Thank you Apple for rejecting my app(nbodyphysics.com)
nbodyphysics.com
Thank you Apple for rejecting my app
http://nbodyphysics.com/blog/2014/09/20/thank-you-apple-for-rejecting-my-app/
60 comments
This is much better than a central authority dictating what is good and what is bad.
It's ironic that the company that commissioned the 1984 ad ended up seemingly irrevocably drawn towards centralized authority and secretive hierarchical decision-making. (They were always at war with Google. Always.)
It's ironic that the company that commissioned the 1984 ad ended up seemingly irrevocably drawn towards centralized authority and secretive hierarchical decision-making. (They were always at war with Google. Always.)
What's ironic is that people think nothing of google keeping spam out of its index, but have a problem with Apple keeping spam out of the AppStore.
Apple's beef with Google started when they counterfeited iOS, which occurred while the Google chairman was on the Apple board of directors. (Something I would think would be pretty actionable.)
Apple is not a centralized authority because Apple doesn't have a monopoly on smartphones. The decision making is neither hierarchical or secretive, as they have published the rules, and will cite chapter and verse when they reject you.
I got rejected. I didn't cry, but I was pretty pissed for about 4 hours. It sucks and it's hard not to take it personally. But once I was objective, I realized they were right, I fixed the problem, and got published.
Like OP, I realize they were right.
Given the number of apps I've submitted to the Appstore and the few rejections I've gotten, it's clear Apple is playing fair.
But it is ironic that google fans who never submit apps to the store generate so much grief and noise over Apple's rejections while being mum about googles actively shaping the the entire web to be lower quality.
And unlike Apple, google does have an effective monopoly.
Apple's beef with Google started when they counterfeited iOS, which occurred while the Google chairman was on the Apple board of directors. (Something I would think would be pretty actionable.)
Apple is not a centralized authority because Apple doesn't have a monopoly on smartphones. The decision making is neither hierarchical or secretive, as they have published the rules, and will cite chapter and verse when they reject you.
I got rejected. I didn't cry, but I was pretty pissed for about 4 hours. It sucks and it's hard not to take it personally. But once I was objective, I realized they were right, I fixed the problem, and got published.
Like OP, I realize they were right.
Given the number of apps I've submitted to the Appstore and the few rejections I've gotten, it's clear Apple is playing fair.
But it is ironic that google fans who never submit apps to the store generate so much grief and noise over Apple's rejections while being mum about googles actively shaping the the entire web to be lower quality.
And unlike Apple, google does have an effective monopoly.
I generally agree with you, but the tricky part is that Apple only selectively enforces their stated guidelines.
A large number of common rejection reasons are completely subjective and enforced purely at the discretion of the reviewer you get. That sort of rejection is fairly common - I personally had an app that I'd been using daily for months and had people waiting to pay me money for rejected for being "too simple". It's pretty widely known that if you're rejected for one of those stupid reasons, you're better off resubmitting rather than appealing the rejection, since re-rolling the dice is more likely to get you a different reviewer who doesn't care.
Apple's system is better than the alternative (at least in my opinion), but it's far from perfect or "fair".
A large number of common rejection reasons are completely subjective and enforced purely at the discretion of the reviewer you get. That sort of rejection is fairly common - I personally had an app that I'd been using daily for months and had people waiting to pay me money for rejected for being "too simple". It's pretty widely known that if you're rejected for one of those stupid reasons, you're better off resubmitting rather than appealing the rejection, since re-rolling the dice is more likely to get you a different reviewer who doesn't care.
Apple's system is better than the alternative (at least in my opinion), but it's far from perfect or "fair".
It's so refreshing to hear the attitude in this article, and MCRed's above. It's completely reasonable, this understanding that Apple has a right to decide what it sells in its own store. Unfortunately, other comments here often reflect the opposite attitude: "fAscIsm cLoseD anDroid aRRgh."
Imagine this: A designer walks into corporate headquarters of Macy's with his sample garments that he wishes to sell there. He is given the opportunity to talk to a Macy's buyer (the person who selects garments to sell).
The shirt the man shows says "So sO seKsy" on the right sleeve, there is what looks like a mustard stain on the collar (he defends that it is "the beautiful sun", and the construction is terrible- a button falls off while the buyer is looking at it.
Note: Not an Apple fanboy, see previous comments, but i do use some of their products
Imagine this: A designer walks into corporate headquarters of Macy's with his sample garments that he wishes to sell there. He is given the opportunity to talk to a Macy's buyer (the person who selects garments to sell).
The shirt the man shows says "So sO seKsy" on the right sleeve, there is what looks like a mustard stain on the collar (he defends that it is "the beautiful sun", and the construction is terrible- a button falls off while the buyer is looking at it.
Buyer: "I'm sorry sir, this shirt is grotesque in my view. Best of luck to you."
Designer: "Screw you! I'm going to sell it to Target! I'll never shop here again!!"
Note: Not an Apple fanboy, see previous comments, but i do use some of their products
Yes but at least a Macy's shopper doesn't have to resort to hacks to even be allowed to wear that shirt. (Installing third-party APKs on an Android without the app store, not possible without jailbreak on iOS) Could they just go to the other store? In this instance that would have an upfront cost (getting a new phone)
Given competitors like Google, who is also secretive, duplicitous and is about centralizing the web, and Samsung, who openly operate as a 'fast follower' what do you expect?
I can't disagree enough. Apple does not care about design language, as long as it looks decent and is consistent. It's very easy to throw a few boxes together and call them buttons, that's what Apple doesn't like- these designs are a reflection of their platform.
Being in the android camp for 4 years I would have loved it if there was some high level review to educate the devs on what's horrible design- the reality is that most terrible looking apps never get any feedback, they are simply ignored.
Being in the android camp for 4 years I would have loved it if there was some high level review to educate the devs on what's horrible design- the reality is that most terrible looking apps never get any feedback, they are simply ignored.
Actually a middle ground would be better - Apple could have said something like - Hey we think x and y look not so good in your app. This might increase the chances of it not being featured or worse result in less sales due to first impression. We suggest you do this and that, but if you don't feel like it, click here to publish it <As Beta | Regular> anyways.
Outright rejection for subjective stuff is just nonsense.
< This whole thing reminds me of the various labels (Your drink is very hot - well duh, I just ordered it!) on things sold to you in the USA which I found very amusing when I first landed! Apple is taking similar approach with their customers whereas Google relies on its customers being somewhat competent and responsible.>
Outright rejection for subjective stuff is just nonsense.
< This whole thing reminds me of the various labels (Your drink is very hot - well duh, I just ordered it!) on things sold to you in the USA which I found very amusing when I first landed! Apple is taking similar approach with their customers whereas Google relies on its customers being somewhat competent and responsible.>
Apple doesn't allow beta apps on the AppStore.
All of this is clearly laid out in their submission guidelines. As is what they expect in a user interface.
They want you to put forward polished apps, not almost-finished apps. As they say in one of the first points in their submission guidelines:
"If your App looks like it was cobbled together in a few days, or you're trying to get your first practice App into the store to impress your friends, please brace yourself for rejection. We have lots of serious developers who don't want their quality Apps to be surrounded by amateur hour"
Yes, this raises the bar for developers, but by doing so it also cuts out a lot of the crap.
The AppStore is already overflowing with apps in every category, and the overcrowding would be even worse if they lowered their submission standards.
All of this is clearly laid out in their submission guidelines. As is what they expect in a user interface.
They want you to put forward polished apps, not almost-finished apps. As they say in one of the first points in their submission guidelines:
"If your App looks like it was cobbled together in a few days, or you're trying to get your first practice App into the store to impress your friends, please brace yourself for rejection. We have lots of serious developers who don't want their quality Apps to be surrounded by amateur hour"
Yes, this raises the bar for developers, but by doing so it also cuts out a lot of the crap.
The AppStore is already overflowing with apps in every category, and the overcrowding would be even worse if they lowered their submission standards.
Problem is what Apple feels is 'crap' might in some cases be perfectly usable to many. It's too subjective. Besides Apple is focusing on their reputation/ideologies/tastes here more than user's needs.
From the OPs screenshots, his app was perfectly usable to many, but the changes are clearly an improvement.
Yes it's subjective, but the bar is not set impossibly high, it's set just high enough to maintain a minimum of quality.
Honestly speaking, the changes the OP made aren't exactly the pinnacle of great design either, but they are a huge improvement.
Apple is focusing on the user's needs by ensuring some degree of quality in the apps they use.
There's enough diversity in apps and app design on the AppStore to show that Apple isn't enforcing a single ideology/design style on developers, just trying to maintain a modicum of quality.
Yes it's subjective, but the bar is not set impossibly high, it's set just high enough to maintain a minimum of quality.
Honestly speaking, the changes the OP made aren't exactly the pinnacle of great design either, but they are a huge improvement.
Apple is focusing on the user's needs by ensuring some degree of quality in the apps they use.
There's enough diversity in apps and app design on the AppStore to show that Apple isn't enforcing a single ideology/design style on developers, just trying to maintain a modicum of quality.
"This is much better than a central authority ..."
Some people like curation. They prefer a central authority like Macy's, or Slate, or Trader Joe's, or DNSBL make decisions for them.
Apple is providing a curated shopping center for their customers, many of whom chose Apple because it provides a curated experience.
Can you convince me that people who want a curated experience are better served only when all stores (remember that Google, Amazon, and Blackberry approved the app) have no curation?
I can understand how your view will be better for some app developers. But if Apple's review has no stick, only carrot, can you convince me that it will overall be better for its customers? If they follow your suggestion, what would make their products different from the other stores?
Some people like curation. They prefer a central authority like Macy's, or Slate, or Trader Joe's, or DNSBL make decisions for them.
Apple is providing a curated shopping center for their customers, many of whom chose Apple because it provides a curated experience.
Can you convince me that people who want a curated experience are better served only when all stores (remember that Google, Amazon, and Blackberry approved the app) have no curation?
I can understand how your view will be better for some app developers. But if Apple's review has no stick, only carrot, can you convince me that it will overall be better for its customers? If they follow your suggestion, what would make their products different from the other stores?
There is a big difference between Macy's and an online app store/portal.
For one, it costs Macy's money and opportunity to put something on the shelf. It costs Apple barely anything.
Web portals have been around for a long time with Flash games (Newgrounds, Kongregate, etc). The best games get voted to the top by customer feedback (ratings and reviews).
For one, it costs Macy's money and opportunity to put something on the shelf. It costs Apple barely anything.
Web portals have been around for a long time with Flash games (Newgrounds, Kongregate, etc). The best games get voted to the top by customer feedback (ratings and reviews).
And yet of the sites I read, only one - HN - has rankings by customer feedback.
Slate, like most other online magazines, provides a curated experience determined by the editors. These have also been around for a long time, even though it costs the magazine "barely anything" to acquire a bunch of SEO dreck and put it on the shelves as well.
Planet Python aggregates blogs from people who mostly talk about Python. The selection is hand-picked, which makes it another curated experience - even though it could aggregate many more blogs for "barely anything."
I picked TJ's for a reason - where most grocery stores might have 5-10 brands for a given product, TJ's might have 1-3, and likely a store brand. This works because they do more curatation work to find something close to the Pareto frontier. I believe some people go to TJ precisely because it limits the effect of the paradox of choice. This also means customers switch from item brand loyalty to store brand loyalty, which is "bad" for producers of nationwide brands, but "good" for TJ and presumably its customers.
MCRed in this thread makes the brilliant observation that Google's GMail curates the email experience by removing spam - even though it costs "barely anything" for them to include the spam in the main mailbox. People love that curated experience, even though it doesn't help the scammers improve their operations.
Can you convince me that Apple would do better without curation? Not that it could work, but that it would be better?
Slate, like most other online magazines, provides a curated experience determined by the editors. These have also been around for a long time, even though it costs the magazine "barely anything" to acquire a bunch of SEO dreck and put it on the shelves as well.
Planet Python aggregates blogs from people who mostly talk about Python. The selection is hand-picked, which makes it another curated experience - even though it could aggregate many more blogs for "barely anything."
I picked TJ's for a reason - where most grocery stores might have 5-10 brands for a given product, TJ's might have 1-3, and likely a store brand. This works because they do more curatation work to find something close to the Pareto frontier. I believe some people go to TJ precisely because it limits the effect of the paradox of choice. This also means customers switch from item brand loyalty to store brand loyalty, which is "bad" for producers of nationwide brands, but "good" for TJ and presumably its customers.
MCRed in this thread makes the brilliant observation that Google's GMail curates the email experience by removing spam - even though it costs "barely anything" for them to include the spam in the main mailbox. People love that curated experience, even though it doesn't help the scammers improve their operations.
Can you convince me that Apple would do better without curation? Not that it could work, but that it would be better?
This at best shows that alternate models can work.
It doesn't answer the question, if Apple switched to a more open model, would it be good for their customers? I for one, like that there is some level of curation.
It doesn't answer the question, if Apple switched to a more open model, would it be good for their customers? I for one, like that there is some level of curation.
It's very important to note that if its good for customers it's great for developers. If customers trust the store, and it's a pleasant place to shop, then customers are more likely to spend money.
Just a note about a likely typo, only worth commenting on because it changes the meaning quite a bit:
> The beautiful thing about an open policy like the Google Play store is that you can not just get actual customer (Apple reviewers are probably not your customers) feedback and actually REACT to the feedback by uploading a new version right away... [emphasis added]
I'm guessing you probably meant it without that not, is that right?
> The beautiful thing about an open policy like the Google Play store is that you can just get actual customer (Apple reviewers are probably not your customers) feedback and actually REACT to the feedback by uploading a new version right away...
> The beautiful thing about an open policy like the Google Play store is that you can not just get actual customer (Apple reviewers are probably not your customers) feedback and actually REACT to the feedback by uploading a new version right away... [emphasis added]
I'm guessing you probably meant it without that not, is that right?
> The beautiful thing about an open policy like the Google Play store is that you can just get actual customer (Apple reviewers are probably not your customers) feedback and actually REACT to the feedback by uploading a new version right away...
I you release an app that got bad reviews your app is doomed, better to have apple give you basic advises.
One of the things that always bugged me about programmer interfaces is the poor choices made.
For example in the interface from this article; Why did he pick a marble background for the buttons? Why that weird font? Why those bezels?
He could just as easily have picked Helvetica (or any other sans serif font really), and some flat colour and gotten a distant but not obnoxious facsimile to the iOS/android designs.
This is really a pet peeve of mine when I see this stuff from my colleagues. It doesn't even have to look great, but your stylistic choices shouldn't be worse than of you had made no choice at all.
The other thing (although not present here) is when programmers pick eye blasting 0xff red and 0xff green for text on a white bg. Just type 0x7f instead and it reads so much better!
For example in the interface from this article; Why did he pick a marble background for the buttons? Why that weird font? Why those bezels?
He could just as easily have picked Helvetica (or any other sans serif font really), and some flat colour and gotten a distant but not obnoxious facsimile to the iOS/android designs.
This is really a pet peeve of mine when I see this stuff from my colleagues. It doesn't even have to look great, but your stylistic choices shouldn't be worse than of you had made no choice at all.
The other thing (although not present here) is when programmers pick eye blasting 0xff red and 0xff green for text on a white bg. Just type 0x7f instead and it reads so much better!
What's funny is that ugly apps actually do alright on Android. I don't know how many times I've seen an app have 5 stars and hundreds of thousands of downloads, only to install it and find out the UI is horrendous.
This seems to reinforce a pervasive stereotype that Android users are utilitarian while iOS users are much more concerned with aesthetics and form.
This seems to reinforce a pervasive stereotype that Android users are utilitarian while iOS users are much more concerned with aesthetics and form.
I think you would find that most iOS users are just as utilitarian. The vast majority of complaints you see on iOS app reviews concern functionality. If anyone, you should accuse Apple of being (overly?) concerned with aesthetics.
I would guess that the majority of users on both platforms don't really care, or don't understand the subject clearly enough to verbalize it. But among the most vocal and informed users of each platform, the difference suggested by the GP is quite clear.
The same stereotypes were applied to Mac and PC users. And it correlated (not claiming causality) to the respective marketing messages:
You are an Apple user, you are young and creative and beautiful.
You are a PC user, you are mature, businesslike, and successful.
You are an Apple user, you are young and creative and beautiful.
You are a PC user, you are mature, businesslike, and successful.
This could be a self-reinforcing problem, too. Apps with ugly UIs do well, so developers don't see the need to invest resources in better UIs, which means users don't have better alternatives and end up buying apps with ugly UIs, and so on…
> This seems to reinforce a pervasive stereotype that Android users are utilitarian while iOS users are much more concerned with aesthetics and form
The root is probably in iOS users being richer and coming from a richer countries. It's like the interior design of cheap kebab shops and hairdressers vs hipster artisan shops.
The root is probably in iOS users being richer and coming from a richer countries. It's like the interior design of cheap kebab shops and hairdressers vs hipster artisan shops.
I think developers should consider spending $1-$10 on graphics from sites such as graphicriver to spruce up the design of their apps.
I for one am happy Apple rejects ugly applications. There is no place for them on my phone
I for one am happy Apple rejects ugly applications. There is no place for them on my phone
You're getting down voted so I'm going to post that I agree with you, but maybe add some perspective that you might have missed.
I agree that the Apple app store is better without the ugly apps because there already are so many apps out there. Another poster made a comment about "reviews" and "screenshots." Yes, there are reviews and screenshots, but for some app types having to weed through even what does make it through is very time consuming. So this saves me time from having to look myself. I'm not sure what could allow a more lenient acceptance strategy and help me weed through apps I'm not interested in, but I'd certainly appreciate it!
There are some app types/categories where it would be too bad if an ugly app didn't make it through, but I think in the grand scheme of the Apple app store these sorts of rejections are a positive.
I agree that the Apple app store is better without the ugly apps because there already are so many apps out there. Another poster made a comment about "reviews" and "screenshots." Yes, there are reviews and screenshots, but for some app types having to weed through even what does make it through is very time consuming. So this saves me time from having to look myself. I'm not sure what could allow a more lenient acceptance strategy and help me weed through apps I'm not interested in, but I'd certainly appreciate it!
There are some app types/categories where it would be too bad if an ugly app didn't make it through, but I think in the grand scheme of the Apple app store these sorts of rejections are a positive.
Because if Apple didn't reject them you'd wake up one day and find 50 of them pre-installed for you?
No, because if Apple didn't reject them you'd download 50 of them in the process of finding one good one.
That's not really the point. If there are 50 bad apps for every good one the store would be a horrible place to browse. If Apple enforces some level of quality then it becomes a better place for developers to sell their apps.
I have the unpopular opinion that apple is already too lenient on app quality. I've been rejected quite a few times. In almost all cases the customer was better off for it.
I have the unpopular opinion that apple is already too lenient on app quality. I've been rejected quite a few times. In almost all cases the customer was better off for it.
I really wish they submitted their iOS 7-8 icons to themselves to get a rejection and maybe improve them.
Don't know if the author is on here, but please use a modified framework (or the default UI elements) when you develop your app. Also, you can throw in some pre-baked icons (I dunno if font-awesome is usable on iphone, there's gotta be something similar out there)
You can create a pretty good (albeit default) looking app by just using the default elements, outside of the actual view that handles the game.
You shouldn't have needed Apple to tell you that looked bad. Games don't have to have fancy UX, it's all about what the game is going to do, look at some other games and see how they do it
You can create a pretty good (albeit default) looking app by just using the default elements, outside of the actual view that handles the game.
You shouldn't have needed Apple to tell you that looked bad. Games don't have to have fancy UX, it's all about what the game is going to do, look at some other games and see how they do it
It looks like this was a unity game, so no access to the default UI stuff.
Yep. Unity. (author here)
However, in effect I did the same as using default assets by buying assets that were ok across platforms.
However, in effect I did the same as using default assets by buying assets that were ok across platforms.
Ah awesome -- was really hoping I didn't come off as judgemental in the comment.
Mind sharing what you ended up using? I didn't see it on the post (maybe I didn't look hard enough?).
[EDIT]
I just realized the second screen shot is the changed app...
After a quick google search I found stuff like this (the first one doesn't look bad at all): http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/gui-ngui-skins-and-widgets-...
Is that usable?
Mind sharing what you ended up using? I didn't see it on the post (maybe I didn't look hard enough?).
[EDIT]
I just realized the second screen shot is the changed app...
After a quick google search I found stuff like this (the first one doesn't look bad at all): http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/gui-ngui-skins-and-widgets-...
Is that usable?
I chose Mad Level Manager (https://www.assetstore.unity3d.com/en/#!/content/10070)
It's capable of a lot more than I used but I wanted to get this done and go on to the next set of physics ideas.
I am also playing with the Beta of Unity 4.6 which has a lot of the same ideas as NGUI built in. These will make it much easier to make "non-ugly" UIs with very modest effort.
It's capable of a lot more than I used but I wanted to get this done and go on to the next set of physics ideas.
I am also playing with the Beta of Unity 4.6 which has a lot of the same ideas as NGUI built in. These will make it much easier to make "non-ugly" UIs with very modest effort.
I appreciate what Apple is doing, and holy crap it was indeed ugly. Still I'd rather let the market decide. A better approach would be for Apple to tell you that your app was approved but it would be harder to find (like you'd have to scroll/click/etc a bit deeper) until you prettied it up (or until it got a bunch of good ratings despite its appearance).
Apple is a part of the market.
Apple controls access to a market.
Markets work because lots of different people get to make purchase choices. Their choices become information that feeds into the competitive process. If there's demand for a product, the price offered for it should increase (the manufacturer should be able to carve out larger profits). That should attract competitors, and increase supply, and the competition should help create products that are both better designed and lower priced.
When Apple prevents access to the market, it stops this process taking place. If there's no price signal, there's less incentive for people to compete; the product's niche hasn't been validated.
But you're right, this market is hierarchical, and at a higher level, Apple is just a part of the bigger market. In that market, I choose Android in large part because of how Apple controls their sub-market.
Markets work because lots of different people get to make purchase choices. Their choices become information that feeds into the competitive process. If there's demand for a product, the price offered for it should increase (the manufacturer should be able to carve out larger profits). That should attract competitors, and increase supply, and the competition should help create products that are both better designed and lower priced.
When Apple prevents access to the market, it stops this process taking place. If there's no price signal, there's less incentive for people to compete; the product's niche hasn't been validated.
But you're right, this market is hierarchical, and at a higher level, Apple is just a part of the bigger market. In that market, I choose Android in large part because of how Apple controls their sub-market.
[deleted]
Since Apple has the dominant appstore, they can afford to be choosier, which, at least in this instance, helped a developer improve his app.
Over at BlackBerry, "OMG somebody wants to publish an App!!"
Over at BlackBerry, "OMG somebody wants to publish an App!!"
> Since Apple has the dominant appstore, they can afford to be choosier
Which creates a feedback loop in which the store improves in both quality and quantity - unlike WP and Android - sadly.
Which creates a feedback loop in which the store improves in both quality and quantity - unlike WP and Android - sadly.
Apple would be choosier even if they had Microsoft's market share in the mobile space. It's just how they are. As it works out, the strategy seems to have paid off for them.
Relying on App Store reviewers for feedback is a bad idea. The whole process is capricious. It's likely had he submitted at a different time and gotten a different reviewer, the app would have been approved.
Of course there's no consistent standard here, so it's a completely arbitrary decision by the reviewer. On another day, the first version could have passed.
(The iOS HIG is supposed to be the standard, but strict adherence requirements would remove 98% of the apps on Apple's store.)
(The iOS HIG is supposed to be the standard, but strict adherence requirements would remove 98% of the apps on Apple's store.)
You've constructed a false dichotomy. There is a spectrum from 0-%100 adherence with the HIG and all the other rules. While the reviewers do not require %100 conformity, that does not mean there is "no consistent standard" or that its "completely arbitrary".
In my experience reviewers are very careful to be precise and document, including screenshots, the specifics that cause a rejection.
Having been rejected, none of them were arbitrary. Were you ever rejected?
In my experience reviewers are very careful to be precise and document, including screenshots, the specifics that cause a rejection.
Having been rejected, none of them were arbitrary. Were you ever rejected?
It's always good before starting do design for any Apple product to have a quick look at their Human Interface Guideline (HIG) https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/userex....
They have HIG for almost everything.
I also read that a lot of apps are developed on iOS first http://www.businessinsider.com.au/app-design-company-directo.... I wonder if there's any truth to that.
But saying that I know that Google is pressing their Material Design http://www.google.com/design/spec/material-design/introducti... quite hard lately. Would really love to hear what Android devs think of the Material Design. Are they going to port their current app design to it?
They have HIG for almost everything.
I also read that a lot of apps are developed on iOS first http://www.businessinsider.com.au/app-design-company-directo.... I wonder if there's any truth to that.
But saying that I know that Google is pressing their Material Design http://www.google.com/design/spec/material-design/introducti... quite hard lately. Would really love to hear what Android devs think of the Material Design. Are they going to port their current app design to it?
To those suggesting it's better to rely on customer feedback and reviews to know how to improve the design/UI of your app, what would you find more useful:
1) A 1-star review from a random user, with a comment saying the app looks ugly.
2) A detailed report with screenshots and a list of places where your app fails to meet basic UI/design principles, made by someone whose job it is to give you feedback so that you can improve your app.
I'll take option 2 every time, and most users from option 1 aren't going to even bother to complain - they'll just not use your app.
1) A 1-star review from a random user, with a comment saying the app looks ugly.
2) A detailed report with screenshots and a list of places where your app fails to meet basic UI/design principles, made by someone whose job it is to give you feedback so that you can improve your app.
I'll take option 2 every time, and most users from option 1 aren't going to even bother to complain - they'll just not use your app.
As someone who is more engineer than designer and can recognize good/great design, but cannot necessarily produce one myself, I feel that this type of feedback is great. If I look at a design or user interface interaction and say "I could had done that," I feel that it isn't that good. Higher standards will push you to better results
He could have asked for a second opinion elsewhere. The feedback would have been the same as Apples.
Going through 15-60 day review process for that is ridiculous, just like the post in question.
Going through 15-60 day review process for that is ridiculous, just like the post in question.
Where are you getting 15 to 60 day review process from?! Numerous sources report an average of 5 to 10 days.
The only one I've ever heard of going anywhere like 60 days was the Gmail app, and that was almost certainly a cycle of rejections; when it finally shipped, it barely worked at all, and tended to crash.
The only one I've ever heard of going anywhere like 60 days was the Gmail app, and that was almost certainly a cycle of rejections; when it finally shipped, it barely worked at all, and tended to crash.
A bit of exaggeration on my part. But one of my applications was in a review stage for 20 ish days due to delays within their review process a while back.
How dare you exaggerate? Give us cold hard facts, now. Show me paperwork to prove your app was in this stage for so long, or you're clearly lying.
Does it matter at all? It has nothing to do with the experience of the actual game. Apple wasted your time on a pointless detail and you thanked them for it.
[deleted]
The Google Play store (and others) already give you feedback - customers give ratings and can provide a comment. This is much better than a central authority dictating what is good and what is bad.
There are many apls that have no need for a great UI - that a perhaps more functional in nature than aesthetic.
The beautiful thing about an open policy like the Google Play store is that you can not just get actual customer (Apple reviewers are probably not your customers) feedback and actually REACT to the feedback by uploading a new version right away... While on Apple Store users have to wait 7-10 days for the App to be "approved" - and if it gets rejected you have to wait another 7-10 days.