Thats only going to make Google's Android do better in my opinion. Apple should only stop apps that are harmful or malware, period.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Rejects Radio App Update Due to "Excessive" Data Transfer
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Thats only going to make Google's Android do better in my opinion. Apple should only stop apps that are harmful or malware, period.
No such thing as bad publicity ... that's why.
If you write an app and it gets rejected, you immediately get your name mentioned, along with all the details of whatever app you wrote, in all the major media outlets and most Mac related blogs.
Almost makes it worth writing something you KNOW Apple will reject....
If you write an app and it gets rejected, you immediately get your name mentioned, along with all the details of whatever app you wrote, in all the major media outlets and most Mac related blogs.
Almost makes it worth writing something you KNOW Apple will reject....
True, I don't think AT&T even care, because their "unlimited" data plan is limited. So, excessive bandwidth would just make you reach your limit faster. But, a limit is a limit.
Goodbye iPhone, Hello Android!
I agree. All this rejection non-sense is more and more convincing me to forget about the iPhone and get a G1 Android phone. Anyways, I can't stand AT&T and their "Unlimited Data Plan" not being unlimited at all. Isn't what they are doing illegal, pure false advertisement??? People and companies who rely on fine print to get deceive the public should be banned.
And I'm very disappointed at Apple, and their way to handle the iPhone, and limiting iPhone applications to the AppStore only.
The Android phone gives the user the freedom to choose. I'm not 100% convinced about the G1 either, but it seems by the way things are going that the iPhone is not for me.
To all developers, if you fear your applications may be rejected, maybe it's time to consider developing for Android! At least you won't be rejected! And you are not forced to sell through an "AppStore". You can just sell directly from your site.
I agree. All this rejection non-sense is more and more convincing me to forget about the iPhone and get a G1 Android phone. Anyways, I can't stand AT&T and their "Unlimited Data Plan" not being unlimited at all. Isn't what they are doing illegal, pure false advertisement??? People and companies who rely on fine print to get deceive the public should be banned.
And I'm very disappointed at Apple, and their way to handle the iPhone, and limiting iPhone applications to the AppStore only.
The Android phone gives the user the freedom to choose. I'm not 100% convinced about the G1 either, but it seems by the way things are going that the iPhone is not for me.
To all developers, if you fear your applications may be rejected, maybe it's time to consider developing for Android! At least you won't be rejected! And you are not forced to sell through an "AppStore". You can just sell directly from your site.
In all fairness for AT&T, they shouldn't necessarily have to put up with truly "unlimited" bandwidth because their 3G network infrastructure "can't withstand (usage) of that magnitude!" 
But I agree, no-one should be allowed to offer a supposedly "unlimited" data plan and set a soft cap on it of any sort. It should be an explicit, clearly visible data cap plain and simple from the start, or not at all. Comcast had that problem not too long ago where their cable broadband service had a data limit in place but was not explicitly stated anywhere in any of its marketing or service material nor anywhere on its website. They were forced to change that. AT&T et al. should be forced to change that as well.
But I agree, no-one should be allowed to offer a supposedly "unlimited" data plan and set a soft cap on it of any sort. It should be an explicit, clearly visible data cap plain and simple from the start, or not at all. Comcast had that problem not too long ago where their cable broadband service had a data limit in place but was not explicitly stated anywhere in any of its marketing or service material nor anywhere on its website. They were forced to change that. AT&T et al. should be forced to change that as well.
iPhone developer Return7 posts that Apple has rejected a version update to their CastCatcher radio app. The reason for rejection is cited to be "excessive" bandwidth consumption over cellular networks:The developers note that the application doesn't use any more bandwidth than other competing iPhone radio apps. Apple has also accepted earlier versions of the application to the App Store.
CastCatcher version 1.2 remains available in the App Store: iTunes Link.
Article Link: Apple Rejects Radio App Update Due to "Excessive" Data Transfer
Say WHA?! Apple accepted versions prior to 1.3, but 1.3 isn't allowed, yet 1.2 remains ON THE STORE?!?!??!?!??!
That's just.... plain.... strange....
Oh, and whats "Excessive data" mean? Is 1GB too much per month, or 10GB, or even 100GB? I wish Apple were more specific....
Wait a second..... I thought that rejection letters were now under NDA?! Sio this thread shouldn't even exist.... Let alone the developer reporting this....
I am
, 
, I tell you!Why are these forums full of such whiney fools.
Believe it or not, bandwidth limits are in YOUR best interest. Just because AT&T can handle all their customers at the current usage, doesn't mean others around the world can. Optus, here in Australia, is PATHETIC. It takes about 25 seconds and several retries to load GOOGLE.
Of course there will be replies like "ALLOW IT IN THE US THEN!!!111". Yep, then people in other countries will complain about Apple being another company that only cares about their US customers
Now, I'm not trying to say Australia's dodgy carrier is reason for an app to be denied, but it shows that allowing bandwidth isn't as easy as flicking a switch. If AT&T allows too many high bandwidth apps, you'll all start bitching about crappy service. High quality streaming radio is really not that necessary, and in a time of 3G infancy, it's stupid to expect it.
Also, ALL unlimited services have "Fair Use" policies. There's nothing divine about your circumstances, so quit your bitching.
****
To all you apparent Android lovers, good riddance. Google has opened their doors, and really, you're looking at a Blackberry with a touchscreen and 1/3 the iPhone's battery life. It's a start, but Apple isn't going to be sweating any time soon.
Believe it or not, bandwidth limits are in YOUR best interest. Just because AT&T can handle all their customers at the current usage, doesn't mean others around the world can. Optus, here in Australia, is PATHETIC. It takes about 25 seconds and several retries to load GOOGLE.
Of course there will be replies like "ALLOW IT IN THE US THEN!!!111". Yep, then people in other countries will complain about Apple being another company that only cares about their US customers
Now, I'm not trying to say Australia's dodgy carrier is reason for an app to be denied, but it shows that allowing bandwidth isn't as easy as flicking a switch. If AT&T allows too many high bandwidth apps, you'll all start bitching about crappy service. High quality streaming radio is really not that necessary, and in a time of 3G infancy, it's stupid to expect it.
Also, ALL unlimited services have "Fair Use" policies. There's nothing divine about your circumstances, so quit your bitching.
****
To all you apparent Android lovers, good riddance. Google has opened their doors, and really, you're looking at a Blackberry with a touchscreen and 1/3 the iPhone's battery life. It's a start, but Apple isn't going to be sweating any time soon.
I'm lost. Why come out with a 3G phone if it can't be used for streaming audio. The main selling point of 3G is streaming video, which uses up far more bandwidth.
Castcatcher isn't alone
There are actually several more Internet radio applications that have been rejected by Apple over the last month or so, for the same reason that they "unduly burden network capacity or bandwidth". Some of these radios stream at a trifling 64 kbps, the absolute bare minimum bitrate for acceptable audio quality using the MP3 codec. The app developers used the available communication channels in an attempt to figure out what Apple would consider "reasonable" bandwidth usage over the cellular network, but Apple flatly refused to tell. This attitude is already having a chilling effect, making some developers wary to invest any more resources into the iPhone.
There are actually several more Internet radio applications that have been rejected by Apple over the last month or so, for the same reason that they "unduly burden network capacity or bandwidth". Some of these radios stream at a trifling 64 kbps, the absolute bare minimum bitrate for acceptable audio quality using the MP3 codec. The app developers used the available communication channels in an attempt to figure out what Apple would consider "reasonable" bandwidth usage over the cellular network, but Apple flatly refused to tell. This attitude is already having a chilling effect, making some developers wary to invest any more resources into the iPhone.
I don't know, these "rejections" are turning into more fantasy than fact. I'll believe this is the reason when I see it. Not that I champion AT&T and Apple, a couple of fat corporations who look out for no one but themselves, but everyone getting all up in arms and THEN finding out the real story has gotten pretty old. Besides, there was an update to Orb released last night via the app store that allows it to send video, including live tv, over 3G and EDGE. I find it hard to believe a "radio" application would use more bandwidth than good looking live tv. So is Apple holding Orb out to say "No, bandwidth isn't the issue" or is there more to this story than I've seen here? I'll take the latter given that it's happened before and there's no such this a straight answer on this site.
just a little hint
For everyone in this topic who is whining about how they ONLY get 2 or 5 gb per month for TWENTY dollars, you do not know how lucky you are. Here in Australia, I get 150mb per month, for $50. Put that to perspective, and then decide just how bad you have it
(sorry if the topic has been moved away from this, i only read the first page before i decided to post this)
For everyone in this topic who is whining about how they ONLY get 2 or 5 gb per month for TWENTY dollars, you do not know how lucky you are. Here in Australia, I get 150mb per month, for $50. Put that to perspective, and then decide just how bad you have it
(sorry if the topic has been moved away from this, i only read the first page before i decided to post this)
Pretty sure the main selling point of 3G is browsing the internet at speeds that don't make you want to gouge your eyes out
In order to keep that promise, bandwidth guzzlers will suffer.I can't say I know anyone that watches YouTube videos continuously on the thing, and if these people do exist, they're a minority. But for some reason people are fascinated with this mobile radio idea, and with too many people interested, it's sure to cause problems.
I'm pretty sure this device was sold as Phone/iPod. I don't believe Apple is under any obligation to provide all these funky services that were never intended. Want an open market? Go to google. Oh wait, that'll be chaotic in no time.
Edit: In fact, go back to the dark ages and buy radio headphones
This is ridiculous. We have our service providers capping our monthly download amounts and now Apple, in essence, capping our bandwidth use by denying access to certain apps?? WTF
This is very strange considering Nov 8th, Orblive just released an update that now allows everyone to stream live TV and video on 3g or Edge...
So Video is ok but radio is not? Interesting policy AT&T has there.
BTW you can also stream internet TV and Radio vis Orb, so if this is something you wish to do, Orblive is available, at least for now.
So Video is ok but radio is not? Interesting policy AT&T has there.
BTW you can also stream internet TV and Radio vis Orb, so if this is something you wish to do, Orblive is available, at least for now.
Why are these forums full of such whiney fools.
Believe it or not, bandwidth limits are in YOUR best interest. Just because AT&T can handle all their customers at the current usage, doesn't mean others around the world can. Optus, here in Australia, is PATHETIC. It takes about 25 seconds and several retries to load GOOGLE.
Of course there will be replies like "ALLOW IT IN THE US THEN!!!111". Yep, then people in other countries will complain about Apple being another company that only cares about their US customers
Now, I'm not trying to say Australia's dodgy carrier is reason for an app to be denied, but it shows that allowing bandwidth isn't as easy as flicking a switch. If AT&T allows too many high bandwidth apps, you'll all start bitching about crappy service. High quality streaming radio is really not that necessary, and in a time of 3G infancy, it's stupid to expect it.
Also, ALL unlimited services have "Fair Use" policies. There's nothing divine about your circumstances, so quit your bitching.
****
To all you apparent Android lovers, good riddance. Google has opened their doors, and really, you're looking at a Blackberry with a touchscreen and 1/3 the iPhone's battery life. It's a start, but Apple isn't going to be sweating any time soon.
I don't think you even read this thread. The point is apple needs to come to terms with what applications it will allow and disallow, they are starting to become pretty ridiculous with their actions and people won't be wasting time developing when apple seems to be randomly denying certain applications. I hope android does better so apple can get a kick in the rear. Their superiority complex is going to kill them.
Apple will get what's coming to it soon enough. Oh, they'll care, but by then it will be far too late. Personally, I'm looking forward to the day they fire that has-been hippy and get some real leadership capable of original thought and ideas of his or her own.
Perfect, I'm getting close to submitting an app store version of ooTunes and this kind of news makes me wish I'd just stuck with my old jailbreak version. What a joke!
Good point. I wonder if people streaming radio all day is eating into itunes music store sales? I mean, if you can hear the latest hits in your car or wherever, streamed 24x7 from any source in the world, then why buy tracks from iTunes?
I am curious as to what they mean by excessive also. Could it be the 'way' it uses it..
IE the buffer size before the item starts playing, the amount of data that must first be pulled down before it will play.
If the other programs along with the previous version of this one use less bandwidth to get the content to your phone then I don't see a problem. But something tells me there may have been some code writing that is not limiting the amount of buffering or it is making it to big of a buffer.... just an idea.
Hopes this make sense.
It may not be so much as hey there are other competing apps but maybe there is something in this app that apple saw when they tested it that the developer didn't see or test for.
IE the buffer size before the item starts playing, the amount of data that must first be pulled down before it will play.
If the other programs along with the previous version of this one use less bandwidth to get the content to your phone then I don't see a problem. But something tells me there may have been some code writing that is not limiting the amount of buffering or it is making it to big of a buffer.... just an idea.
Hopes this make sense.
It may not be so much as hey there are other competing apps but maybe there is something in this app that apple saw when they tested it that the developer didn't see or test for.
Then exclude such apps for the US Store only, and let users from other countries enjoy the App where the provider may not care.
