Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Rejects Radio App Update Due to "Excessive" Data Transfer
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They probably have a bug
They most likely introduced a bug in this version that consumes excessive bandwidth.
They most likely introduced a bug in this version that consumes excessive bandwidth.
Sorry, I'd like to squash this one. That's not the case.
Says you! Like I'd trust the developer of the application over Apple.
Kidding! Must be extremely frustrating
This is why there is no FLASH support
AT&T won't allow Flash for the same reason. Bandwith. Unfortunately Apple has to bow to their master (AT$T) and pretend like Flash isn't good enough (even though Adobe is ready to launch iphone Flash if Apple gives them the OK)
Who the %$#% is AT$T to tell us how much bandwith to use on UNLIMTED plans?
AT&T won't allow Flash for the same reason. Bandwith. Unfortunately Apple has to bow to their master (AT$T) and pretend like Flash isn't good enough (even though Adobe is ready to launch iphone Flash if Apple gives them the OK)
Who the %$#% is AT$T to tell us how much bandwith to use on UNLIMTED plans?
Maybe their Terms and Conditions. Remember that contract that you signed when you got your phone.
http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-phone-service/legal/plan-terms.jsp#data
Am I the only one who's actually giving Apple the benefit of the doubt on this one? The fact that the previous version is still up indicates to me that despite the developers claims there's something going on in the code that makes it tax the network more than the previous version and once they fix it it'll be accepted - just like 1.2 was.
Or we can all go back to Apple-bashing and wearing aluminum foil hats...
Or we can all go back to Apple-bashing and wearing aluminum foil hats...
Sorry, I'd like to squash this one. That's not the case.
That's actually impossible to know. The only way you can legitimately claim that is if you have the results from the test that Apple ran when deciding to accept/decline it which show the data transfer rate being exactly the same as the previous version - which, since 1.2 is still out there, doesn't seem to be the case.
No, you're quite mistaken. It's actually very simple to know: I've not added code to pull data any differently since the first version, I just added different ways to parse it to handle new streams and none of that was in this version of the application. That's pretty definitive proof.
Anyway, I'm not here to argue -- thanks for the support either way. We just want 1.3 up so the requested features and reported issues can be fixed.No, you're quite mistaken. It's actually very simple to know: I've not added code to pull data any differently since the first version, I just added different ways to parse it to handle new streams and none of that was in this version of the application. That's pretty definitive proof.
I realize that - however, you need the results from Apple. I'm quite sure in your testing it does exactly the same thing but, apparently, it doesn't for Apple. Now, it would be nice if Apple could tell you what their testing revealed but without that data it's nothing more than conjecture.
Am I the only one who's actually giving Apple the benefit of the doubt on this one? The fact that the previous version is still up indicates to me that despite the developers claims there's something going on in the code that makes it tax the network more than the previous version and once they fix it it'll be accepted - just like 1.2 was.
Or we can all go back to Apple-bashing and wearing aluminum foil hats...
That is what I am thinking.... But I think you will find that most people here would rather bash Apple... Because we all know a developer could never ever make a mistake.
That is what I am thinking.... But I think you will find that most people here would rather bash Apple... Because we all know a developer could never ever make a mistake.
(Most) developers are a whole lot more open about things than Apple, I'll say that much.
All this yap about bandwidth and yet Orb is STILL for sale on the app store and STILL does live TV over 3G and EDGE. Perhaps it's excessive bandwidth unless the application uses some codec of Apple's (i.e. NOT mp3) and then it's suddenly cool. Or perhaps excessive bandwidth was the final reason and there are other reasons, such as bugs or something. It doesn't make sense that I can stream good looking live TV all day from an app store program while a "radio" app that, by default, uses less bandwidth would be flagged. A good phrase from the old cold war days is "All sides lie equally" and I get the feeling this is a perfect example of that phrase in action. There simply has to be more to this than I've seen here so far.
To amend the above, it could also be that Apple has simply decided that there are enough of these kinds of apps. Or perhaps some big money company is writing one and Apple wants to plow the road for them. Or perhaps Apple suddenly decided to roll this functionality into one of it's own apps. Again. I'm totally convinced that, within a year (if even that long), the only people that will still be writing apps for the iPhone will be companies with enough money to slap Apple upside the head when Apple makes one of it's half-assed proclamations. By then, with piracy undoubtedly running rampant, it should be a dead platform. Which is exactly why I looked at it for two weeks and went back to Windows Mobile development. Don't waste my time, Apple.
To amend the above, it could also be that Apple has simply decided that there are enough of these kinds of apps. Or perhaps some big money company is writing one and Apple wants to plow the road for them. Or perhaps Apple suddenly decided to roll this functionality into one of it's own apps. Again. I'm totally convinced that, within a year (if even that long), the only people that will still be writing apps for the iPhone will be companies with enough money to slap Apple upside the head when Apple makes one of it's half-assed proclamations. By then, with piracy undoubtedly running rampant, it should be a dead platform. Which is exactly why I looked at it for two weeks and went back to Windows Mobile development. Don't waste my time, Apple.
Well, considering that the iPhone is the #1 selling consumer phone last quarter, that doesn't look like marginalizing to me!
All of the secrecy around the app store is just stupid, though. Apple should have clearly defined rules and stick to them. There should never be any question of why something was or wasn't approved. The people who really suffer are the consumers and that's not in Apple's best interest.
People have to stop buying the iPhone and people would have to "spread the word" about Apple. That's the only way Apple will change their attitude. Hit them where it hurts, in their income statement.
Looks like AOL Radio is paying Apple kick-backs!
I've heard rumors that once AOL Radio catches on more, they are eventually going to add advertisements onto the App.
I've heard rumors that once AOL Radio catches on more, they are eventually going to add advertisements onto the App.
Moving target
It's not just that the tests, criteria, and internal guidelines for reviewing, and eventually approving or rejecting an application are shrouded in mystery. The secrecy is compounded by the fact that those tests, criteria, and guidelines are continually changing over time. So the same application that was perfectly OK a month ago may fail the review today, and Apple won't tell you how or why, except citing vague reasons like the bandwidth issue that bit Castcatcher.
It's not just that the tests, criteria, and internal guidelines for reviewing, and eventually approving or rejecting an application are shrouded in mystery. The secrecy is compounded by the fact that those tests, criteria, and guidelines are continually changing over time. So the same application that was perfectly OK a month ago may fail the review today, and Apple won't tell you how or why, except citing vague reasons like the bandwidth issue that bit Castcatcher.