters" and
"fart apps" since those make it into the store with no problem.

~~~
dieterrams
The abundance of such trivial apps is more than adequately explained by (1)
their trivialness to implement, and (2) their established reputation for
actually making money.

I'm sure there are exceptions, but I don't believe the kind of people who want
to make significant, high-quality apps like the one Rob made are the kind of
people who would so easily stoop to making a fart app.

------
wallflower
I just have to wonder if had Rob released a minimum viable product - without
the polish and all the types of interactions and months of hard work and
submitted it to the App Store - would it have been rejected sooner.

With our apps, even though they are fairly standard, we know the biggest risk
is rejection by Apple. We hedge that risk somewhat by submitting a MVP
(setting the release date in the future so it won't go live accidentally if
approved).

~~~
dieterrams
Barring the possibility of Apple ever laying down clear, comprehensive, stable
and reliable guidelines for avoiding rejection (with many real, anonymized
examples), it sounds like the MVP approach is the best way to go.

Rob's case is special, though, because his app was never actually rejected. I
suppose if he'd been willing to submit a MVP and wait the same amount of time
in limbo before putting any more effort into it, he could have saved himself
all that hard work. But the aggravation of not getting an answer would have
still sucked.

~~~
ianlevesque
The quiet issue that most people don't hear about are not initial submissions,
but _updates_ that get stuck in the same review limbo for months and months.
My app has been on the store for nearly two years, had many incremental
updates, and my iPad compatibility update (not even a new app) has now been in
review for 3 months. It's really hard to explain to your existing userbase why
you cannot get an update released. Many of them aren't even aware that Apple
can be the bottleneck for such a long time.

~~~
dieterrams
That's true. There really isn't a good way to communicate with your userbase.
You're basically limited to updating the app description and hoping your
existing users bother to click the "More" link to read it (assuming you didn't
put the update at the top, because that's prime real estate for attracting new
customers).

It really astounds me hearing about how long new apps and updates can get
stuck in limbo, with no feedback from Apple or path to action. So far I've
managed to avoid any nightmare scenarios, but every new anecdote I read makes
me increasingly anxious that one day, that time will come.

------
meelash
To be fair, it is using interpreted code, which is clearly not allowed. He
chose to build something that clearly goes against the terms and then he's
hoping for an executive-level exception to the rule because "it's so cool".
But if they give him an exception, everyone else will be pointing to how the
approval process is inconsistent when they reject someone else's with some
form of interpreted code.

So the question of Apple being at fault for not having "clear, comprehensive
guidelines" can't really be raised.( In this particular case.)

And so the headline is a bit sensational.

~~~
hga
Really? Limbo he says and limbo is sure what it seems to be.

If what you're saying were true, Apple should have fairly quickly rejected it
citing the grounds you state. Something else is going on.

And isn't it the case that there are already quite a few interpreted code
exceptions already in place, e.g. Lua in games?

~~~
meelash
I thought he made it pretty clear that he made some effort to get his software
approved by exception through talking to execs, etc. So obviously that
explains the "limbo". Presumably, he recognized it would just get rejected
through the ordinary channels.

And with respect to the other thing, your bringing that up kinda proves what I
said, doesn't it? :P

------
dbrannan
Is anyone else concerned Apple will release a touch-screen iMac, and all
future "touch" software will need to go through the iTunes store? If touch
software ends up being more popular I see all development needing to go
through the Apple development screening. I'm beginning to feel that if they
could screen websites they'd do that too, oh wait. They do that too by
limiting Flash.

~~~
John212
The software wouldn't need to be touch, they could have a separate section for
desktop apps.

Can you imagine the revenue stream for Apple if you could get desktop apps on
iTunes?

I'm not at all concerned about it as they couldn't make it exclusive, people
would run to windows... but they would still achieve a huge market share.

Maybe OS X 10.7?

------
izendejas
As we know, this is a good reason to be on Team HTML 5 (with all it's
tradeoffs). I admire Rob's incredible amount of patience though and hope it
pays off.

~~~
chc
Even with the risk of arbitrary rejection, it seems like the odds of payoff
from your hard work are better with an iPhone app than a website written in
any HTML dialect.

~~~
jws
The biggest problem with deploying an HTML webapp to iPhone users is that they
aren't trained to accept them. Users are forced to learn to use the App Store,
but virtually none of them know how to make a bookmark on the home screens and
even fewer know that this can then enable a website to become an application.
(For those not washed in the gory details, full screen is not available until
the user relaunches from a home screen icon.)

All together, you will need to have a motivated and technically adept audience
for your webapp to succeed.

~~~
hiteck
You hit some of the reasons why we created <http://OpenAppMkt.com>

~~~
izendejas
Awesome! I'm sure even Apple will solve it as they know HTML 5 is going to be
a big part of the future.

------
cpg
I agree with the comments, HTML 5 is really the key to bypass all these
restrictions.

What is the best HTML 5 framework so far? I saw sencha's, webkit and a couple
of others here and there.

Any recommendations?

~~~
mifi2200
There is <http://jqtouch.com/> and <http://jquerymobile.com/>. Also
<http://openappmkt.com> to distribute.

~~~
neovive
Is it ok to create an iphone app that just opens the iphone browser to your
html5 app?

------
stilist
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1637368>

~~~
kmfrk
I flagged that, because the title is basically useless, and the glaring result
is that no one reads about this important case.

------
st3fan
I just don't get it. Awesome app. Why would they reject it? What would the
actual reason for rejection be?

~~~
wallflower
Interpreted code

> No interpreted code may be downloaded and used in an Application except for
> code that is interpreted and run by Apple's Published APIs and builtin
> interpreter(s)...An Application may not itself install or launch other
> executable code by any means, including without limitation through the use
> of a plug-in architecture, calling other frameworks, other APIs or
> otherwise.

> Briefs are eventually compiled into binary .plist files for delivery to the
> iPhone. But authoring uses a simple language called bs. BS is a simple
> language written specifically for creating briefs. Its syntax is very
> similar to CSS (helpful for those experienced web designers).

~~~
recoiledsnake
Briefs are compiled into binary .plist files on the Mac not on the iPhone.

~~~
wallflower
Yes and they are "run" on the iPhone.

This makes me wonder if the real reason there is not Balsamiq for iPad is
because of the threat of rejection for "running" and "editing" Balsamiq markup
models. I understand that Balsamiq is an Adobe AIR/Flash product, and it would
have required a major port to CoreGraphics/Cocoa (since the CS5 compiler was
banned because it leveled the mobile platform playing field by allowing near
write-once, run any device).

------
joecode
Maybe he should sell it in source form as a "build it yourself" product. I'd
definitely pay for it.

~~~
guelo
Of course you would also need a mac and a $99/year certificate to install it
on an actual device.

~~~
nimblegorilla
Most people willing to pay for an iphone prototyping tool probably already
paid the $99 fee to work on something else too.

------
tyng
From an entrepreneur's perspective, devoting one's business solely into the
app store isn't a wise move. Since Apple has the veto power over the app
distribution channel the risk of wasting hundreds of hours but not getting to
the market is too high.

What one should do is to develop software that runs multiple platforms, and if
it becomes popular I doubt Apple would want to lose out in the fanfare.

Imaging Apple disapproving Dropbox? not quite possible, because people love it
on other platforms, and if Apple doesn't support it on iPhone people will go
get a blackberry.

------
malandrew
The video for the app isn't very informative. It explains the problem, but
does little to show how this app is useful and how it solves the problem
presented for over 2/3's of the video.

------
tyng
Maybe consider Jailbreak - there's a paid jailbreak-apps store called Rock,
which I heard is legally legal (don't quote me on this). Although I suspect
people who jailbreak their phones may not be the target market for something
like Briefs

------
iag
Brief is very cool. I loved his demo at iPhone meetup. Best of luck Rob!

------
js4all
My full respect for releasing it as open source, even after the big
disappointment of being not approved. I can sense the hard work, that has been
put into this. Thanks.

------
wealthyox
Honestly, this scares me.

------
recoiledsnake
Looks like a really cool app. I guess open sourcing it will allow iPhone
developers to run it?

I guess Apple really wanted to reject the App, but didn't want the backlash so
is just letting it rot. Sorta like those companies that you interview with
that never send a 'no' back and make you go mad with being in limbo. There are
reports about some apps being pending review for 200 days.

I guess he's hoping for approval or he might have released it on Cydia.

