Pavel Durov has voiced concerns about how long app moderation takes within the App Store, a topic that has drawn attention across the tech community. This stance was reported by socialbites.ca after a note surfaced on the Telegram channel managed by the Telegram founder himself. The gist of his message centers on a frustration that many developers encounter when their apps must pass through multiple layers of scrutiny before they can reach users on iOS devices. The delay, he argues, is not merely an inconvenience; it can slow down crucial improvements that millions rely on for everyday communication and collaboration, potentially hindering the pace of innovation in a marketplace that already operates under tight timelines and high expectations.
Durov emphasizes that what his team loves most is building tools that empower global communication. They are committed to refining the user experience, expanding feature sets, and ensuring that people can express themselves freely and securely. Yet the process of verification – described as ambiguous or opaque by many developers – creates friction. He points to the two-week review period for a forthcoming update as a case in point, noting the lack of feedback or actionable guidance from Apple that would help the team align with the store’s requirements while still delivering value to users. This situation, he contends, is symptomatic of broader governance dynamics in the mobile app ecosystem, where gatekeeping decisions can significantly shape product timelines and, by extension, the competitive landscape for messaging and social apps.
The Telegram founder’s remarks also shed light on the experience of developers who operate at smaller scales. He expresses solidarity with smaller teams whose apps do not attract the same level of attention as industry giants, arguing that delays in releasing new versions can demoralize teams, dampen user enthusiasm, and create financial strain for a wide range of applications spanning different sectors. In his view, a predictable and transparent review process would help many developers plan more effectively, allocate resources with greater confidence, and deliver updates that users have come to expect in a rapidly evolving digital world.
Beyond the practical timing issues, Durov raises a broader financial point about the cost of platform access. He reiterates the widely cited claim that Apple and Google operate a 30 percent commission on in-app transactions and revenue, arguing that this share affects not just purchases but also the resources required to test and optimize apps before they reach the public. The implication is that the combination of opaque reviews and high platform fees creates a compounded barrier to timely progress, particularly for apps seeking to innovate in messaging, collaboration, and community-building spaces. He calls for a more transparent, predictable framework that would clarify expectations for developers while still honoring the benefits these ecosystems claim to offer in terms of distribution, security, and user reach.
There is also a historical angle to consider. The conversation around moderation timelines and store policies has evolved as developers increasingly rely on mobile platforms to reach audiences at scale. Durov’s commentary aligns with broader debates about how gatekeeping practices interact with freedom of expression, user safety, and the economic realities faced by teams at varying sizes. The underlying message is a call for balance: maintain rigorous standards that protect users, but provide clearer guidelines and more timely feedback so that creators can iterate responsibly and sustainably. In the end, the aim is to foster an environment where innovative messaging tools can flourish without being stymied by ambiguous processes or disproportionate costs, ensuring that hundreds of millions of people can communicate more effectively and securely on a global scale.