Apple App Store Surprise: Giving credit where credit is due(withfoam.com)
withfoam.com
Apple App Store Surprise: Giving credit where credit is due
http://withfoam.com/post/269213531/giving-credit-where-credit-is-due
18 comments
Classic case of lowering expectations so much that even fulfilling the basic needs seems like a fantastic experience.
I can understand taking a pot-shot at lowered expectations.
I can even buy an argument that re-submission shouldn't require a re-queue.
But the phone call is still laudable service. (assuming the client wasn't someone 'important')
But the phone call is still laudable service. (assuming the client wasn't someone 'important')
I'm a nobody in AppStore land and I live outside the US
A few months ago I received a personal phone call from Apple just to remind me that my annual dev fee was up for renewal soon.
A few months ago I received a personal phone call from Apple just to remind me that my annual dev fee was up for renewal soon.
The post reads a bit like an abuse victim. "Well, I mean, sure, they've done some bad and difficult things, but sometimes they're really nice!", combined with making excuses.
Remember the $200 price drop after all their rabid fans waited all day in line for a $600 phone? Remember how it was followed by the $100 gift certificate? [1]
I think it's been clear for awhile that the Apple marketing department takes tips from abuse victim psychology 101.
1. http://www.apple.com/hotnews/openiphoneletter/
I think it's been clear for awhile that the Apple marketing department takes tips from abuse victim psychology 101.
1. http://www.apple.com/hotnews/openiphoneletter/
Yep:
"So you can whine and cry about the process in general, but for the volume of submissions that they have, taking that little bit of time to reach out means a lot."
"So you can whine and cry about the process in general, but for the volume of submissions that they have, taking that little bit of time to reach out means a lot."
here is my take:
apple started with a conservative policy -- if an app might be bad to let in, reject it. also a cheap policy: don't hire extra people who might not be needed.
this "conservative" policy let in over 95% of submissions with no trouble. and they had enough manpower to do that in a time frame that is reasonable in the business world (the stories about it taking months are not typical, most apps were approved in under 2 weeks). seeing that situation, how could Apple, or anyone, possibly consider that a failure? that's a very good first iteration. meanwhile, no major disasters happened.
apple is now adjusting their policy for the better. they are reforming it. and they now have the knowledge to do that without anything bad happening.
this is all as it should be. zero cause for complaint from anyone. job well done.
if Apple tried to start with the reformed version, that would not have magically made everything perfect. they would have made just as many initial mistakes implementing any other policy. the difference simply would have been the mistakes did more damage b/c the app approval policy was less cautious in edge cases.
yet people spew a bunch of hate in response to recent reforms!
> As much as I love Apple I have a hard time praising them for doing something they should have done from the start.
reforms should be praised and encouraged!
apple started with a conservative policy -- if an app might be bad to let in, reject it. also a cheap policy: don't hire extra people who might not be needed.
this "conservative" policy let in over 95% of submissions with no trouble. and they had enough manpower to do that in a time frame that is reasonable in the business world (the stories about it taking months are not typical, most apps were approved in under 2 weeks). seeing that situation, how could Apple, or anyone, possibly consider that a failure? that's a very good first iteration. meanwhile, no major disasters happened.
apple is now adjusting their policy for the better. they are reforming it. and they now have the knowledge to do that without anything bad happening.
this is all as it should be. zero cause for complaint from anyone. job well done.
if Apple tried to start with the reformed version, that would not have magically made everything perfect. they would have made just as many initial mistakes implementing any other policy. the difference simply would have been the mistakes did more damage b/c the app approval policy was less cautious in edge cases.
yet people spew a bunch of hate in response to recent reforms!
> As much as I love Apple I have a hard time praising them for doing something they should have done from the start.
reforms should be praised and encouraged!
I think you're right... and the rep that the process gets comes from those 5% with problems, who are shouting at the top of their lungs (typing furiously?), while the other 95% are quietly and contentedly working on their next app.
My own experience with the app store has been smooth and uneventful; definitely nothing worth invoking Internet Rage over.
My own experience with the app store has been smooth and uneventful; definitely nothing worth invoking Internet Rage over.
"reforms should be praised and encouraged"
Which is just what this article does but this one experience is not necessarily evidence of any general reform. When the reforms truly lead to a better experience for all developers, there will be more praise - or at least not as much criticism. Both ends are necessary for progress to be made.
Which is just what this article does but this one experience is not necessarily evidence of any general reform. When the reforms truly lead to a better experience for all developers, there will be more praise - or at least not as much criticism. Both ends are necessary for progress to be made.
So they get a phone call about three20 usage, and I get a rejection? Beautiful.
Love the consistency.
Love the consistency.
A story like this makes me wonder who the client company was. Did they do this because they really want to change, or because it was some large "important" company?
In the comments the developer states that he's under NDA until release, but that it's a small no-name with no previous iPhone apps.
Sounds like there's at least one good, caring person working in AppStore submissions. That's all it takes -- one person can make the difference.
It's just that based on blog activity the ratio between good, caring persons and wannabe dictators in AppStore submissions department is quite close to zero.
It's just that based on blog activity the ratio between good, caring persons and wannabe dictators in AppStore submissions department is quite close to zero.
Fire them and average productivity will appear to go up.
As much as I love Apple I have a hard time praising them for doing something they should have done from the start.
I got a call once too regarding some issues with my screenshots and the "large" icon. Same deal, fix it, no requeue.
That app does single digit sales a day, so it wasn't because I (or the app) was important or popular. Though I got the impression the caller wasn't the reviewer. Somehow, certain issues get escalated.
All in all, a nice gesture.
That app does single digit sales a day, so it wasn't because I (or the app) was important or popular. Though I got the impression the caller wasn't the reviewer. Somehow, certain issues get escalated.
All in all, a nice gesture.
I'm hoping that this story, along with the recent "straight from the top" approval by Jobs, are indicative of a fundamental change in their policies and procedures. The app store has been out a little over a year, I'm sure a few iterations are needed to get the approval process where it needs to be.
Apple has actually called us on a few occasions. I don't really understand how they have time to do so, considering that it still takes them so long to get to our app reviews, but it's a nice gesture.