The App Store approvals process has been a source of controversy since it first came into being. In the last year Apple has been accused of censorship over the Ninjawords app, shoddy business ethics concerning Google Voice, and more generally of unfriendly opacity. Since last July, developers have gotten used to throwing up their hands whenever we ask them when their games are going live, declaring: “Your guess is as good as mine.”
In the last few weeks things have come to a head, prompting Apple’s senior vice president of marketing, Phil Schiller, to personally get involved in a series of high profile cases. His intervention has done much to mollify those directly concerned and to calm a blogosphere always quick to inveigh against big business.
However, there’s one area of the approvals process that doesn’t look likely to improve: the length of time approval takes. This isn’t related to anything as controversial as censorial or inconsistent selection criteria: it’s purely about the practical limitations on Apple’s time, exacerbated recently by the number of 3.0 compliant updates churning through the system. Yet it affects a far greater number of developers than censorship or foul play.
Just a few weeks ago, Apple altered developer accounts to include estimated approval times. “Based on the current app submission,” the message reads, “x percent of applications are being approved within y days.”
Though vague, this is still a useful bit of information, and Apple has to be commended for supplying it. Even so, the complaints continue. Few developers or publishers dare to publicly air their displeasure, but in private they’re a good deal more critical. Let’s take a look at a couple of typical gripes:
1) Apple refuses to make exceptions, no matter how big or important the game is.
2) Apple refuses to give us concrete dates, which makes it very difficult to market our games.
Of course, these are both commercial issues. Gamers aren’t particularly affected by App Store delays – they may have to wait a week or two longer than they thought for a game, but compared to some mainstream console game delays this is trivial. We in the press are slightly more affected, since we’re often compelled to coordinate coverage with releases; of course we have to keep a close eye on the App Store for reviewable code, but it’s hardly onerous.
Publishers and developers bear the brunt of the problem. Or rather, big publishers bear it. Apple’s refusal to expedite approvals on the basis of the size of the game may bewilder and frustrate publishers accustomed to calling the shots, but it means very little to the smaller publishers and developers who, prior to the App Store’s arrival, had a much smaller platform for their products.
In fact, by removing the competitive advantage afforded by commercial clout, Apple has done a considerable favor both to small developers and gamers, who can rely on user reviews and professional criticism rather than expensive advertising to steer them towards the best games.
The unpredictability of Apple’s approval process is, in many ways, a good thing for its customers and for the small developers muscled out in the conventional marketplace.
The latest industry figure to speak out against Apple, Facebook’s Joe Hewitt, articulated just this in the opening paragraph of an article he posted on his blog this week. “I never forget how deeply Apple cares about making their users happy, and that counts more than how they treat their developers.”
However, he goes on in the same piece to make what should turn out to be a controversial assertion: Apple should ditch the approvals process altogether. Reasoning that developers conduct their own quality assurance procedures, and that in any case Apple simply doesn’t have time to carry out proper QA, he argues that the sole reason for the approvals process is legal.
“This is all about lawyers, not quality,” Hewitt says, “and it shows that the model of Apple’s justice system is guilty until proven innocent.”
Astute readers will have immediately noted that Apple doesn’t purport to have a “justice system,” but it does seem to operate on the assumption that protecting the sensibilities of consumers inside the App Store is more important than protecting the sensibilities of vendors trying to get in.
What side of the argument you fall on almost certainly depends on whether you’re a developer or a consumer. Speaking as a consumer, an extra week or two isn’t a long time to wait for a store that discourages and turns away objectionable content. One internet is enough.
Pocket Gamer is Europe’s leading source of news, opinion and reviews on mobile and handheld gaming.
