80 apps per reviewer per day, every day. These numbers alone explain a lot.
(Thanks to Jason Snell.)
Apple’s response is worth reading in its entirety; it is written in clear, plain language, and gives straight answers to nearly all questions. A few choice bits, though:
Contrary to published reports, Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application, and continues to study it.
That’s interesting, but it’s a bit of semantic hair-splitting. It’s good to know that the decision is not final and that Apple may reconsider, but the fact remains that Apple chose not to publish the app. (It’s also worth noting that Google’s initial statement regarding this did not use the word rejected either. Their spokesperson told TechCrunch: “Apple did not approve the Google Voice application we submitted six weeks ago to the Apple App Store.”)
The application has not been approved because, as submitted for review, it appears to alter the iPhone’s distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhone’s core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging and voicemail. Apple spent a lot of time and effort developing this distinct and innovative way to seamlessly deliver core functionality of the iPhone. For example, on an iPhone, the “Phone” icon that is always shown at the bottom of the Home Screen launches Apple’s mobile telephone application, providing access to Favorites, Recents, Contacts, a Keypad, and Visual Voicemail. The Google Voice application replaces Apple’s Visual Voicemail by routing calls through a separate Google Voice telephone number that stores any voicemail, preventing voicemail from being stored on the iPhone, i.e., disabling Apple’s Visual Voicemail. Similarly, SMS text messages are managed through the Google hub—replacing the iPhone’s text messaging feature.
My reading of this is that Apple’s primary problem with Google’s Google Voice app is that it redefines the user experience for dialing, voicemail, and SMS. This strikes me as very Jobs-ian. The only voicemail Apple wants for the iPhone is the built-in Visual Voicemail.
The problem with this explanation is that it doesn’t explain (a) why the three other Google Voice-related apps — which were not by Google, and which were already in the App Store — were removed from the App Store; and (b) why other apps which deal with SMS and phone dialing are allowed. Try searching the App Store for “dialer”.
In addition, the iPhone user’s entire Contacts database is transferred to Google’s servers, and we have yet to obtain any assurances from Google that this data will only be used in appropriate ways. These factors present several new issues and questions to us that we are still pondering at this time.
Regarding AT&T’s role in this decision:
Apple is acting alone and has not consulted with AT&T about whether or not to approve the Google Voice application. No contractual conditions or non-contractual understandings with AT&T have been a factor in Apple’s decision-making process in this matter.
Based on Apple’s response, it seems my “devil’s advocate” hunch in my initial piece on this was pretty close to the mark: that it’s about Apple’s competitive relationship with Google. Put another way, Apple does not want to make it easy or seamless for iPhone users to use Google’s phone service.
Also, Apple’s response, as well as AT&T’s, completely contradicts the information I reported from “a reliable little birdie”:
Well, so much for my speculation. A reliable little birdie has informed me that it was indeed AT&T that objected to Google Voice apps for the iPhone. It’s that simple
Any future information from this source will be noted accordingly.
Finally, regarding the internal mechanics of the App Store review process:
There are more than 40 full-time trained reviewers, and at least two different reviewers study each application so that the review process is applied uniformly. Apple also established an App Store executive review board that determines procedures and sets policy for the review process, as well as reviews applications that are escalated to the board because they raise new or complex issues. The review board meets weekly and is comprised of senior management with responsibilities for the App Store. 95% of applications are approved within 14 days of being submitted.
I wonder if the executive review board is new, or at least somewhat new.
We receive about 8,500 new applications and updates every week, and roughly 20% of them are not approved as originally submitted. In little more than a year, we have reviewed more than 200,000 applications and updates.
That’s a lot of apps. 8,500 per week with 40 reviewers works out to 212 apps per reviewer per week — about 40 per day.
Only Apple’s is available as a web page on the company’s own site. Engadget is hosting copies of the responses from AT&T and Google.
New “official” Wikipedia iPhone app: Wikipedia Mobile.
Age rating of Kiwi and Wikipedia Mobile: 4+.
Age rating of Wikipanion: 17+.
Apparent difference in available content in all three apps: None.
Putative explanation from Apple senior VP Phil Schiller regarding the seeming discrepancy between Apple’s mandated 17+ rating for the Wiktionary-based dictionary app Ninjawords and other profanity-containing dictionary apps in the store which are rated 4+ or 9+: “The issue that the App Store reviewers did find with the Ninjawords application is that it provided access to other more vulgar terms than those found in traditional and common dictionaries, words that many reasonable people might find upsetting or objectionable. A quick search on Wiktionary.org easily turns up a number of offensive ‘urban slang’ terms that you won’t find in popular dictionaries such as one that you referenced, the New Oxford American Dictionary included in Mac OS X.”
Number of the aforelisted three urban slang terms indeed defined in Ninjawords: Three.
Number defined in Mac OS X’s New Oxford American Dictionary: Zero.
Sympathy, on the part of yours truly, that these terms are not in fact appropriate for young children: Much.
Consistency in the age ratings for Wikipedia-based apps in App Store: None.
Looks like Nokia is moving beyond Symbian with an OS based on Maemo (which is what they’ve been using in their tablets). Certainly looks interesting, but, judging from all of these screenshots, it doesn’t seem like the display rotates — it only works in landscape orientation. Other than for games, I almost never use my iPhone in anything but portrait mode. (Via Slashdot.)