Getting an app onto users' phones involves more than just writing the code. Before anyone can download the NanoRich app, it has to pass through a review process conducted by each platform's gatekeepers — Google for the Google Play Store and a Korean company called NHN for the One Store. Both platforms review apps before making them publicly available, and both have specific requirements that aren't always obvious from the documentation alone.
This post covers what the submission process actually involves, what the review teams checked, what got rejected, and what I had to fix before the app was accepted.
What an App Store Review Is — And Why It Exists
Before explaining the submission process, it helps to understand why app stores review apps at all. When you download an app from an official store, you're trusting that the store has verified some basic things about it: that it doesn't contain malware, that it behaves as described, that it complies with the platform's rules, and that it doesn't deceive users. App store reviews are the mechanism for that verification.
The review is not a quality judgment in the aesthetic sense — reviewers aren't evaluating whether your app looks good or whether users will enjoy it. They're checking whether it meets the technical and policy requirements for inclusion in the store. Think of it less like an art critic reviewing a painting and more like a building inspector checking that a structure meets code.
For developers, this means that the path to approval involves understanding those requirements before submitting, building the app to meet them, and preparing the specific documentation and materials the review team will look for.
Preparing the Google Play Submission
Google Play's submission portal is called Google Play Console. Creating a developer account costs a one-time fee of $25 and requires a Google account. Once the account is set up, creating a new app listing involves providing a series of text and visual assets before any actual app file is uploaded.
The store listing requires an app title (maximum 30 characters), a short description (maximum 80 characters), a full description (maximum 4,000 characters), a category, content rating, and contact information. It also requires visual assets: a high-resolution icon, a feature graphic that appears at the top of the app's store page, and at least two screenshots showing the app in use.
The content rating is determined through a questionnaire that asks about the app's content — whether it contains violence, sexual content, gambling, or other categories that affect what age groups can download it. For the NanoRich app, the relevant consideration is the financial trading content. The questionnaire asks specifically about apps that simulate financial trading or investment — displaying real or simulated prices and market data. I disclosed this accurately, which resulted in a content rating that makes the app available to users 17 and older on Google Play.
The actual app file uploaded to Google Play is an AAB (Android App Bundle), which is a newer format that Google prefers over the older APK format. Flutter generates this file through the build process, and it contains the compiled app code along with all the assets needed to run it.
The Google Play Review — What They Checked
Google's review team typically responds within one to three days, though it can take longer for new developer accounts. The review for the NanoRich app came back within 48 hours.
The first submission was rejected. The rejection cited two issues.
The first issue was that the app's AdMob implementation needed to include the User Messaging Platform consent flow for users in the European Economic Area — the same oversight I described in the AdMob post, which delayed my initial AdMob setup. Google Play's review team checks for this because apps distributing through Google Play are required to comply with Google's EU User Consent Policy. Including the UMP implementation resolved this issue.
The second issue was a metadata mismatch: the app's description mentioned "trading signals" and "investment signals," but the app's content rating declaration hadn't fully addressed the financial tools category. Updating the content rating questionnaire to accurately reflect that the app displays financial market signals — and confirming that it does not execute trades or manage funds — resolved this issue.
After fixing both issues and resubmitting, the second review came back approved within 24 hours.
Preparing the One Store Submission
One Store is the dominant alternative app distribution platform in Korea, operated by NHN Corp in partnership with major Korean telecom providers. For an app specifically targeting the Korean market — which the NanoRich app is, given that it displays signals from the Korean stock market during Korean market hours — One Store is at least as important as Google Play, because many Korean Android users prefer it or use it exclusively.
The One Store submission portal works similarly to Google Play Console, but with some differences. One Store requires a Korean business registration number or a verified individual developer identity for payment processing. As an individual developer operating in Korea, I went through the individual developer registration process, which required uploading identity verification documents.
The store listing requirements are similar to Google Play but with Korean as the primary language. One Store requires Korean-language versions of the app title, description, and screenshots. For an app that's primarily designed for Korean users, this is appropriate — users browsing the One Store expect Korean-language listings, and an app with only English metadata will perform worse in search results and may seem less trustworthy to Korean users.
The content classification on One Store uses a Korean rating system administered by the Game Rating and Administration Committee (GRAC) for games, and a separate self-declaration system for apps. For the NanoRich app as a financial information display tool, it falls under the financial app category, which requires disclosure of the financial information nature and a statement that the app does not provide investment advice.
The One Store Review — What Was Different
The One Store review process was slower than Google Play — approximately five business days for the initial review. The review criteria also differed in emphasis.
One Store's review team flagged one issue that Google Play had not: the app's in-app disclaimer text. My initial disclaimer read "this is not investment advice" in relatively casual phrasing. One Store's reviewer requested that the disclaimer be more formal and prominently positioned — specifically, that it appear on the first screen the user sees after the onboarding flow, not just in a settings menu.
Moving the disclaimer to a more prominent position required a minor UI change — adding it as a persistent footer on the main signal board screen, rather than burying it in a "Terms" section. This change is probably better for users as well, and I would have made it voluntarily if I had thought about it more carefully during design. The review process surfaced an oversight in the original design that I then fixed properly.
After this change, One Store approved the app on the second submission.
What the Submission Experience Taught Me
Several practical lessons came out of the submission process that I haven't seen well documented elsewhere.
First, reading the actual policy documents matters more than reading blog posts about them. The specific requirements for financial apps — particularly around content rating declarations and disclaimer placement — are documented in both platforms' developer policies, but the relevant sections aren't prominently featured in the developer documentation. You find them by specifically searching for "financial app policy" within the developer portal, not by following the standard submission guide.
Second, having all the visual assets prepared before starting the submission saves significant time. Creating the icon, feature graphic, and screenshots after the app is built feels like a separate project, and it is — it took longer than I expected and required several iterations before the results looked professional enough to represent the app well. Starting this work earlier, while the app is still being built, would have saved time at the end of the process.
Third, the review teams are looking at the app primarily through the lens of policy compliance, not functionality. Both reviewers found policy issues (UMP consent, disclaimer placement) rather than bugs or performance problems. This doesn't mean functionality doesn't matter — an app that crashes or doesn't work as described will also be rejected — but the most common rejection reasons for a functional app are policy-related, not technical.
Today's Investing Insight — Regulatory Frameworks for Financial Apps
The distinction that both Google Play and One Store enforced — between displaying financial information and providing investment advice — reflects a real regulatory distinction in financial services. In most jurisdictions, providing investment advice to the public requires registration with a financial regulator and compliance with disclosure and conduct rules designed to protect investors. Displaying market data or general financial information without making specific recommendations typically does not require the same level of registration, though specific rules vary by country. For developers building apps that touch on financial markets — price displays, market data, portfolio tracking — understanding where the line between information and advice falls in your target market is important both for app store approval and for broader legal compliance. The NanoRich app stays clearly on the information side of this line: it shows what an algorithm detected, with explicit disclosure that this is not investment advice, and leaves all trading decisions entirely to the user.
---
This post documents a personal journey of submitting a mobile application to app stores and reflects personal experience with the review process. App store policies and requirements change regularly; verify current requirements in the official developer documentation before submitting. All investment decisions and their outcomes are the sole responsibility of the investor.
Comments
Post a Comment