Mobile teams automate much of the work required to ship software. Code is reviewed. Tests run continuously. Security checks are added to pipelines. Builds and deployments follow repeatable workflows.
But App Store and Google Play requirements are still often reviewed near the end of the release process. By then, even a relatively small technical finding can create work across the entire team.
The technical issue may be small. The process impact often is not.
AppCompliance exists to move supported platform checks forward, while teams still have time to investigate, resolve and verify them.
AppCompliance was not designed from assumptions alone. While exploring the problem, I spoke with mobile agencies, product teams, engineers and people responsible for releases about how they handle App Store and Google Play requirements today.
The organisations were different. The same patterns kept returning.
When a finding appeared late, resolving the technical issue was only part of the work. Teams also had to coordinate the impact, repeat parts of the release process and communicate a new plan.
These conversations shaped the direction of AppCompliance. Teams did not need another checklist to remember at the end of a release. They needed supported technical checks to run earlier, produce reproducible evidence and fit inside the workflow they already used.
Every supported finding should be connected to technical evidence detected in the compiled application. A conclusion should never be stronger than the evidence behind it.
The same supported application input should produce the same validation result. Artificial intelligence may help explain a finding more clearly, but it does not decide whether a supported validation passes or fails.
A confirmed technical condition and a signal that requires investigation should not be presented as if they carry the same level of certainty. A guess should never block a release.
AppCompliance analyses compiled IPA, APK and AAB files. That is the application Apple and Google receive—not only the source code from which it was built.
Platform validation should work alongside source control, testing, CI/CD, issue tracking and release management. The objective is not to introduce another isolated process. It is to add a repeatable quality gate to the process teams already use.
AppCompliance checks supported requirements that can be evaluated objectively through technical analysis. It does not claim to determine what cannot be established from the available evidence.
My background is in healthcare management, where much of my work focused on improving processes, reducing unnecessary costs and limiting operational risk.
That work shaped how I approach problems. Reliable outcomes rarely come from asking people to pay more attention. They come from clear responsibilities, useful information, repeatable processes and identifying risks early enough to act.
Alongside my work, I began building software. What started as a personal interest gradually developed into a deeper focus on product development, technical systems and the workflows teams rely on to build and release software.
There was no single failed release or dramatic moment that created AppCompliance. The idea developed gradually as I recognised a familiar process problem.
Mobile teams invest heavily in testing, security and automation, but important platform checks are still often performed late, handled manually or dependent on individual experience.
The conversations I had with agencies, product teams, engineers and release owners confirmed that this was not limited to one organisation or one way of working.
The same underlying issue appeared in different forms:
I started AppCompliance to bring supported technical platform checks into the development process. The goal is not to replace engineering judgment or predict every decision Apple or Google may make. It is to give teams objective evidence earlier, make the next step clearer and reduce the amount of release work performed under unnecessary pressure.
I founded AppCompliance and have led the product from the initial research and problem definition through product strategy and development.
Building the platform has been a shared effort. A distributed team has contributed expertise across software development, security and DevOps, helping turn the original idea into a reliable technical product.
I continue to lead the product direction and remain responsible for the principles behind AppCompliance and the promises it makes to its users.
AppCompliance is a technical validation platform for compiled iOS and Android applications. It identifies supported Apple App Store and Google Play requirements that can be evaluated objectively from IPA, APK and AAB binaries.
Each supported finding is designed to explain:
The result gives product, engineering, QA and release owners a shared technical basis for deciding what happens next.
AppCompliance does not:
A scan without unresolved findings means that no unresolved deviations were found within the supported technical checks. It does not mean that every possible platform guideline has been evaluated.
Approval decisions remain with Apple and Google.
Explore a sample report to see how a completed scan presents its gate result, technical evidence and recommended next steps. Join the waitlist and use AppCompliance on your own IPA, APK and AAB builds before the public launch.
One email when your invitation is ready. No spam, nothing else.
