
Ode to the App Review team - atularora
http://www.marco.org/3100131471
======
ZeroGravitas
Ode to the TSA Screeners

Thanks for touching my junk. I love you guys. No, not for the touching (though
sometimes...). What I really love is how your pointless security theatre makes
me feel safe and secure.

And your swiftly growing and unnecessary bureaucracy is only getting faster.
Not like last year when you made me miss Christmas with my family, or that
time a business deal fell through because you wouldn't let me on the plane or
tell me why. Now your line of junk touchers is really humming and I'm barely
there for an hour or so. What a smooth operation, my hat's off to you.

After all, I make money from flying and it's all down to you guys. Not the
pilot, or the air-traffic controller, or the baggage handlers or engineers or
stewardesses. No, it's all down to you guys and I salute you. And if my taxes
are paying for this meaningless charade, all the better.

It's not like there is any alternative. I've read about other countries where
they don't touch your junk and let you bring your own peanuts without a
surcharge on the official news sources and it seems like planes are just
falling out of the sky left, right and centre because someone didn't get their
junk touched or peanuts confiscated. I'm so glad I don't have to put up with
that.

God bless Apple, sorry..., America!

~~~
pennig
That's some top shelf snark right there.

------
andrewljohnson
Meh, ode to nothing. The App Review process sucks. I develop apps, and it's
the second biggest pain in my behind, next to the App ad hoc provisioning
process. We deal with it, but thank you sir, I don't want another.

1\. It's capricious.

2\. It doesn't catch actual bugs, and then you have to wait to fix them.

3\. Apple doesn't engage you easily on questions of whether something or
another will result in rejection.

4\. Apple changes the rules and block random releases, without communicating
rules changes until they reject you.

5\. Apple makes it harder to plan marketing campaigns.

I haven't had a new app rejected in probably over a year, and only rarely have
they blocked one of my releases, but every time it sucks, and I don't know why
they bother.

~~~
bruceboughton
>> 2\. It doesn't catch actual bugs, and then you have to wait to fix them.

Apple aren't your QA team.

~~~
andrewljohnson
They claim that is part of the reason they review apps, and Marco in his
article claims they raise the quality of apps.

~~~
megablast
Both these claims can still be true. I have had a but get through twice, and
eventually it was picked up by the app store reviewers, because it was such a
hard to replicate bug.

It is certainly true that some QA is better than no QA. Even professional QA's
miss some stuff.

------
solipsist
For any of the developers who were there from the start, the decrease in
review times speak for themselves. New developers flock to the forums with
posts such as "Stuck in review for more than _one week_ ". If only they knew
what it was like years ago.

They are the spoiled generation of iOS developers. :)

~~~
phillco
Hell, I remember what life was like _before iPhones_!

~~~
solipsist
If this was Reddit, we'd see a long chain of comments continuing this trend.

 _Before smartphones_

 _Before phones_

 _Before electricity_

etc.

I enjoyed your comment, but I'm just warning everybody else that don't have to
feel the need to comment on it.

~~~
Groxx
I don't remember what life was like before Reddit.

~~~
die_sekte
Well, I certainly had more useable time. Stupid addiction. Mainstream reddit
manages somehow to be just interesting enough to justify reading it. Even
though 95% of it is trite.

~~~
Groxx
Oh, I just mean the memes, I've never been a Redditer except for the
occasional use of their reading lists. It's kind of like asking "what was the
internet like before 4chan? What did people _say_? Did the internet, in fact,
_exist_ before 4chan?"

------
tylerhwillis
He brings up a fantastic point on the willingness of customers to spend money.
It seems iPhone users spend much more on apps than android users (anyone have
data to confirm?).

That said, it seems to me like this isn't just app discoverability and trust
-- having your apple id and CC# already setup from day one for most users seem
more likely to be the cause. Here's a discussion on Quora about it:
<http://qr.ae/kY5p>

------
jlgosse
I don't understand this article at all. 99% of iOS users have NO idea that
Apple have such a ridiculous screening process, so why would they download
freely with the idea that Apple is the crazy gatekeeper?

Secondly, there is a TONNE of copying going on from what I can tell. Dozens of
clones of the same games and apps pop up all the time, and while there is no
blatant copyright theft, there is still some level of IP theft. Not only that,
Apple completely rejects apps when they want to monopolize a particular
segment (see: Sony eBooks bannage).

Finally, the reason why it's "getting better", is because Apple has been doing
this for years now. Not only that, I'm sure they've streamlined their
processes, and hired boatloads of extra reviewers.

I'm tired of seeing marco.org posts skyrocketing to the front page. He's a
serious Apple fanboy who, most of the time, provides no real content to the HN
community.

~~~
invalidOrTaken
For the first point, they don't need to know exactly _why_ the apps from the
App Store won't break their phone---they can just learn it from experience.

------
pxlpshr
I'm in total agreement, we've been publishing to the store since 2008 when it
first opened.

However, ironically enough a big app we've been working on was rejected last
week due to this violation: "4.3 Apps that use location-based APIs for
dispatch, fleet management, or emergency services will be rejected."

I've had absolutely no luck contacting anyone within Apple for more
information. Last week we also field tested this app with major government
emergency response services (ems, police, fire, etc.) within Texas with both
success and enthusiasm that a product like ours is coming to market. It's
unfortunate seeing that Mr. Jobs recently took a medical leave of absence. Not
that he needs it, but an American studying abroad sure might.

~~~
ghshephard
" major government emergency response services (ems, police, fire, etc.) "

I can just imagine what the liabilities for Apple would be on that one.
Somehow I think they'll be quite content to avoid it by simply not allowing
any emergency service apps in the App Store.

~~~
cookiecaper
Why does Apple have to be liable for everything you put on _your_ phone? Is
Microsoft liable for the viruses and spyware that people install on their
Windows PCs?

The liability argument is weak, though Apple may have made the case itself by
its stringency with the App Store. Now one could say that there was a
reasonable expectation nothing he/she could get from the App Store could cause
a problem in his/her life because Apple publicly embarked on a vetting process
before offering the app for sale.

------
nhangen
I love ya Marco, but this one felt a bit sappy.

I've had good and bad experiences, and really no complaints save being pushed
to the back of the queue upon rejection, but I do fantasize about creating web
apps and being in control of my own release cycle.

------
rst
Very odd to read, after the Android Market has been running for quite some
time, that "The result of [app store review] is that Apple can more easily let
us use their payment system without scaring their lawyers, devaluing their
store’s image, or incurring high fraud and chargeback fees from their payment
processors."

Google certainly has lawyers, and the (former) try-before-you-buy policy was a
much more direct answer to fraud and chargeback than stringent app review. As
to reputation, the Android store's poor rep is more due to the absence of
particular good apps (or the difficulty finding them) than the presence of
crud (which Apple's store has in abundance) --- and I don't think you can
credit the review process with attracting good developers. Most of them hate
it.

It's also funny that he doesn't mention the one thing that the review process
_does_ do for end users --- it makes sure that apps conform to Apple's UI
guidelines. They can be obnoxious about this, as in the flat rejection of
camera apps that use the volume buttons as shutter controls, but the
consistency is probably a net win for users overall. Though for Android,
manufacturer reskinning is probably a bigger problem.

But it's been used in directly anticompetitive ways (the Google Voice holdup,
which let to an FCC investigation; the current Sony reader payments flap) that
it's really hard to deny that that's one of the points of the exercise from
Apple's perspective. And fanboy rationales which ignore that awkward fact are
getting really tedious.

------
abecedarius
Huh, I was expecting an actual poem. "O App Review, the week just flew."

~~~
nooneelse
Indeed, the bar has fallen pretty far with this title.

------
shaggyfrog
The review process has come a long way, folks. It's still nowhere as
explicitly documented as, say, Sony or Microsoft's review process for video
games -- which is both a strength and a weakness -- but the transparency _has_
slowly gotten better each year.

What impresses me the most, though, is the payment system, which he mentions.
I don't mind Apple taking a 30% cut of my sales, because they are not just
taking care of all the merchant details (e.g. payment processing), but they
are giving consumers confidence that they aren't throwing money into the void.
Furthermore, the one time I've had a problem with a payment on iTunes, I was
reimbursed for the problem, and got my download for free.

What more can end users ask for?

------
credo
_> >"Think of the crappiest iPhone app you ever saw that made it into the
store. Now imagine what they must reject. ↩"_

imo Marco is mistaken in his assumption that approved apps are always less
crappy than rejected apps.

The "crappiest iPhone app" that was approved is likely to be worse than many
rejected apps.

~~~
sambeau
That's just an arithmetical reality. It is not indicative of a problem.

It's like saying that the the shortest child to ride a roller-coaster is
shorter than the tallest child to get refused.

There is always a fuzzy edge in these situations.

------
mikecane
I cannot feel benevolent towards a system that wants to ignore the reality of
the world surrounding it. Apple has rejected an Android magazine from being
sold (as if it's not possible that someone would own an iPad and an Android
phone -- and as if it's possible such a magazine would sway people away from
iOS!) and the latest idiocy is requesting the removal of "Available in Kindle
edition" from an eBook. There is just no excuse for this.

~~~
rimantas
> There is just no excuse for this.

Sure there is. It's their store and they do whatever they want. Not sure how
does that involve ignoring the reality of the world surrounding it, but Apples
seems to do quite well regardless.

------
mariusmg
Come on. The opaque process still sucks no matter what anyone says (that's
because is down to a single person's interpretation). And related to the DMCA
notices [http://blog.wolfire.com/2011/02/Counterfeit-Lugaru-on-
Apple-...](http://blog.wolfire.com/2011/02/Counterfeit-Lugaru-on-Apple-s-App-
Store-developing)

~~~
sambeau
Yes it sucks but it sucks far less than the alternatives.

The App Store wasn't created and isn't curated for the benefit of developers -
it's all about users: non-technical users who want to use their devices safely
and who would blame Apple the moment a 3rd-party app caused a problem.

------
Psyonic
People on HN say all the time, "Just because it isn't for you, doesn't mean
there isn't an audience." For example, see the defending comments on the Ze
Frank post today.

Many of the apps Marco writes off as "crap" could easily fall into this
category. Yes, it is true that the Android market is filled with "Sexy girls"
wallpapers, but there certainly appears to be an audience.

That said, I'd be much more supportive of the App Store if they simply
provided another way to get apps for those who standards aren't 100% congruent
with Apple's.

------
antirez
why this guy keeps acting as Apple PR, and people even upvote this kind of
articles?

If there is something that sucked, sucks, and will probably suck is the Apple
app submission process and review process. It's not easy to get this right, as
the approval rules are the kind of rules that are very hard to apply in a
consistent way in large scale. This can be a partial justification maybe, but
the whole process is slow, prone to make mistakes, company-biased (think at
Google Latitude and so forth) and in general a pain in the ass for the
developers. Note exactly something to Ode.

------
drivebyacct2
I guess. Other platforms (WP7, Android) sandbox their applications equally
well and respond to DMCA notices to takedown illegal clones, etc. I don't see
that as being unique to the Apple App Store or necessarily a function of their
review process.

>So we have a huge number of potential customers who are very comfortable
installing a lot of apps and can buy ours by simply entering a password.

And Android doesn't even need that. Nnow anyone can instantly remote install
an app from the convenience of their browser. I think even that beats the
iTunes value proposition of having a desktop presence.

~~~
grkhetan
I am not sure Android sandboxes that well. (I dont have much knowhow of
android sdk btw). But from the applications that are available on the android
market - I know that people android apps can do more harm than on iOS, they
have more power in android (for example, there are anti-virus apps on android!
task killers!, apps can access your photos without you knowing it and upload
them somewhere, app launchers, integrate with dialer, etc)

~~~
ergo98
_I am not sure Android sandboxes that well._

Android sandboxes far _better_ than iOS. It has a more granular, integrated
security system.

The existence of "anti-virus" and task killers speaks more about customer
ignorance and the placebo effect than it does to the platform.

I think the App Store review process is actually dangerous because it implies
something that isn't true. Apple makes zero guarantees about the quality of
safety of the applications.

~~~
grkhetan
Granularity is good -- but as far as I know people ignore the security
permissions warnings, because they are hard to understand, and its difficult
to understand why would an app need them, and most people generally just click
yes. So practically, it does not really help (thats the impression i got from
reading online) For anti-virus apps, its not about why people buy (customer
ignorance), but their existence and feasibility implies apps have the power to
monitor the system closely. App store review helps ... when android store
lists apps like these:
<http://photos.appleinsider.com/android.market.ios.002.jpg> how can you trust
the android store more or equal to the apple app store?

~~~
drivebyacct2
Those are completely irrelevant problems. The problem you cite is the nature
of the beast with an open market. I think you'll have a hard time finding
Android fans willing to sacrifice the open intentions of Android and Google's
Market to prevent copyrighted apps from getting into the Market.

I find it funny, that image, as if some random bloggers "indictment" should
motivate Google to action. They're handling it just as they handle Youtube,
and I think it's brilliant. If you see your material in the Market, file a
DMCA. Problem solved.

Yes, customers ignore permission warnings, but again, that's an unrelated
issue, and surely you're not suggesting that Apple's lack of a permission list
is better simply because users sometimes ignore it when offered.

In terms of security, both from a disclosure, per-permission level granting
and sandboxing perspecitve, Android has a superior model.

------
sid0
How can the app review ensure that, say, you don't have a timebomb in your
program after which you start sending off private data? Apple doesn't ask for
the source code, does it?

~~~
megablast
They do not do that, nor can they without examining the source very carefully.
There have been cases of apps getting through with illegal functionality in.

~~~
sid0
But then all the app store gives people is a false sense of security. The
willingness of people to trust arbitrary App Store apps should be condemned,
not celebrated.

~~~
sambeau
Not true.

By regulating the process - and the payment - Apple is able to instantly
remove an app as soon as it is found to be malicious and refund anyone who
paid for it out of the developers pocket.

~~~
sid0
But that's independent of the _review_ process. They could do the same thing
without a review.

For comparison, the Mozilla Addons review process requires you to provide them
a copy of the (unobfuscated) source code. You always have the option of self-
hosting, of course.

~~~
sambeau
Could you imagine the fuss they'd be if Apple started to demand our source
code too!

~~~
sid0
If you're going to have a review process at all, you should at least add
something of value. Either ask for source code (and deal with the backlash) or
don't have a review process at all. A two-level review system (one with source
code, one without) with appropriate warnings is fine, too.

The app store review process as it currently stands is worthless, useless and
meaningless.

------
phillco
[This comment has been approved by the Hacker News Review team]

Great article!

~~~
drivebyacct2
Funny that this comment is downvoted considering the (in my opinion)
exceedingly rude act of quietly silencing users here.

