They verify that the app preforms what it is supposed to be doing and doesn't negatively impact the device.

A code scanner will be run that examines the system calls and makes sure that it isn't using internal/undocumented APIs that may cause the app to fail when the operating system is updated.

And yes, this is done for every app and every update. Free and paid. Yes, it requires a crazy amount of manpower.

This is also something that introduces a human component to the review process - it is possible to get someone who misinterprets how the app is working or how a particular rule is applied to the review of the app and human mistakes can be made.

The Apple code scanner is buggy. I had an app rejected for an alleged call to an internal API that the app does not actually call. I had to appeal to the app review board, who approved my build, but it delayed a critical bug fix.

Friends have seen the same problem, with different bogus API violations reported.

It's not particularly smart.

No code review since you only upload a build. The reviewer usually runs the app and pokes around a bit. You can provide them with test logins if it is an authenticated app. They have certain things they look for (errors, payments not through Apple, etc.)

> Wait, there are actual people reviewing every app update on the app store?

Apple's made themselves the sole arbiter when it comes what software is allowed to run millions of people's phones, so I'd hope so!

Imagine the bureaucratic nightmare that would erupt from automating that process, and the businesses that will live and die based off of an automated filter deciding whether or not their products can be sold to users who want them.

> Imagine the bureaucratic nightmare that would erupt from automating that process, and the businesses that will live and die based off of an automated filter deciding whether or not their products can be sold to users who want them.

Google is doing that right?

I'd sure hope not. Surely that would draw the ire of the FTC or other regulatory bodies.

I believe they run a bunch of automated test on an internal test server, maybe some parts get flagged and re-tested manually if I had to guess.

Yea... Thats what that 30% pays for.

No, that's what the $99 a year pays for. You can create and upload a free app to the App Store and Apple gets nothing.

You realize both things can pay those salaries right? Paying customers subsidizing non-paying customers is rather common. Also you know free apps have in-app purchases right?

Not every free app has in-app purchases. My city, Seattle, has an app called Find-it, Fix-it where I can report potholes or abandoned cars. One Bus Away is an app that shows bus arrival times. I have grocery apps that show me what's on sale and give me digital coupons. None of these apps have in-app purchases.

If no apps had in-app purchases, there's no guarantee that Apple could still pay those salaries.

By Apple's definition, these Apps have not contributed anything to the App Store and Apple.

Mind Sharing the reason for downvote? That is what Apple state in their reply in multiple outlet and emails to developers.

Your app helps Apple sell devices and their margins are large.

Fewer than 1% of the apps in the store will have any effect whatsoever on Apple's hardware sales. Easily 99% of apps are long tail products that don't influence prior decision-making.

AS for margins, once you factor in Apple's high spending on R&D and engineering, their margins are fairly normal. Apple are financially successful because they sell high quantities and don't chase the extreme bottom of any market. Notice for example how they don't (currently) offer any mainstream external displays.

Interesting how I'm being voted down here, but nobody wants to disagree with anything I said. Is what I said even remotely controversial?