Featuring on the App Store
Expert: with sources and numbers. Plain: the same, without them, for beginners.
The nomination mechanism, the lead times Apple states, and an honest account of what is and is not within your control.
Editorial placement is the largest discovery surface you cannot optimise. What you can do is documented, and it is narrower than the folklore around it.
The mechanism
A Nominations are submitted in App Store Connect, under Featuring → Nominations for the app. They can be created individually, or in bulk by uploading a spreadsheet. Individual nominations are saved as drafts and can be edited before submission; CSV-imported nominations are submitted automatically and cannot be saved as drafts. (Nominate your app for featuring, verified 2026-09-18)
There is also a Featuring Nominations API for programmatic submission.
Lead times
A Apple recommends submitting plans as early as possible, with a minimum lead time of three weeks. Lead time varies: give the team a minimum of two weeks’ notice, and for wider featuring consideration submit up to three months in advance. For games, stories are best given about eight weeks. (Getting featured on the App Store, verified 2026-09-18)
Those numbers are the plan. Two weeks is the floor for consideration at all; three months is what wider placement needs; eight weeks is the games-story figure. A nomination submitted the week of launch is not a nomination, it is a notification.
What Apple says the editorial team looks for
A Provide a detailed description so the team can understand what is coming. State the purpose and priority level of the nomination. Include specific details about the update and articulate the objectives of the new feature. You may include details about accessibility, inclusivity, priority level, or unique aspects of your app or team, and the editorial team takes all of it into account. Same source.
A For games: the app should be interesting and potentially novel or do something new, great art can separate you from the crowd, and both great art and a great, interesting app is the strongest position. Same source.
A Separately, Guideline 5.2.4(b): “Editor’s Choice” badges are applied by Apple, not by developers. (App Review Guidelines, verified 2026-09-18) You may not award yourself one in metadata.
An honest account of the odds
This is the most [B]-heavy topic in the base, because Apple documents the process thoroughly and the selection barely at all.
What is documented: how to submit, how far ahead, what information to provide.
What is not: how many nominations are accepted, what proportion of features come from nominations versus editors finding apps themselves, how much weight any factor carries, or whether nominating repeatedly helps or hurts.
B Practitioners consistently report that featuring correlates with platform-moment alignment (supporting a new OS capability, a new device, or an Apple framework at the moment Apple is promoting it) and with editorial-quality craft rather than commercial performance. Reported across independent sources including the conference material reviewed here.
What a former App Store editor says, and how far to trust it
Two public posts in 2026 by someone describing themselves as a former App Store editor (activity IDs 7424757263665561600, February 2026, and 7445097110078844928, April 2026) describe the process from inside. All of it is [C]: one person, unverifiable, and Apple documents none of it. It is here because it is specific and falsifiable, which is more than most featuring advice manages.
C Editorial teams are local, and the one that sees you is decided by where your app is registered. Not by the language of the app and not by the market you care about. If that is not where your audience is, the submission has to carry that context itself.
C Lead times differ by placement, more finely than Apple’s published figures: roughly two weeks as the floor for collection placements in the Apps or Games tabs, three weeks or more for banner placements because artwork has to be requested and designed, six to eight weeks for anything more complex, and about sixteen weeks for cross-functional stories involving marketing, PR or Apple Media Services. Exception: the US, UK, Japan, China, Korea and Taiwan are said to run on shorter timelines.
Note where this agrees with Apple and where it does not. Apple publishes a three-week minimum and up to three months for wider consideration (above); the two-week floor here is looser than Apple’s own stated minimum. Plan against Apple’s numbers. The value in the C version is the shape. That a banner costs more notice than a collection, and that the expensive placements need a quarter’s notice, not a month’s.
C What is said not to matter: business model (ad-supported apps are featured), install volume, and Apple Ads spend, though an existing audience is said to reinforce credibility. There is no separate pre-vetting track and no formal scoring.
C What is said to stop a submission: a product page that misrepresents the app, and AI-generated screenshots.
Treat the last one as the actionable item, because it costs nothing to act on and the downside is asymmetric. Everything else here is context for a decision you do not control.
C Specific uplift figures (“+1500% Explore visitors”, “+4000%”) are single-case. They appear in conference decks in your folder and they describe one app, one feature, one week. They are not a planning basis, and a feature that does not recur leaves a chart with a spike and no trend.
What follows practically: treat featuring as an outcome of doing good work, submitted through a documented process with real lead time. Treat it as a line item in a forecast and you will be wrong.
How to work with it
Nominate on a schedule, not on impulse. Anything with a date (a release, a seasonal moment, a collaboration) gets a nomination at the right lead time.
Use bulk upload carefully. CSV nominations submit immediately and cannot be drafted. Draft individually when the wording matters.
Write for a reader who does not know your app. The description is read by someone deciding between many apps.
Say what is genuinely new. Apple’s guidance for games is explicit about novelty.
Do not build a plan that requires being featured. See above.
What goes wrong
Nominating the week of launch. Below the stated minimum.
Assuming a US editorial team reads an English-language app. C Reportedly it is the team where the app is registered.
A vague description. Apple asks for detail and objectives.
CSV bulk submission without checking. No drafts, no edits.
Claiming Editor’s Choice yourself. A named guideline violation.
Forecasting on featuring. It is not a controllable input.
In short
Every fact on this page in one line, with its evidence tier, source and verification date, 4 A · 1 B. Generated from the claim register, so it cannot drift from the page above.
Editorial placement is the biggest surface for being found that you genuinely cannot optimise your way into directly. What you can actually do about it is documented, and it's narrower than the folklore that's grown up around it.
The mechanism
You put yourself forward for consideration through your own back-office, one at a time or in a bulk batch. Putting yourself forward one at a time saves as a draft you can still edit before actually submitting it; a bulk-uploaded batch submits itself immediately and can't be saved as a draft first. There's also a way to do this programmatically for anyone set up to.
How far ahead you need to go
The centre's own advice is to submit as early as possible, with a stated minimum notice of a few weeks. That minimum varies by how big the ask is: a floor of a couple of weeks just to be considered at all, up to a few months ahead for being considered for wider placement, and roughly a couple of months specifically for a game's own story to be told well.
Those figures are the actual plan. The short floor is the bare minimum to be considered at all; the longest figure is what real, wide placement needs; the middle one is specifically for a game's own story. Putting yourself forward the same week you launch isn't really putting yourself forward at all. It's just a notification.
What the centre says its own editorial team looks for
Give a genuinely detailed description so the team can actually understand what's coming. State your own purpose and how important you consider it. Include specific details about the actual update, and clearly explain what the new feature is trying to achieve. You're invited to mention accessibility, inclusivity, how you'd prioritise it, or anything genuinely unique about your shop or your team, and the editorial team says it takes all of that into account.
For games specifically: the shop should be genuinely interesting, ideally doing something novel; strong visual craft can set you apart from the crowd; and having both strong craft and a genuinely interesting shop together is the strongest position of all.
Separately, the centre's own house rule is explicit: any "editor's picked this" badge is applied by the centre itself, never by you. You may not award yourself one in your own writing.
An honest account of the actual odds
This whole topic leans harder on working belief than almost anything else in this whole guide, because the centre documents the process thoroughly and the actual selection barely at all.
What's documented: how to put yourself forward, how far ahead, and what information to include.
What genuinely isn't documented: how many submissions actually get accepted, what share of features come from people putting themselves forward versus editors simply finding shops on their own, how heavily any one factor is weighed, or whether putting yourself forward repeatedly helps or actually hurts.
Experienced shopkeepers consistently report that being featured correlates with lining up alongside a genuine platform moment, supporting a brand-new device capability or a new framework right when the centre itself is promoting it, and with genuine editorial craft rather than commercial performance. Reported across independent sources.
What someone claiming to be a former editor says, and how far to trust it
A couple of public posts, by someone describing themselves as a former editor at the centre, describe the process from the inside. All of this counts as unconfirmed: one person, impossible to verify, and the centre documents none of it. It's included here because it's specific and could in principle be shown wrong, which is more than most folklore about this manages.
The claim is that editorial teams are regional, and which one sees your submission is decided by where your shop is officially registered. Not by what language it's written in, and not by which market you actually care about. If that's not where your real audience is, your own submission has to explain that context itself.
The same account claims lead times differ by exactly which placement you're after, more finely than the centre's own published figures: a couple of weeks as an absolute floor for a simple collection placement, several weeks or more for a banner placement because custom artwork has to be requested and designed, longer still for anything genuinely complex, and the longest of all for placements that cross into marketing, press or the centre's own media services. A handful of the biggest markets are said to run on shorter timelines than everywhere else.
Notice where this agrees with the centre's own figures, and where it doesn't. The centre publishes a short minimum and a much longer figure for wider consideration; the floor in this unconfirmed account is looser than the centre's own stated minimum. Plan against the centre's own published numbers. What's actually useful in the unconfirmed version is the shape of it. That a banner genuinely costs more notice than a simple collection slot, and that the most expensive placements need a whole season's notice, not just a month.
The same account claims that business model, raw install volume, and paid-billboard spend are all said not to matter, though an existing audience is said to reinforce credibility. There's supposedly no separate pre-vetting track and no formal scoring system at all.
What's said to actively stop a submission: a page that misrepresents the shop, and artificially generated window photos.
Treat that last point as the one actually worth acting on, because it costs nothing to simply avoid and the downside of ignoring it is real. Everything else here is context for a decision you don't actually control.
You'll hear specific, dramatic-sounding improvement figures from conference material. They describe one single shop, one single feature, one single week. They aren't a planning basis, and a feature that never repeats leaves you with a spike on a chart and no actual trend.
What follows practically: treat being featured as an outcome of doing genuinely good work, put forward through a documented process with real, honest lead time. Treat it as a line you can actually forecast, and you will be wrong.
How to work with it
Put yourself forward on a schedule, not on impulse. Anything with a real date attached (a launch, a seasonal moment, a partnership) gets put forward at the right lead time for what it's asking for.
Use bulk submission carefully. A bulk batch submits itself immediately and can't be drafted first. Draft things individually when the actual wording genuinely matters.
Write for a reader who's never heard of your shop. Your description gets read by someone choosing between many, many shops.
Say what's genuinely new. The centre's own guidance for games is explicit about wanting real novelty.
Never build a plan that depends on actually being featured. See above.
What tends to go wrong
Putting yourself forward the same week you launch. Below even the stated minimum.
Assuming one regional editorial team reads every language equally. Reportedly, it's whichever team covers where your shop is officially registered.
A vague, thin description. The centre asks for genuine detail and a clear sense of purpose.
Bulk-submitting without double-checking first. No drafts, no edits afterward.
Claiming an "editor's pick" badge yourself. A named, explicit violation.
Building a forecast around being featured. It's not something you actually control.