"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Really? They've listed a 'requirement' as 'app crashes'?
A bit of googling gives this which contains the full text of Requirement 3.2:-
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.
2.1 Apps that crash will be rejected
"Requirement 3.2: the app crashes"
3.2 as a reason something is rejected ("app crashes") makes more sense. I wasn't sure if they're written it that casually, as it was quoted as such.
This tendency towards closed-off app stores is really depressing.
I don't trust you. I trust apple. Deal with it.
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.
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.
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.
You are either completely ignorant of smartphone technology or deliberately missing the point.
I just searched for weather on my iPhone. There are 4055 weather related apps to chose from. It isn't a problem. What's more, is that I know that all 4055 of those apps will in no way prevent me from using my phone 10 minutes after I install them.
> Why can't we have an app store AND allow side-loading?
Why can't we tackle people during a soccer game? Same shit.
I've chosen to play by Apple's rules as many others have. I could also have chosen to play by Google's rules. When I play soccer or hockey, I choose to play by those rules as well. It makes for an overall more enjoyable experience.
Just because I play a weekly soccer game and prefer you not to intrude with your revised soccer-rugby rules does not mean I will limit myself to never playing baseball, or that I don't appreciate your variation. It means that I'm perfectly content playing soccer.
I'm perfectly content with my app-store only iPhone, thank you very much. You as a developer - if you want to play this on this field - need to abide by the rules the rest of use are already playing by. Otherwise, go find your own piece of grass and play whatever game you want there.
When Apple starts forcing everyone to play soccer, come talk to me. If you want to play in the soccer tourney though, I expect you to play the right game.
>You're on the wrong side in the war
You know who says shit like this? Zealots. Unthinking, self righteous, dangerous zealots. Like the Taliban. Or the Tea Party.
My phone is a fucking phone! It's not a damn religious crusade. There is no war to fight. There is no freedom to lose. I'm not trading liberty for security when I play soccer anymore than I'm doing so by making a fucking phone call.
> Why can't we tackle people during a soccer game? Same shit.
Not really. There are no rules against complaining about Apple's rules. Customer complaints change rules. Apathetic people such as yourself, who just roll over and take it, are part of the problem.
> My phone is a fucking phone! It's not a damn religious crusade.
Then why did you respond to my original comment, as if I had offended you in some way?
I said "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."
How exactly did my comment affect you? It sounds to me like you're on a crusade to get me to think just like you. I simply stated an opinion in response to someone else who shared my opinion. You, on the other hand, started off sounding like you were on a crusade.
You are a developer, not a customer.
Apathetic people such as yourself, who just roll over and take it, are part of the problem.
There is no problem from a consumer point of view. You seem to be failing to understand this. I have little to no need for your no-name unregistered app. Why should the entire ecosystem change to benefit you?
Then why did you respond to my original comment
I didn't respond in this way to your original comment, I responded in this way to you suggesting that I "keep trading your freedoms in." Please, spare me.
It sounds to me like you're on a crusade to get me to think just like you.
I don't care what you do, to be honest, and I don't think you understand one thing I'm trying to say to you. You're the one who wants to play in Apple/Google's sandbox and is bitching about the rules of the sandbox. By all means, create a new sandbox.
Again, all I said was that if you want to play soccer, play by the already established rules. Don't sign your team up for the tourney and then proceed to tell us all how much better the game would be if we could use our hands. STFU and get on the pitch, or go find an empty field to play whatever game you want to invent.
The apple/google closed markets are designed 100% to be the benefit of the consumer, because the consumers are paying $500+ for the phone. Consumers want things to be easy and work well. Consumers are not really interested in you having 6 different methods of delivering your app to our phone so that your life is easier. That's your issue, not the consumer's.
That's weak sauce. If nobody ever complained about anything and just played by the rules, nothing would ever change.
> The apple...closed markets are designed 100% to be the benefit of the consumer...
Oh please dude, gimme a break. Hogwash. Everybody knows that captive markets are lucrative and that Apple's 30% cut makes them a pretty profit. Google's market may be closed, but their mobile platform is about as open as can be. Android itself doesn't stop anybody from side-loading or using a competing store.
Everybody knows how Apple likes to do things. There's no denying it. They want absolute control over their platform because it's good for them.
But it was annoying.
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.
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... ) was fantastic.
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?
Congratulation on completely and utterly missing TFA's point.
- 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.
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).
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).
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.
That's not even relevant to TFA's point, which is that the review output is so terse and opaque it's not actionable and essentially resulted in him having to bug dozens of people and fine-comb multiple time through the application to find out what the issues were.
There wasn't any complex issue, all of them were nigh-trivial (except the D3D one maybe) and TFAA gladly acknowledge this, the issue he outlines is that if the reports had actual information in them it'd have taken him a day to get everything fixed rather than 2 months.
My app is a simple Truth Table application that reduces boolean algebra http://apps.microsoft.com/webpdp/en-US/app/truth-table/9e87b...
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.
If you want a closed eco systems, these are the types of growing pains your going to have to go through.
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.
I'd say - dump MS. Try something that treats developers as humans.
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.
But the Windows 8 experience as a whole certainly isn't.
The main problem with Windows 8 is not the innovation (or lack of), but the legacy elements and the awkwardness resulting from it.