I’d heard horror stories of people getting stuck in the application cycle with Apple, but fortunately never experienced any problems. New applications were approved in 7 days (as per Apple’s SLA) and updates to applications were usually approved in about 4-5 days. That is, until now. We had submitted a minor update to PhotoNote and PhotoNote Lite. We found that the email-sending would time out on slower connections and would therefore always time out when using a first generation iPhone. So we changed the time-out parameters, snazzed up the iTunes application description and hit submit.

First, Apple came back with a comment saying “we cannot post it because it references a pre-release version of iPhone OS/SDK”. This was a “violation of Section 2.1 of the iPhone SDK Agreement”. We had indeed updated the iTunes description to state that the current email functionality was a work-around solution until email-attachments would become available as part of iPhone OS3.0. It would seem that was a very generic statement and something that was already widely known at the time. But, then again, better not argue with non-disclosure agreements, so we updated the text and let the review team know, assuming that that would be it. Unfortunately, no. Now the binaries were under dispute because they also make references to OS3.0. We scanned the binaries and there were a few code-comments along the lines of “// work-around for OS3.0″. Didn’t think they would review to that level or could even see those in the binaries, but better safe then sorry, references were removed and binaries resubmitted. That should be it then, right?

A week passed and another dreaded email from the review team at Apple.  ”…your application does not adhere to the iPhone Human Interface Guidelines”. The claim was that PhotoNote needed network connectivity when it was opened up and that we therefore needed to include a warning if the application was not connected to a network. The ‘you need to check for network connectivity’ seems to be a common complaint from the reviewers, and is usually accompanied by the suggestion to use the code from the Reachability sample program. In this case it didn’t really makes sense, as the application does not need network connectivity to function, other then when sending email. So, we kindly responded with same, and asked them to reconsider.

It started to look like we had been upgraded from regular reviewers to a “special investigations” review team. It took a week and another email came back. They had now moved on to the email functionality and concluded that here it did need network connectivity and that therefore the checking of network connectivity was still needed. The functionality was exactly the same as the previous version of PhotoNote, that passed without any problems when it was submitted. But, the reviewer had a point, there were situations where the email functionality would not notice that there was no network connectivity and they had even included screenshots to prove their point. Fine. Easy to fix and binaries were submitted the next day.

Two weeks passed with no word from the review team, so we asked for a status update. Surprisingly we got a response the same day. But the response was not good: “Unfortunately we will not be able to give you a status on your application at this point.”. That sounded a bit worrying, what else were they looking for? Fortunately later that day, we finally got the email we were looking for: “The status for the following application has changed to Ready for Sale“. It took 5 weeks to get there…

So now, finally, version 1.3.1 is out, with the increased time-outs. Also, since OS3.0 has now been released and is no longer under non-disclosure, we can officially state that we are working on including the new email-attachment functionality and will release another update soon (approval cycles permitting) that includes a more robust way of emailing your PhotoNotes.