A Story of Why Devs Should Think Twice about Developing for the iPhone(icombatgame.com)
icombatgame.com
A Story of Why Devs Should Think Twice about Developing for the iPhone
http://www.icombatgame.com/2009/10/19/a-story-of-why-devs-should-think-twice-about-developing-for-the-iphone/
16 comments
Number one reason to use the App store is that it is very easy to make large piles of money.
Do you have any data to back this up?
Maybe you should just not put other companies' copyrighted game names in your keywords. It sounds like Apple is purposefully slowing you down because they consider you to be malicious.
I strongly disagree, and it's disappointing to see basically a knee-jerk comment at the top.
Maybe you should just not put other companies' copyrighted game names in your keywords.
These are just some specific parameters to the same scenario that has played out countless times for other developers. The more general criticisms ARE common even when you don't "put other companies' copyrighted game names in your keywords". You are in no way addressing the actual criticisms.
It sounds like Apple is purposefully slowing you down because they consider you to be malicious.
First of all, no, not really, it sounds like par for the course for Apple. Many developers sail through with no problems, but way too many developers end up with an experience like this.
Second of all, I find it hard to think of a worse way to handle the situation than "purposefully slowing you down because they consider you to be malicious." Honestly, there's so much wrong with this I don't even know where to start.
Nevermind the $100 yearly fee for having the privilege to be rejected - very slowly, inconsistently, and SERIALLY, one reason at a time - by the App Store, right?
I'm baffled that you're making this be the developer's fault. It's sheer incompetence at its best (the alternative being malice on Apple's part, which I think is far worse, but also much more unlikely).
Maybe you should just not put other companies' copyrighted game names in your keywords.
These are just some specific parameters to the same scenario that has played out countless times for other developers. The more general criticisms ARE common even when you don't "put other companies' copyrighted game names in your keywords". You are in no way addressing the actual criticisms.
It sounds like Apple is purposefully slowing you down because they consider you to be malicious.
First of all, no, not really, it sounds like par for the course for Apple. Many developers sail through with no problems, but way too many developers end up with an experience like this.
Second of all, I find it hard to think of a worse way to handle the situation than "purposefully slowing you down because they consider you to be malicious." Honestly, there's so much wrong with this I don't even know where to start.
Nevermind the $100 yearly fee for having the privilege to be rejected - very slowly, inconsistently, and SERIALLY, one reason at a time - by the App Store, right?
I'm baffled that you're making this be the developer's fault. It's sheer incompetence at its best (the alternative being malice on Apple's part, which I think is far worse, but also much more unlikely).
It looks like Apple did the right thing here. They stopped the app from using a term copyrighted by Nintendo. They also communicated the rejection reason to the developer clearly.
Ultimately, this is probably going to be a win-win for both sides. Apple does the right thing. The app description and keywords don't mislead users (and as a result of the blog post complaining about Apple, the app also gets a lot of free publicity)
Ultimately, this is probably going to be a win-win for both sides. Apple does the right thing. The app description and keywords don't mislead users (and as a result of the blog post complaining about Apple, the app also gets a lot of free publicity)
Contrary to popular opinion, using copyrighted terms is not against the law. For example, you shouldn't feel threatened that the black helicopters are going to swarm overhead if you are using copyrighted words like Apple, iPhone, Wii etc. in ordinary conversations.
Using copyrighted terms is questionable for products if those terms (a) are in the same category as the copyrighted term (in the case of Wii, I am assuming a gaming device) and (b) are likely to cause consumer confusion.
In this case, the legal question that a jury would be asked is "Would a reasonable user confuse the 'wii tank' iphone app with the Wii gaming console"?
Not sure what the answer in reality would be actually - just giving anothe perspective. And I haven't even seen their app. And yes, Wii is a popular term and popular trademarks like Coca Cola are granted more weight under the law, so who knows.
But shouldn't legal matters be left to the courts of the land and not become the jurisdiction of the app store approval process?
Using copyrighted terms is questionable for products if those terms (a) are in the same category as the copyrighted term (in the case of Wii, I am assuming a gaming device) and (b) are likely to cause consumer confusion.
In this case, the legal question that a jury would be asked is "Would a reasonable user confuse the 'wii tank' iphone app with the Wii gaming console"?
Not sure what the answer in reality would be actually - just giving anothe perspective. And I haven't even seen their app. And yes, Wii is a popular term and popular trademarks like Coca Cola are granted more weight under the law, so who knows.
But shouldn't legal matters be left to the courts of the land and not become the jurisdiction of the app store approval process?
Apple makes it pretty clear to developers that trademarked terms are not to be used in keywords.
It's not illegal to smoke indoors. But if you smoke inside my house, I will ask you to leave. Do you have a problem with that?
It's not illegal to smoke indoors. But if you smoke inside my house, I will ask you to leave. Do you have a problem with that?
If you're all smiles one moment, and throw a temper tantrum about it the next... then completely forget about it five minutes later... or if you call me 2 weeks later to complain that I smoked at your house... or if you kick me out while someone else is using your couch as an ashtray... then I would probably stop visiting, anyway.
Don't worry, I have a large "No Smoking" sign taped on the front door.
Ding! Now if you're smoking and Jim forgets to remind you, that doesn't mean you are automatically allowed to smoke there anytime you want, as are any future guests. It only means Jim didn't catch you.
You can ban smoking in your house all your want, but once you sell it is up to the next owner to decide the smoking policy.
Apple doesn't own your iPhone - it is the user who does. Neither does Apple own the app made by the developer. Neither is Apple a part of the US court system. Then what's their job in meddling with all of the above?
It should not be legal for Apple to control a device that you fully paid for and own any more than Microsoft gets to decide what applications you should run on your PC.
Apple doesn't own your iPhone - it is the user who does. Neither does Apple own the app made by the developer. Neither is Apple a part of the US court system. Then what's their job in meddling with all of the above?
It should not be legal for Apple to control a device that you fully paid for and own any more than Microsoft gets to decide what applications you should run on your PC.
Exactly. Tell me how this practice is any different from, say, keyword spamming on eBay?
What an evil devil you are putting the name of one mini-game of a mini-game collection, that shipped as a bonus to an accessory, in YOUR keywords - thereby harvesting all the hard labor done by Nintendo. Outrage! You absolutely deserve to be punished by Apple (which is obviously just doing the job your parents should have done a long time ago!)
I assume lacker's point is in reference to the use of the word "Wii" itself, which is clearly a Nintendo trademark. It is not unreasonable that Apple does not want to have an app using a recognizable trademark of another company. And if you read the article, you notice that the reason they were rejected for using Wii, is because Apple felt that it was unrelated to the app, and was used as a keyword to drive search results. (Which was not the case, but from just looking at the keywords is a reasonable response).
The issue the article brings up with Apple is the overall process of such a small issue resulting in an overall 40+ day delay of release due to a poor reviewal process. The article was must less critial of the actual banning of the term "Wii".
The issue the article brings up with Apple is the overall process of such a small issue resulting in an overall 40+ day delay of release due to a poor reviewal process. The article was must less critial of the actual banning of the term "Wii".
yeah but what's the big deal.. why don't they just relax and let people use "wii" as tag. If nintendo gets angry (which might never happen to begin with) just do a quick DELETE FROM Keyword WHERE tag='wii'. Problem solved. If they would please stop being so picky about everything. There wouldn't be so much complains about the approval process, if people were thinking its fair what Apple is doing.
Apple rejected the app because the developer sought to use another company's product name and game title to bolster their own sales.
Seems reasonable to me- at least as far as App Store rejections go.
Seems reasonable to me- at least as far as App Store rejections go.
If that's all you got out of it, you seriously need to read the article again. These flippant non-responses to Apple related problems are useless and displace actual useful contributions. As someone who enjoys useful contributions... I disapprove!
Granted- apple made thier usual poor developer-relations moves that they normally do- but a rejection is still justified in this case.
I'm surpirsed that the developers feel justified in making a public complaint out of this.
I'm surpirsed that the developers feel justified in making a public complaint out of this.
The sheer arbitrariness of many Apple rejections makes it pretty clear what's going on: applications are put into a queue, a group of approval guys pop the queue, review, and either approve or reject. But they aren't given clear standards for approval, so your results vary based on the whim of whichever reviewer you get.
Which suggests an interesting hack: when you get a rejection, just re-submit instantly with no changes. You probably won't get the same reviewer next time and it may pass.
Obviously, this doesn't apply to substantive issues. But even there, you could re-submit immediately, then start working on the changes; who knows, you might get an approval back while you're still making the fixes.
Which suggests an interesting hack: when you get a rejection, just re-submit instantly with no changes. You probably won't get the same reviewer next time and it may pass.
Obviously, this doesn't apply to substantive issues. But even there, you could re-submit immediately, then start working on the changes; who knows, you might get an approval back while you're still making the fixes.
We have also had a submission rejected because of content in the application description. Even though the binary submission was not altered, we were forced to re-upload the binary and wait an additional >2 weeks for the next round of review feedback for removing ONE sentence from the description.
There should be a separate review queue for application description, the current system is incredibly inefficient.
There should be a separate review queue for application description, the current system is incredibly inefficient.
Even though the binary submission was not altered, we were forced to re-upload the binary and wait an additional >2 weeks for the next round of review feedback for removing ONE sentence from the description.
This smacks of the sort of bureaucratic mediocrity which Steve Jobs should hate and have hunted down, quickly and without mercy. It's exactly the sort of big company rot that slows a big company down.
This smacks of the sort of bureaucratic mediocrity which Steve Jobs should hate and have hunted down, quickly and without mercy. It's exactly the sort of big company rot that slows a big company down.
Unfortunately, like google, apple has never been big on customer service, of which this is a sort.
Really? Never been big on customer service?
Every time that I (or anyone else that I know) has ever had a problem with an Apple product, they've taken swift care of the issue. They've given me a brand new iPod on the spot when an old one broke before. Apple's customer service is one of the main reasons that people buy Apple products.
Not that the app queue doesn't suck, don't get me wrong.
Every time that I (or anyone else that I know) has ever had a problem with an Apple product, they've taken swift care of the issue. They've given me a brand new iPod on the spot when an old one broke before. Apple's customer service is one of the main reasons that people buy Apple products.
Not that the app queue doesn't suck, don't get me wrong.
For consumers sure, but for bigger players their customer service is as bad as Google's.
The App Store's unfriendliness is not new -- it's just the awful iTMS experience with a larger audience. Institutional hardware customers have been getting fucked on a regular basis ever since the return of Jobs.
The App Store's unfriendliness is not new -- it's just the awful iTMS experience with a larger audience. Institutional hardware customers have been getting fucked on a regular basis ever since the return of Jobs.
I believe just about every newspaper, rating agency, and practically everyone else who uses an Apple product would disagree with you.
I will agree with you that Apple is not big on customer service. But, when the bar is set so low, they are the tallest dwarf in the room.
I will agree with you that Apple is not big on customer service. But, when the bar is set so low, they are the tallest dwarf in the room.
For the sake of the rest of us, care to elaborate?
Sorry to hear about that..
The point was not that he used Wii as a keyword..
The point is that Apple runs its software approval process like the Soviet Union ran its government.
Unfortunately game dev has to be native but I for one will never develop for the iPhone natively again.. Safari is powerful enough to handle a lot of apps which could have gone that route instead, i.e. Google Voice..
Best of luck
The point was not that he used Wii as a keyword..
The point is that Apple runs its software approval process like the Soviet Union ran its government.
Unfortunately game dev has to be native but I for one will never develop for the iPhone natively again.. Safari is powerful enough to handle a lot of apps which could have gone that route instead, i.e. Google Voice..
Best of luck
You should submit 10 apps, with minor A/B differences of one app, with minor branded editions (like pokemon pearl & pokemon diamond, a few color schemes, a few different pokemon, not much else). Statistically at least one will get through, and apple does not reject on minor variations like that (just look at iMob 100 respect points). App store reviews are like 10 pregnant women, if you start all at once, you'll get all your baby's at once. Also arguing how something is better from a user's point of view can help through minor things. For example, if they reject your craiglist app because it has craiglist as a keyword, you can argue that it would make it harder for users to search for a relevant functionality.
If you really don't want to "spam" the itunes store, you can "remove from sale" all the other apps that get through and just keep the best one. Or you can leave them there, see which one does best as a testing mechanism and keep that one.
If you really don't want to "spam" the itunes store, you can "remove from sale" all the other apps that get through and just keep the best one. Or you can leave them there, see which one does best as a testing mechanism and keep that one.
you mean like this?
http://jimy.posterous.com/seriously-313
"Does it make sense when iCombat Lite, having been live for 3 months with 100k installs and no complaints, suffers a 40+ day delay because it is being forced to the back of the line over and over again to wait amongst what is new crapware?"
I never understand why iPhone developers seem to always think that the apps they write are so money yet apps that everyone else writes are "crapware" and are thus clogging up the app store. I agree with this author's point that you should not have to go back to the start of the queue, but that should be for all apps, and if you want a freer app store (which I do) you're going to have to put up with more "crapware" not less.
I never understand why iPhone developers seem to always think that the apps they write are so money yet apps that everyone else writes are "crapware" and are thus clogging up the app store. I agree with this author's point that you should not have to go back to the start of the queue, but that should be for all apps, and if you want a freer app store (which I do) you're going to have to put up with more "crapware" not less.
From the article:
Sure Apple has its reasons, namely pushing its 85k or 100k or 250k apps commercials to prove it has the most evolved app ecosystem versus its peers. But if Apple doesn’t fix these problems soon, those numbers will begin to mean less and less, and at some point the number of apps in the App store will be about as meaningful as the number of videos uploaded to YouTube.
That doesn't really make sense to me. Apple has strict quality control for the exact reason that they don't want their store to turn into YouTube. Turning down apps is how they maintain quality.
Sure Apple has its reasons, namely pushing its 85k or 100k or 250k apps commercials to prove it has the most evolved app ecosystem versus its peers. But if Apple doesn’t fix these problems soon, those numbers will begin to mean less and less, and at some point the number of apps in the App store will be about as meaningful as the number of videos uploaded to YouTube.
That doesn't really make sense to me. Apple has strict quality control for the exact reason that they don't want their store to turn into YouTube. Turning down apps is how they maintain quality.
Turning down apps to maintain quality, I'll give you that (even though there's a lot of room to argue the specifics).
Turning down bug fixes for stupid reasons, though? How does that maintain quality, if it takes over a month to push a fix to an app? Eventually devs get sick of it (especially if their apps are closer to the hobby end of the spectrum) and stop maintaining them. Can't blame them.
Turning down bug fixes for stupid reasons, though? How does that maintain quality, if it takes over a month to push a fix to an app? Eventually devs get sick of it (especially if their apps are closer to the hobby end of the spectrum) and stop maintaining them. Can't blame them.
I agree with you on that. It doesn't make sense to turn down an App for "stupid reasons." Its just that Apples concept of a valid reason for turning down an app is obviously much broader than most people like.
However, I have to wonder if it was perhaps the other way around whether we would have people complaining about how trashy the app store was and how their decent app was buried under loads of other spammy/trashy apps.
I personally think Apple is a little bit too strict, but I don't want too much lenience either.
However, I have to wonder if it was perhaps the other way around whether we would have people complaining about how trashy the app store was and how their decent app was buried under loads of other spammy/trashy apps.
I personally think Apple is a little bit too strict, but I don't want too much lenience either.
However, I have to wonder if it was perhaps the other way around whether we would have people complaining about how trashy the app store was and how their decent app was buried under loads of other spammy/trashy apps.
Yup - that would be Facebook.
Yup - that would be Facebook.
[deleted]
"Although Apple now encourages developers to create applications for the iPhone, the company still doesn't let any outside application access background processes. That means you have to run a program actively to take advantage of it. If you switch to a different program, all activity on the first program will stop. Apple may support third party background applications in the future."
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/iphone.htm/printable
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/iphone.htm/printable
My personal favorite reason for rejection is "Your big icon doesn't match the little icon". I've gotten that twice so far.
But I remember they were explicit in saying it has to be similar/same in the guidelines.
With Google Adwords I can bid on "Apple", "Wii", "Star Wars", "Microsoft", "Salesforce"...etc.. Whatever I want as long as it's relevant..
It's a keyword right? Am I missing something?
It's a keyword right? Am I missing something?
and to add on to the dev hurdle, you must code in obj-c and have a mac. I am sure there are ways around the mac part, but limiting the target language already discourages many devs from building apps for the iphone. i myself am slowly becoming an android fan (ASE - http://code.google.com/p/android-scripting/wiki/FAQ)
You are not limited to developing native apps, in fact, even if you are comfortable in developing in Obj-C, for applications of a certain size using PhoneGap or YUI to make cross-platform WebKit based normal apps is perfectly reasonable.
For apps of significant size or those with performance issues, it is not unreasonable to expect to have to use one native language, such as most game consoles do, or even Android does as pointed out in your link: "If you have performance concerns for your application, it's probably better to use the standard Android SDK (or NDK) where you'll have more control over the system."
Sure you could write a huge app in ASE instead of being restricted to Java, but its not recommended. In the same way you can write a huge app in PhoneGap over Obj-C, but it is not recommended.
For apps of significant size or those with performance issues, it is not unreasonable to expect to have to use one native language, such as most game consoles do, or even Android does as pointed out in your link: "If you have performance concerns for your application, it's probably better to use the standard Android SDK (or NDK) where you'll have more control over the system."
Sure you could write a huge app in ASE instead of being restricted to Java, but its not recommended. In the same way you can write a huge app in PhoneGap over Obj-C, but it is not recommended.
Ain't Android limiting you to Java only, while for iPhone you can develop in any language which can be compliled into ARM ELF object file and linked by ld ? Beside the UI part of course.
I hate developing for iPhone too cause Obj-C is not a language, it is a piece of messy crap! It makes code look like spaghetti. I receive a great pleasure developing for Android, yet Java is far from the language of my choice though it's far better than Obj-C.
PS. What disappoints me about Android is that a simple "hello world" app consumes at least 12MB of RAM because of a running copy of Java/Dalvik VM. Google has to do something about it.
I hate developing for iPhone too cause Obj-C is not a language, it is a piece of messy crap! It makes code look like spaghetti. I receive a great pleasure developing for Android, yet Java is far from the language of my choice though it's far better than Obj-C.
PS. What disappoints me about Android is that a simple "hello world" app consumes at least 12MB of RAM because of a running copy of Java/Dalvik VM. Google has to do something about it.
No, you can program in almost any language for Android, a change that was added about 3 months ago.
Objective-c is great, much better than java or c# if you ask me.
Are you sure you actually program for Android, you seem to be missing quite a bit of knowledge.
Objective-c is great, much better than java or c# if you ask me.
Are you sure you actually program for Android, you seem to be missing quite a bit of knowledge.
I know what JNI/NDK is, and believe me its applicability is very limited. Yes I do develop for Android and I already ported my VoIP (Jingle Audio) library to this platform and I also ported Speex codec using JNI and currently working on UI part of the project I'm involved in. I did this same for iPhone and believe from the deep of my heart that Obj-C is very crappy language comparing even to Java. The only reason why developers use it is because Steve Jobs personally made them to!
Now that Verizon will have a serious marketing launch of a phone designed for Android in November, things could get interesting.
It's already happening, turn on your TV.
Could you port it to Cappuccino / Atlas - then its online.
The thing is, there is also a list of the Top 10 Reasons Why You Should Develop for the AppStore. That list forces you to swallow the crap you have to put up with well, because Apple has cured so many of the much bigger headaches.