

 Respected developers begin fleeing from App Store platform - araneae
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/11/respected-developers-fleeing-from-app-store-platform.ars

======
gfodor
There are two problems with the app store, but they are usually not recognized
as separate problems:

\- Apple unreasonably rejects applications.

\- It takes 2 to 3 weeks to be told you've been rejected, and even then you
only are given one reason even if there are several problems that need to be
addressed.

My overall impression is that most of the complaints about the first point are
simply due to the frustration borne of the second. It's not the rejection over
the stupidest things that stings, it's the fact that you had to wait forever
to be told "you need to change your icon." Then, after your five minute fix,
it's back in the hopper for another three weeks. All the while competitors
appear in the App Store, clients get pissed, and cash burns.

It's incredible to me that the embarassingly parallel problem of app approval
wait time has not only been left unsolved, but has apparently gotten worse.

Imagine if the turnaround time on these things dropped from 3 weeks to a few
hours. Being rejected would turn from a devestating event to a minor
inconvenience, and I'd imagine that all this bad press would evaporate. Sure,
you'd have some developers complain that their apps would never be approved
due to impasses between them and Apple in terms of service violations, but I
think these folks would be in the minority since most violations can be fixed
once you're made aware of them.

~~~
DenisM
The thing is that apps do not get reviewed for two weeks, they sit in a queue
for two weeks and then get reviewd in a day. You can not increase throughput
by increasing wait times.

I think the reason why it takes two weeks is that some developers submit new
version as soon as the last one is approved just to enjoy the ratings of "new
stuff".

A better model would be to allow developers rolling 24 updates per year, and
you can chose how to spend them. This would prevent the spam problem and allow
updates to publish quickly once they are done.

Personally I now publish new update the moment last one is approved (provided
I have anything new at all), for a simple reason - it's better to submit any
feature for approval however small ASAP than wait for it to be rejected when I
really wanted to ship large bucket of features.

~~~
jerf
And if everybody follows your strategy, approval bogs down even more as
submissions explode.

I don't blame you. That's a perfectly rational response and everybody _should_
follow your strategy if they know what's good for them. It's Apple's fault for
creating the incentive structure wherein that's the locally-optimal strategy.

~~~
DenisM
Yes, the irony of this situation is not lost on me. :-)

------
alexforster
Even though they haven't publicly addressed the problem, I'm sure they knew
that the current model was proving unsustainable well before any of us. You
have to imagine that for every 100,000 apps their small review team has
accepted, they must have also rejected 100,000 more. Apple doesn't admit when
things are shitty until after they've fixed the problem. They're smart like
that.

As far as solutions, I like the pay-per-app model the best. The signal-to-
noise ratio in the app store is way too high (low?). It doesn't need to be too
expensive to publish an app, it just needs to deter the kinds of publishers
that are writing one app and rebranding it hundreds of times (per sports team,
per state, etc). You even have people taking public domain novels and throwing
thousands of them up as $0.99 ebooks, just on the chance that the sheer volume
of them will make a profit. There are of course thousands of great apps, too,
but the chances of stumbling across any of them are becoming smaller and
smaller.

~~~
forensic
>The signal-to-noise ratio in the app store is way too high (low?).

Think of it like a fraction. Signal/noise. Signal divided by noise. I assume
you were saying it was a low fraction. :)

Good post, by the way, I hope Apple steals your idea.

------
elblanco
Well that took a surprisingly long time. Considering the relative hostility
Apple has had to iPhone app developers, and their "if you aren't making us
money you can go stick it" response to simple developer requests...

Apple is going to have to work hard to turn this boat around, at this point
their only real choice might be to open the platform.

------
protomyth
Given the current news on iLike, I have a little bit of a problem with someone
from Facebook complaining about Apple.

Apple has a lot to answer for, but I am wondering if the price a developer
pays ($99 a year) is too low and if Palm's pay per app ($99 year + $50 per
app) a more realistic model to pay for more people to review apps?

