Apple Worm

I never quite realized how difficult it is to develop an app for the iPhone.

Sure, there’s the design, and the coding, and the marketing, but what seems most difficult is the submission process to iTunes Connect.

In the early days of Apple app development (a few years ago), “you were just rejected, with no rhyme nor reason. You actually had to write in just to request you be given an explanation.”

The process have improved, but the mindset behind it seemingly hasn’t.

Recently, an app developer created a totally-new Weather app:

I created OpenGL animations for various weather conditions, including a thunderstorm. Not a video, mind you, but computer generated conditions that looked and moved realistically—weather CGI, essentially. Apple rejected it on the grounds that it was too simple: “We encourage you to review your app concept and evaluate whether you can incorporate additional content and features.”

Ok, too simple. So he upped his game:

Originally I wanted to test the waters for such an interface, to see if people would like it before I added additional features—but I was willing to play ball. So I added some things I’d planned to hold off until later. The app integrated with your calendar. It showed hourly forecasts with minute-by-minute precision, and beyond. It showed sunrise and sunset with its animations and a nice moon at the correct phase. It would even notify you of inclement weather without you having to lift a finger.

And this was Apple’s response:

It is less about a specific quantity of features…Rather, it is about the experience the app provides.

Apps should be engaging and exciting, enabling users to do something they couldn’t do before; or to do something in a way they couldn’t do before or better than they could do it before.

So imagine the guy’s surprise when he saw Apple’s latest product:

You might understand my shock when they unveiled a revamped weather app today. And its most defining new feature? Animated weather. Rain fell, snow drifted, hail dropped, and thunderstorms stormed—just as my app had so confidently done months before. And the audience loved it. When the lightning flashed, there was thunderous applause.

Essentially, they neutralized his idea for an app because what they were developing was too similar—and then criticized the merits of his app.

The problem is that, with so many minds working on a single platform, they’re bound to come up with some ideas that are similar.

But this policy of disencouraging and rejecting apps from developers who are making things unknowingly similar to what Apple has yet to come out with is killing creativity and driving away talented multiple-app developers.

Instead of this policy, they should find a way to co-opt these developers into the company structure, so that they can continue to create great apps for them and not butt heads with Apple’s own iOS team.