My update, which has a new feature but no bug fixes, is currently in limbo because the reviewer is getting mysterious proxy connection errors that no customer of mine has ever reported.
I saw another developer today say their app was "rejected" because the reviewer asked "How does the app utilize Touch Bar and where can we locate these features?"
This kind of crap happens all the time, and I don't see anything in this announcement that will help. App review is just plain incompetent and terrible.
I worked on a dating app that would almost always get rejected because the reviewer would find a profile that had partial nudity or someone in a sexy pose and would just reject the whole binary for that reason. Even for major bug fixes. Even for a feature we had added that would make it easier for users to report inappropriate photos on our app. They were holding back that feature because they found an inappropriate photo in the app. Updates would take on average 4 weeks to get approved. Very infuriating.
Touch Bar sucks. I cannot wait until they start offering the option to not have the Touch Bar; it's such a gimmick; I bet I'm not the only one who'd pay more to NOT have Touch Bar, but have the physical function keys instead.
Had an app reviewer when my app first launched, who was complaining that 2FA was failing for them, so they couldn't allow the app to go live.
I was livid. It had worked for EVERY beta tester.
It turns out it was 100% the tester's fault. It "mysteriously" fixed itself. Aka, they realized that the 2FA was via email instead of SMS and finally after 2 weeks of back and forth, passed the app.
I've been having similar issues with one of our apps, the reviewer can't seem to log in and keeps getting network error messages. No customers have had any issues, I've tried logging in to multiple accounts including the apple reviewer account on multiple networks and I have no issues whatsoever. It's really frustrating.
It's the inconsistency that makes me worried every time app review takes longer than a day. And then that dreaded message "New Message from App Store Review Regarding xxx" arrives, for something that has been in the app since 1.0.
Wait, there are actual people reviewing every app update on the app store? Doesn't that require crazy amounts of manpower? Are they code reviewing or testing the app or what?
I wonder if that is because of the technical skill required to do app reviews. If you are "too competent" as a coder, obviously you'd go and be developer somewhere else instead so I suppose it is kind of a requirement for people who reviews app submissions to not be as competent as developers as those people submitting the apps?
> I saw another developer today say their app was "rejected" because the reviewer asked "How does the app utilize Touch Bar and where can we locate these features?"
This might not be an Apple policy, as much as a reviewer just holding the app maker hostage until they get their personal feature request approved.
We’ve been making white-label apps for fitness businesses for a few years now. Our white label app allows fitness businesses to deliver better personal training experience to their clients. Personal trainers and their clients can use the app to plan and track workouts, track progress, chat with each other etc.
Recently, Apple started rejecting our white-label app because allegedly we are breaking their "3.1.3(b) Multiplatform Services" guideline. As per the guideline, if a business is selling digital content on other platforms that’s accessible inside the iOS app then those items should also be available as an in-app purchase on the iOS app too.
This was very surprising because we always thought personal training services to fall under the category of "goods and services" and not digital content. And as per guideline “3.1.5(a) Goods and Services Outside of the App” we aren’t even allowed to use in-app purchase selling services.
But Apple reviewers disagree that our app falls under the “services” category. According to reviewers, since clients are getting "digital value" from the app we therefore must add an in-app purchase to the app.
We are ready to add a free tier to the app. But that is a no-go solution. We must add in-app purchases of some kind to get the apps approved.
The "3.1.3(b) Multiplatform Services" guideline does not make sense. You can use the same guideline to force any for-profit business that offers anything useful inside an iOS app to add an in-app purchase. How is this even allowed?
By the same reasoning apps built for physical therapists, doctors should add in-app purchases too?
And why is Uber not giving a 30% cut? Their customers do get digital-value inside the app.
I was once rejected because my one-window app didn’t have a Minimize button...for a game...that primarily runs in Full Screen. Other rejections were at least as pointless, every time leaving a bad taste in my mouth and making me wonder why they wasted as much time as they did.
The breaking point for me was when the reviewer refused to allow my minor update in because it “crashed” in an unreleased minor OS update that I literally could not acquire at the time. I removed my app from the Mac App Store the same day and haven’t been back.
It is a petty, pointless, and infuriating experience, which wouldn’t bother me so much if it wasn’t abundantly clear how much trash still makes it into the store and how inconsistent they are. I recommend that everyone use the “suggestion” box to suggest removing App Review entirely.
I think the first reason is a legitimate criteria. Any app that has a window is definitely expected to have a minimise button - it's very strange behaviour if it doesn't, and even games that normally run full screen should have this button when placed in windowed mode.
The second reason certainly sounds infuriating, but it's odd that the reviewer had access to an OS update that you didn't. In general, a crash on the latest OS update is a good reason for rejection because you're going to have to fix it sooner or later anyway. Better to fix it now rather than have to come back to it later.
If it's ever revealed that app reviewers have rejection quotas or some other bullshit internal metric that is driving this I would be the least surprised
> I recommend that everyone use the “suggestion” box to suggest removing App Review entirely.
Probably not worth paying 99 USD/year just to make such a suggestion.
Just for those folks who aren't aware that you actually have to pay Apple every year for the "privilege" of having your app submissions rejected for such random reasons -- even if your app is entirely free and non-commercial.
You could have asked the reviewer for the crash report, looked for access to the OS update, looked for someone with the OS update who could test your app, waited until the OS update was released, or simply submitted your app update again in hopes of getting a more lenient or helpful reviewer.
Why didn't you do those things? I've been in similar situations many times and made poor decisions. In my case, I made those poor choices because of poor mental habits and low emotional awareness.
About 5 years ago, I started spending effort to increase my EQ and mental habits. I consulted a therapist regularly for several years, read Marshall Rosenberg's Non-violent Communication, learned meditation at a free 10-day silent retreat, and talked with people close to me about my emotions and mental habits. I occasionally ask people close to me for feedback on my attitude and behavior. All of this effort as paid off. Compared to 5 years ago, I have more stable relationships, fewer and shorter arguments, fewer days lost to playing unhappy mind-movies, and more work productivity.
I urge you to invest more effort in your EQ skills.
The fact that Apple seems to think it is effectively responding to the mounting discontent with their stewardship of the App Store by offering developers a form to complain into demonstrates how far out of touch they’ve become.
We know from court documents that exactly these sorts of developer concerns have been discussed at the highest levels of Apple's leadership and they have consistently failed to make any meaningful policy changes. What Apple is offering now is merely an official process for disregarding this sort of criticism.
I’m sure anyone who is considering investing significant effort or resources into products built on Apple platforms will be completely reassured by this gesture – especially knowing how receptive Apple has been to criticism of its policies in the past.
This press release reads to me like “Here’s Your Complaint Form, Jerk”[1].
I work on an e-commerce app, we were rejected because one of our screeenshots depicts a Microsoft surface. Only Apple products are allowed to be shown...
We had some promotional illustrations on our platform with a guy holding a phone that resembles an iPhone and had Microsoft as a client. We had to take the phone out of the promotional images as it was not ok for them...
There are a lot of overly zealous people in all companies.
It’s all become too much. I’m deprecating Apple support at my company. Current company-owned Apple devices may continue to be used, and any BYOD is fine if it doesn’t run an Oracle DB instance, but we will no longer pay for repairs to Apple devices and we will not pay to replace them with Apple devices. We have about $45k original MSRP of Apple equipment, so it’s not a big deal, except to us. The trend of Apple hardware and software problems soaking up an increasing amount of time would reach the ultimate limit of complete 24/7 time consumption by the year 2031, if the current trend were allowed to continue.
We are in the robotic manufacturing sector, and also we have a lumber mill for some reason.
> Additionally, two changes are coming to the app review process and will be implemented this summer. First, developers will not only be able to appeal decisions about whether an app violates a given guideline of the App Store Review Guidelines, but will also have a mechanism to challenge the guideline itself. Second, for apps that are already on the App Store, bug fixes will no longer be delayed over guideline violations except for those related to legal issues. Developers will instead be able to address the issue in their next submission.
A while ago, I developed an Apple Watch app that detected when you raised your hand and touched your face and notified you so that you could build a habit avoiding doing so (https://www.facealert.app).
Apple stretched out the review process before rejecting the app, and after I escalated to tcook's email address, I received a call from their team telling me my app took "measurements the Apple Watch was not designed to support".
This, of course, is complete BS since the whole point of generalizable sensors and Apple's ML tools is to build apps to add new capabilities to the device, otherwise all we'd have are map and messaging apps. And it's slightly comical that they added the feature to detect hand washing in the newest WatchOS, something the Apple Watch "was not originally designed to support". I'm fairly certain they didn't want to have any part or apparent liability for the app if it "didn't work correctly", nevermind the app did not mention COVID, disease, or anything else controversial.
There was always a way to "escalate" or "appeal" a review, so any new processes are smoke and mirrors. Apple will always reject whatever they want to reject until they're forced otherwise by a regulatory body.
An update to a Mac app I was working on was rejected because it used some permissions. The reviewer claimed those were not needed but, not only those permissions were needed, previous versions of the app had those same permissions.
We sent our comments to the reviewer and never got an answer back. A couple of days later we appealed to the review board and the update was accepted in a matter of hours. Not sure what happened there. Our guess was that maybe Apple was testing some kind of automated process that failed.
I don't remember the details, but we were using UDP features in the app and the permissions were related to being able to receive and send UDP packets.
>Second, for apps that are already on the App Store, bug fixes will no longer be delayed over guideline violations except for those related to legal issues. Developers will instead be able to address the issue in their next submission.
This is good news. We've had instances in the past where a critical bug fix was delayed because of a completely unrelated and minor issue with the update (for example: issues with the store listing content that was approved in previous updates but now rejected).
This was a bad experience for everyone involved. Obviously for developers, but I'm still not sure how much Apple cares about that. But more importantly for users, who may be stuck with a broken or unsafe app for another day or more for relatively trivial reasons.
I think this change is made in good faith by Apple. Of course there are always bad actors who may try to game it, but overall it should improve the process for developers and users.
My guess is it still work well for all accidental friction but won't help at all with friction Apple put in place intentionally.
Through if the appeal goes through a different person then the reviewer it might help with unreasonable reviewers (which Apple isn't probably to happy with either as they are prone to create bad PR)
Apple should make a two tiered app review process - one which checks if the app meets their guidelines around UI/advertising/etc and one which just checks if it is malware or not. Then in the app store they can downrank anything that doesn't meet their guidelines, keeping the quality apps more visible, without entirely removing apps for dumb things like not having a minimize button.
I am not very knowledgeable of the US law but a law websiste² does point out that anti competitive behavior is punishable, a monopoly position is not.
I personally would label a lot of things apple does (like e.g. not allowing game streaming from 3rd parties, not allowing the use of other browsers, not allow people to use existing payment infrastructure, ...) as anti competitive.
A layer on youtube³ however says throughout multiple videos that epic has a (if even)very weak case and apple is in the right.
I would be interested to have someone break it down to understand the case.
Stop releasing software for Apple products. Release for Windows, release for Android, release for Linux where applicable but ignore Apple. If enough people do this Apple will either give in and loosen their stranglehold or they'll see their platforms loose shine. I predict they'll loosen their stranglehold to keep up sales and their stock price. This will be a good thing for both users and - in the end - the company.
[+] [-] _qulr|5 years ago|reply
I saw another developer today say their app was "rejected" because the reviewer asked "How does the app utilize Touch Bar and where can we locate these features?"
This kind of crap happens all the time, and I don't see anything in this announcement that will help. App review is just plain incompetent and terrible.
[+] [-] banana_giraffe|5 years ago|reply
This was in an app for managing a Dungeons and Dragons campaign.
I made some trivial change and resubmitted without issue. I'm still annoyed by that.
[+] [-] jliptzin|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cnst|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ubertoop|5 years ago|reply
Had an app reviewer when my app first launched, who was complaining that 2FA was failing for them, so they couldn't allow the app to go live.
I was livid. It had worked for EVERY beta tester.
It turns out it was 100% the tester's fault. It "mysteriously" fixed itself. Aka, they realized that the 2FA was via email instead of SMS and finally after 2 weeks of back and forth, passed the app.
[+] [-] drampelt|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] namiller2|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xiaolingxiao|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xuki|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Humdeee|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drexlspivey|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] duxup|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jmull|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] tinus_hn|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dvfjsdhgfv|5 years ago|reply
This kind of arrogant behavior really makes me mad.
[+] [-] owaislone|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Alex3917|5 years ago|reply
This might not be an Apple policy, as much as a reviewer just holding the app maker hostage until they get their personal feature request approved.
[+] [-] trainerfu|5 years ago|reply
Recently, Apple started rejecting our white-label app because allegedly we are breaking their "3.1.3(b) Multiplatform Services" guideline. As per the guideline, if a business is selling digital content on other platforms that’s accessible inside the iOS app then those items should also be available as an in-app purchase on the iOS app too.
This was very surprising because we always thought personal training services to fall under the category of "goods and services" and not digital content. And as per guideline “3.1.5(a) Goods and Services Outside of the App” we aren’t even allowed to use in-app purchase selling services.
But Apple reviewers disagree that our app falls under the “services” category. According to reviewers, since clients are getting "digital value" from the app we therefore must add an in-app purchase to the app.
We are ready to add a free tier to the app. But that is a no-go solution. We must add in-app purchases of some kind to get the apps approved.
The "3.1.3(b) Multiplatform Services" guideline does not make sense. You can use the same guideline to force any for-profit business that offers anything useful inside an iOS app to add an in-app purchase. How is this even allowed?
By the same reasoning apps built for physical therapists, doctors should add in-app purchases too?
And why is Uber not giving a 30% cut? Their customers do get digital-value inside the app.
Not sure if this new change can actually help us.
[+] [-] makecheck|5 years ago|reply
The breaking point for me was when the reviewer refused to allow my minor update in because it “crashed” in an unreleased minor OS update that I literally could not acquire at the time. I removed my app from the Mac App Store the same day and haven’t been back.
It is a petty, pointless, and infuriating experience, which wouldn’t bother me so much if it wasn’t abundantly clear how much trash still makes it into the store and how inconsistent they are. I recommend that everyone use the “suggestion” box to suggest removing App Review entirely.
[+] [-] Reason077|5 years ago|reply
The second reason certainly sounds infuriating, but it's odd that the reviewer had access to an OS update that you didn't. In general, a crash on the latest OS update is a good reason for rejection because you're going to have to fix it sooner or later anyway. Better to fix it now rather than have to come back to it later.
[+] [-] wp381640|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] the_gipsy|5 years ago|reply
This is the only winning move.
[+] [-] jaywalk|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cnst|5 years ago|reply
Probably not worth paying 99 USD/year just to make such a suggestion.
Just for those folks who aren't aware that you actually have to pay Apple every year for the "privilege" of having your app submissions rejected for such random reasons -- even if your app is entirely free and non-commercial.
[+] [-] mleonhard|5 years ago|reply
Why didn't you do those things? I've been in similar situations many times and made poor decisions. In my case, I made those poor choices because of poor mental habits and low emotional awareness.
About 5 years ago, I started spending effort to increase my EQ and mental habits. I consulted a therapist regularly for several years, read Marshall Rosenberg's Non-violent Communication, learned meditation at a free 10-day silent retreat, and talked with people close to me about my emotions and mental habits. I occasionally ask people close to me for feedback on my attitude and behavior. All of this effort as paid off. Compared to 5 years ago, I have more stable relationships, fewer and shorter arguments, fewer days lost to playing unhappy mind-movies, and more work productivity.
I urge you to invest more effort in your EQ skills.
EDIT: s/same situation/similar situations/
[+] [-] bww|5 years ago|reply
We know from court documents that exactly these sorts of developer concerns have been discussed at the highest levels of Apple's leadership and they have consistently failed to make any meaningful policy changes. What Apple is offering now is merely an official process for disregarding this sort of criticism.
I’m sure anyone who is considering investing significant effort or resources into products built on Apple platforms will be completely reassured by this gesture – especially knowing how receptive Apple has been to criticism of its policies in the past.
This press release reads to me like “Here’s Your Complaint Form, Jerk”[1].
[1] https://slate.com/technology/2010/07/apple-s-condescending-i...
[+] [-] root_axis|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] an_opabinia|5 years ago|reply
As Tim Cook said it's not all about the bloody ROI.
For example, they could require that the models depicted in app store screenshots are visibly diverse in all locales.
They could require a certain level of screen reader or even color blindness affordances.
They could require that the ultimate beneficial owner (UBO) of the software be listed on the app store page.
Disclose which companies' telemetry software ships in the SDKs of the apps. List their UBOs.
Require apps to disclose their in-app marketing budget. I guarantee you this would correlate strongly negatively with app quality.
Many radical ideas.
[+] [-] mns|5 years ago|reply
There are a lot of overly zealous people in all companies.
[+] [-] ehvatum|5 years ago|reply
We are in the robotic manufacturing sector, and also we have a lumber mill for some reason.
[+] [-] reaperducer|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] heavyset_go|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ksec|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wlesieutre|5 years ago|reply
> Additionally, two changes are coming to the app review process and will be implemented this summer. First, developers will not only be able to appeal decisions about whether an app violates a given guideline of the App Store Review Guidelines, but will also have a mechanism to challenge the guideline itself. Second, for apps that are already on the App Store, bug fixes will no longer be delayed over guideline violations except for those related to legal issues. Developers will instead be able to address the issue in their next submission.
[+] [-] andrewmunsell|5 years ago|reply
Apple stretched out the review process before rejecting the app, and after I escalated to tcook's email address, I received a call from their team telling me my app took "measurements the Apple Watch was not designed to support".
This, of course, is complete BS since the whole point of generalizable sensors and Apple's ML tools is to build apps to add new capabilities to the device, otherwise all we'd have are map and messaging apps. And it's slightly comical that they added the feature to detect hand washing in the newest WatchOS, something the Apple Watch "was not originally designed to support". I'm fairly certain they didn't want to have any part or apparent liability for the app if it "didn't work correctly", nevermind the app did not mention COVID, disease, or anything else controversial.
There was always a way to "escalate" or "appeal" a review, so any new processes are smoke and mirrors. Apple will always reject whatever they want to reject until they're forced otherwise by a regulatory body.
[+] [-] pier25|5 years ago|reply
We sent our comments to the reviewer and never got an answer back. A couple of days later we appealed to the review board and the update was accepted in a matter of hours. Not sure what happened there. Our guess was that maybe Apple was testing some kind of automated process that failed.
I don't remember the details, but we were using UDP features in the app and the permissions were related to being able to receive and send UDP packets.
[+] [-] alex_c|5 years ago|reply
This is good news. We've had instances in the past where a critical bug fix was delayed because of a completely unrelated and minor issue with the update (for example: issues with the store listing content that was approved in previous updates but now rejected).
This was a bad experience for everyone involved. Obviously for developers, but I'm still not sure how much Apple cares about that. But more importantly for users, who may be stuck with a broken or unsafe app for another day or more for relatively trivial reasons.
I think this change is made in good faith by Apple. Of course there are always bad actors who may try to game it, but overall it should improve the process for developers and users.
[+] [-] MBCook|5 years ago|reply
The change, as I understand it, is that today the policy goes into effect.
[+] [-] dathinab|5 years ago|reply
My guess is it still work well for all accidental friction but won't help at all with friction Apple put in place intentionally.
Through if the appeal goes through a different person then the reviewer it might help with unreasonable reviewers (which Apple isn't probably to happy with either as they are prone to create bad PR)
[+] [-] GhostVII|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anfilt|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] valuearb|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fuu_dev|5 years ago|reply
A layer on youtube³ however says throughout multiple videos that epic has a (if even)very weak case and apple is in the right.
I would be interested to have someone break it down to understand the case.
[2]https://definitions.uslegal.com/m/monopoly/
[3]https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCi5RTzzeCFurWTPLm8usDkQ
[+] [-] 9wzYQbTYsAIc|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pier25|5 years ago|reply
I would like to be proved wrong though.
[+] [-] nixpulvis|5 years ago|reply
Or what exactly is a legal issue?
[+] [-] Yetanfou|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slg|5 years ago|reply