

SCOtutor iOS Apps - The Current Situation - thehodge
http://themacscreencastguy.com/blog/2012/8/11/scotutor-ios-apps-the-current-situation.html

======
spaghetti
The iOS app review process is astronomically fucked. I've had apps rejected
for comically ambiguous reasons such as "app is just a website re-packaged as
an app". Right. IMO one can argue this for many apps. I've had apps rejected
because "app doesn't use enough native iOS functionality" when the app uses
the accelerometer/gyroscope and all sorts of UIKit features.

The review process is also hilariously inconsistent. I've had re-skins of my
own apps, that are live in the app store, that have solid 5-star reviews
across 100s of users, that have 100k+ downloads rejected.

On a more positive note the Android development experience has been pretty
decent so far. Porting a relatively simple iOS app took about two weeks. This
time span includes reading the docs, getting a physical device and downloading
the app from Google Play.

I've been doing iOS development since the start of the app store. However the
"nuances" like provisioning profiles mess, $99/year fee and painfully long
review process are getting really old.

------
padobson
Sounds like its time to pivot. Some ideas on how to do that:

-Attempt to submit to iTunes anyhow, and handle the rejection if and when it comes.

-Create a web app with your videos embedded into it. Provide your free videos for free and your paid videos for a price or subscription.

-Deploy your video as a part of the YouTube partner program and monetize there: <http://www.youtube.com/yt/creators/partner.html>

-Build an iOS app without videos in it that acts as a companion to your videos - organizes all of them into categories, provides URLs where they can be viewed, organizes the notes and comments on each video, even lets you stream them within that app. This is basically how the Netflix app works, right? If the streaming crosses the line with Apple again, take it out. This will give you a presence in the App Store.

-Get vindictive and target Android instead of iOS

Bureaucracy is the bane of the small business man. Learn to roll with the
punches and move on.

------
archgrove
The worst thing here is the inconsistency. If the App Store had _no_ "training
video" type apps, then one might disagree with the policy, but at least it
wouldn't feel so arbitrary. Allowing some, but not others - plus changing
their mind half way though - puts Apple in a bad light. They also need to
ensure that their "suggestions" are possible. In this, I think their policies
in one area are just evolving faster than those in another. I'd hope that
anyone could submit video content in the not to distant future, as part of a
"Tutorial" category or similar.

In terms of pragmatics, have you considered doing an interactive iBook?
Videos, plus diagrams and text would seem to be more useful than just a video
anyway, and (IIRC) anyone can submit an iBook.

------
iuguy
As someone who's downloaded SCOtutor apps I can see his frustration. The
SCOtutor apps are really well put together and great tutorials.

Rather than moan about Apple lets look at what he can do.

The author has a collection of extremely high quality content. He's already
taken the effort to turn this into chapters. With a bit more effort he should
be able to turn this into a pretty good site. If you look at his actual
site[1] you'll see he already has this. But lets put some patio11 thinking
onto this.

He has a lot of chaptered content that would be really useful to new users. So
for each class of content he could create a new site, have a couple of
chapters available and the rest behind a paywall, charging per chapter or for
the whole thing. He can monetize the content with adverts (for the open areas)
and Youtube's partner program. Personally if I were him I'd upload my open
videos to Vimeo which provides better quality (IMHO, I could be wrong) and to
YouTube and monetize the Youtube content (along with links to his specific
websites for further tutorials).

He can further monetize by using affiliate links from organisations such as
Amazon for accessories for the things he's talking about. For example, a video
on how to turn smart cover support on and off could be augmented with an
affiliate link in the page to smart covers sold on Amazon. It doesn't have to
be spammy or overdone.

New versions of iOS and OS X come out on a fairly regular basis. He knows the
release dates in advance. As the new release date gets closer he can open up
more of the older chapters as he sees fit and then release the new course when
the new version comes out.

Finally the author might want to look at bundle deal sites. There's tons of
them for Mac and the most popular ones tend to get around. If he can get his
tutors bundled with something that people would buy on it's own then he's more
likely to see more sales.

[1] - www.screencastsonline.com

------
btucker
Apple's stance at least seems pretty clear cut: The App Store is for apps, the
iTunes/iBooks Stores are for content. Content masquerading as an App will not
be allowed in the App Store, but the content is welcome in the iTunes store.

I do think they're making a fair distinction between an app that's basically a
wrapper around a movie, and an app that allows access to content (eg.
<http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/5by5-radio/id520847556>).

~~~
jurre
Did you read the article?

 _As a side note, it’s impossible for me (or any other independent video
trainer) to register to sell video tutorials directly in the iTunes store as
suggested in the rejection statement, as I do not meet the requirements of “5
feature-length movies or documentaries that were released theatrically (or)
100 feature-length movies or documentaries that were either released
theatrically or direct to video.”_

~~~
btucker
That's how they control the quality of content. I'm not saying I agree with
this, it's just how they've chosen to manage the store and it's why there's a
multitude of publishers which will help produce your content and get it into
the iTunes Store (eg. <http://www.tunecore.com/>).

------
sklivvz1971
I honestly think the post is a bit ridiculous and whiny.

While the iOS review process may be draconian and inconsistent, it's clear
that the "apps" in question contain basically no functionality other than
video playback - certainly they are _not_ note taking apps, even after the
fixes - so how defensible is the position of the author?

Now - it's clear that the only video content that Apple can accept is content
coming through traditional channels. Why? I am not sure, but probably there
are some contractual reasons (e.g. the studios give content only if Apple
keeps small fish at bay?). It's certainly not different for songs. I have an
album on iTunes and it got there through a major. Three other independent
albums were never accepted.

Also, while Apple may _tolerate_ , or _pretend not to see_ video hiding in the
app store in order to be friendly to developers whilst stretching, bending but
not breaking any contractual obligation they probably have, this doesn't mean
that they won't stomp such content _if and when_ it's found. They certainly
have no obligation whatsoever towards the author to keep his apps in.

I find the blog post naive at best and malicious at worst.

~~~
fleitz
The problem is that the app store is massively inconsistent.

We don't care why Apple makes it this way, only that it is this way. Apple is
not the company we look to for excuses about why things can't be built
properly.

Half assed, wildly inconsistent, corporate 'droids prevailing over common
sense are what we expect from companies like Google with their AdSense/AdWords
program. Or doing just about anything with PayPal.

The review process is something developers rely on and pay good money for to
ensure a functioning marketplace where everyone must play by the same rules.

What we have is something inconsistent and frustrating which does not deliver
a better experience to the consumer.

~~~
AznHisoka
Well, you can not pay the $99 fee anytime you wish. Apple really doesn't owe
anyone a living. And I can see how they might wish to separate these videos
from regular apps. If these types of apps get flooded into the app store, the
quality will deteriorate and usage will decline.

------
codeka
The really horrible part of this story is all the effort he went to, trying to
make his app compliant but all in vain. Is there no way to just ask "if I do
this or that, will it be acceptable?" rather than just blindly trying things
and resubmitting?

I guess he's skirting around the fringes of what's acceptable as an app, but
at what point do you draw the line between a "movie" and an app with video
content? Remember those "interactive movies" that were popular in the 90's?
What side of the fence do they sit on?

------
ricardobeat
I don't know about his apps, but I'm happy that Apple is finally putting and
end to this mess. The app stores are littered with "tutorial" apps, most
hoping to fool users into buying it thinking it's the actual app.

------
mik4el
I hate when apple does that kind of silly stuff. I've heard so many iterations
of this kind of story that I doubt Apple will continue to have the best
smartphone apps when other ecosystems offers more flexibility. Also, this kind
of strict control of content must cost Apple a sizeable buck?

------
franzus
The app store is a perfect example of missing competition. It's 4 years old
now and has not been improved once inch since its original inception.

Search, discoverability and speed are still as bad as on day one. Paired with
Apple's kafka-esque bureaucracy and indifference for developers it's a really
shitty state the app store is in - and I don't see any improvements anytime
soon.

~~~
spaghetti
Serious question: why do app developers choose iOS over Android today? I
vaguely recall reading about developers having trouble with paid apps on
Google Play. Any other reasons?

I was a hardcore Apple fan for the first few years of the app store. However
the novelty of the iOS polish that Android is partially missing (but slowly
gaining) has long since worn off.

