I've been a PCalc customer since the day it launched in 2008. However, that's not the world we currently live in. Given how much revenue the App Store is generating these days, it could absolutely be worth the attention. It could even be argued that what Apple truly needs is a dedicated, high-profile, passionate, engaged, empowered, VP of App Store, whose one and only job would be to collect and bring together the various parts and make an even stronger whole. However, that could also be considered unfair to apps that simply didn't get into or through the approval process as quickly, and result in one app being allowed to do what its competitor is not, creating a whole range of different problems. It could be argued that once an app is approved it shouldn't be un-approved, and should instead enjoy an exemption to whatever policies are later put in place. However, again, not all edge-cases can be foreseen, and if too many flags get raised to often, the already lengthy review process - especially during the already insane iOS release cycle - could become untenable. It could be argued that edge-cases should be flagged during the review process and kicked upstairs so a determination can be made and a policy set before any apps hit the store.
(When Apple says what developers do with their frameworks sometimes surprises them, that includes implementations they simply didn't foresee.) However, at the App Store scale, and considering how Apple runs it, that simply won't be possible for all apps, all the time. It could be argued that Apple needs to communicate better, sooner, so that developers who come anywhere close to the line, blurry or not, get waved off long before their apps hit the store. It's a case of a blurry line, and it's a situation that's bad for everyone - for Apple, because it gets them bad press and strained relations, for developers, because it costs them time, money, and faith in the system, and customers, because apps and features we like disappear on us. To be clear, this absolutely wasn't a case of Thomson trying to get an app approved that shouldn't have been, nor of the App Store team trying to hurt a developer and his livelihood. (My guess is that the time is also an indicator that the decision wasn't hasty or arbitrary, and that the ramifications for everyone were considered before the call was made.) That might be why it took Apple over a month to determine that just because PCalc could fit into a widget didn't mean it should. Meanwhile, as much as developers race to get their apps submitted in time for launch day, the App Store teams race to get all the apps reviewed and all the new features programmed in time for them to go live alongside the new version of iOS.
At the same time, developers have also come to learn that if they implement them in ways Apple didn't expect, they risk rejection, either immediately or at some point in the future. Developers know that if they showcase Apple's new, tent-pole technologies in interesting and novel ways, they're more likely to get featured on the App Store, which is among the very best ways to boost their downloads. (It's worth pointing out those are two separate things - App Store review, like developer relations, falls under SVP of marketing, Phil Schiller, while App Store editorial, like App Store management, falls under SVP of services, Eddy Cue.)ĭuring an iOS launch, it's hectic for both developers and Apple. Because it could fit in Today view is probably why PCalc's widget made it through App Store review and got featured by App Store editorial.
0 kommentar(er)
