Apple should be ashamed of its hostile App Store rating system

Previous: No, you curate the App Store
Articles index Jeff Johnson (My apps, PayPal.Me, Mastodon)

July 29 2026

I could person terminated the title of this blog station pinch “App Store” but wanted to talk astir thing circumstantial that came up for maine today: App Store personification ratings and reviews. This taxable is related to yesterday’s blog station No, you curate the App Store. Despite the truth that Apple labor privately reappraisal each type of each app earlier developers tin people to the App Store, supposedly ensuring the value of apps, verifying that they do what they declare to do, Apple nevertheless besides relies connected App Store users to complaint and reappraisal apps. You mightiness wonderment really an Apple-reviewed, Apple-approved app could still gain one-star ratings. On the different hand, immoderate of these one-star ratings are undeserved, unfair.

When the App Store opened 18 years ago, it was a c transcript of the iTunes Music Store designed to waste 99 cent songs. In fact, the iPhone App Store was included pinch iTunes for Mac. This song-inspired creation had galore unfortunate consequences for the package market, specified arsenic the chart-driven title to the bottom. You mightiness forgive Apple for throwing together a strategy hastily: aft all, erstwhile the iPhone itself was introduced the erstwhile year, it did not support third-party autochthonal apps. Instead, web apps were the “sweet solution” defended by Steve Jobs, though astir different group soured connected the idea. In immoderate case, that was 2 Apple CEOs ago, pinch John Ternus now ascending to the office. The App Store has grown enormously complete time, yet successful a number of important ways it remains the aforesaid aged ill-conceived clone of the iTunes Music Store, to the detriment of App Store users and developers.

It ought to beryllium evident really the opus and package markets differ:

1. Price. Songs successful the iTunes Music Store were mostly 99 cents aliases adjacent that price, whereas the value of apps successful the App Store varies dramatically. Apple’s ain Final Cut Pro successful the Mac App Store is $299.99.
2. Purchasing. Songs do not person In-Song Purchase. They’re each upfront paid. Although immoderate old-school developers specified arsenic myself stubbornly cling to the upfront paid business exemplary for apps, the App Store incentivizes In-App Purchases, and the mostly of apps travel Apple’s incentives.
3. Quality. A opus “just works,” and if for immoderate logic it refuses to play, that’s the responsibility of Apple and iTunes alternatively than a “bug” written successful the opus by the musician. A opus downloaded from the iTunes Music Store does 1 and only 1 thing: play audio. Songs don’t person aggregate features, options, and workflows for illustration apps do. If a opus displeases you, that’s not a bug either; euphony is chiefly a matter of individual taste.
4. Support. Software requires method support from the developer. Songs do not require method support from the musician. You mostly can’t interaction the musician. Maybe Ringo Starr will reply your instrumentality message decades later.
5. Safety. The iTunes Music Store has nary malware aliases scams. The top threat would beryllium definitive lyrics. The musicians person already been curated by the grounds labels, truthful Apple doesn’t request to reappraisal songs earlier publishing them. To my knowledge, the iTunes Music Store does not judge amateur submissions from the public. In contrast, immoderate chartless personification successful the world pinch $99 to salary for the Apple Developer Program tin taxable apps to the App Store.

The anonymous crowdsourced standing and reappraisal strategy was designed for songs, wherever the only point that matters is individual philharmonic taste. Songs are entertainment, not utilitarian. This strategy is horrible erstwhile applied to apps. Below is simply a one-star reappraisal that I discovered today—App Store developers must cheque manually for reviews because Apple fails to nonstop america email notifications, arsenic I mentioned successful my blog station Small ways the App Store could beryllium improved for developers—complaining that my app requested a rating… for illustration the mostly of different apps successful the App Store!

Imagine if a master writer for the tech news media submitted this app reappraisal to their editor for publication. The writer would apt beryllium fired for incompetence. Yet Apple allows reviews for illustration this to beryllium published to the App Store. Also today, a chap App Store developer connected societal media posted a screenshot of one-star reappraisal that their app received for a feature request:

Neither of these reviews talk astir the existent features of the app, whether they activity aliases really good they work. The reviews are irrationally nitpicky, choosing 1 quibble and making the full reappraisal astir that. Somehow the apps merit an wide one-star standing based connected that 1 factor? The basal problem is that successful general, App Store users are not qualified by acquisition aliases temperament to constitute package reviews. They’re rank amateurs, not professionals. Software deserves overmuch amended than this. Some App Store users moreover maltreatment the reappraisal strategy for method support purposes, alternatively of contacting support to inquire their question, but it’s practically intolerable to person a back-and-forth speech pinch users successful the App Store reappraisal and developer response, for illustration if I request much accusation from the user. The strategy was decidedly not designed for that!

Indie developers can’t triumph successful the App Store. Since we’re mostly chartless to the public, we request affirmative App Store ratings and reviews for our apps to promote purchases. If we don’t petition ratings from each users, past the self-initiated ratings thin to beryllium disproportionately group pinch a title alternatively than satisfied users. The enlightened users admit our dilemma, but location are besides vigilante users for illustration the 1 supra who seems wished to punish each ratings requests, and arsenic an unintended consequence, put indie developers retired of business. Apple could mitigate this problem by emailing App Store customers astatine immoderate constituent aft acquisition pinch a petition to complaint the app, truthful that app developers don’t request to petition reviews. Indeed, if ratings requests were initiated by Apple, past Apple could spell arsenic acold arsenic to prohibition developer-initiated ratings requests successful the App Store. Unfortunately, Apple doesn’t look willing successful mitigating immoderate problems pinch the App Store. Apple doesn’t moreover admit that the standing and reappraisal strategy is problematic.

Should you moreover spot anonymous crowdsourced ratings and reviews? The ratings and reviews for upfront paid apps are astir apt mostly honest, albeit often poorly written. Developers could constitute aliases bargain clone reviews, but successful measurement that would go rather costly. For apps that are free to download, connected the different hand, anyone successful the world tin complaint and reappraisal the app. This often leads to fraud. Nefarious services beryllium that tin waste clone ratings and reviews successful measurement to unscrupulous App Store developers. Apple claims to forestall App Store fraud, but Apple seems to beryllium astir arsenic effective astatine stopping clone ratings and reviews arsenic it is astatine stopping scam apps from appearing successful the App Store. In different words, not very effective.

In 2026, we’re agelong overdue for Apple to “think different” astir App Store personification ratings and reviews. What I spot from Apple present is thing isolated from shameful complacency.

Jeff Johnson (My apps, PayPal.Me, Mastodon) Articles index
Previous: No, you curate the App Store