Initially we received a rejection letter from the App Store review team, saying that the app used bandwidth that was demanding on the cell network that was excessive “in Apple’s reasonable judgment.” With a 128kbps mp3 stream, I found this curious as I have used several streaming radio apps that connect to 128kbps streams, including the excellent WFMU app, but also the much higher profile AOL Radio app.

Some google searching revealed this helpful article on StackOverflow wherein the writer related being told verbally by App Store personnel that one megabyte per minute was the maximum allowed. I did some quick math on the calculator and it seemed that my app should be receiving 960KB/minute, so I should be good.  But following the StackOverflow poster’s advice related from Apple staff, I shut off all other notifications and used the Settings app>General>Usage  to reset the statistics and then track the app for 5 minutes. For some reason the app came in as receiving 5.4MB over 5 minutes, which means I was around 10% over the limit.

I am not sure if other 128kbps streams have this issue, or there’s mysterious overhead lurking in mine, but I had planned to knock down the quality to 96k anyway as 128k over 3G still has too many dropouts.

I wrote Apple an email back explaining that it was not an app issue but a stream issue, and I could easily knock the stream down a notch. Which I did, and I got an email saying the status of the app had been changed to “Pending” again. A couple days later, a very congenial Apple developer relations person called me and confirmed the rumor that the limit was indeed 1MB per minute. I said that I had already compressed the stream further and she said they’d rerun the metrics.

It was all very well handled, and to my satisfaction… but the question remains, if the limit for data transfer is a hard number (1MB/min) then why isn’t that written in the developer agreement? Why do they only communicate the details of the rules verbally after the fact? As with the no satire rule, it would would be nice to know what the specifics are in advance.

Backporch Revolution is an artist-run collective and netlabel based in New Orleans that specializes in releasing experimental electronic works by local musicians. The website is backporchrevolution.com

Regular readers will remember that Juggleware’s own app Freedom Time was actually the test case of this unwritten and up-til-then unknown policy, which had not been explicitly defined beyond the word “defamatory” briefly appearing.  For a timeline of other apps (there are at least 16 now) that have been banned for this silly charge, see this blog:

Apple’s Policy on Satire: 16 Apps Rejected for “Ridiculing Public Figures” [Cloud Four]

If there was an app rejected before September 2008 for political satire, we’d like to hear about it; please post in the comments below.

The interesting thing about the Mark Fiore case is that Apple has apparently reconsidered their rejection, and asked Fiore to resubmit his app. That’s great news, but does it really mean Apple is finally reconsidering their rather draconian policy? Or are they just trying to avoid the bad publicity that’s likely to escalate when the content is associated with the winner of a Pulitzer? I guess we’ll have to wait till the next rejection (or approval) to find out.

John Gruber of Daring Fireball makes the point that what’s most frustrating to developers is the grey area of ill-defined rules. Developers trying to navigate App Store policy plays out like trying to divine the will of a god, who is without a doubt omnipotent, but  rarely seems omniscient, and appears to mortals as vindictive and capricious at times. Or perhaps a closer amalgam could be a Kafka-esque bureaucracy, layers of obscure rules unseen by citizens, wheels moving cruelly behind the scenes towards some irreversible and arbitrary concept justice so thickly wrapped in red tape as to be impenetrable?

But back to the heart of it, what’s really so awful about demeaning public figures? Most of them need a swift kick in the ass. If it’s done in a way that’s not illegal or obscene,  that threatens violence or makes a patently untrue claim, then why the censorship? One possible answer might be that that’s it’s just wide cover for one public figure who is sacrosanct in the Apple canon, in which case I would like to suggest the following amendment to the satire rule:  No application may include images, text, or sound that demeans Steven P. Jobs.

At least that way we could still satirize everything else under the sun, and the rule would kind of be a parody of itself.

Thanks Jason, I am glad that someone gets the real issue, and I won’t even take issue with “simple, stupid”:

Can you imagine political discourse of any significance that doesn’t include demeaning or attacking political figures? Like it or not, that’s part of the exchange of ideas that form a democracy.

This policy essentially bans any editorial cartoons—cartoons that have been part of America’s history since its inception….

Freedom of speech is easy to defend when the speech is popular, but the real test comes when you have to defend unpopular speech or things that you don’t agree with.

In Fall 2008, George Bush had the worst approval ratings since Nixon. At a time in which we had one of the most unpopular Presidents in American history, Apple didn’t have the courage to approve a simple, stupid application like Freedom Time.

What is the likelihood that Apple would approve a truly controversial and unpopular application during a time when popular opinion makes it difficult to stand up for what’s right?

Dear Steve,
 

A quick note to let you know what kinds of apps are being rejected for the App Store.
 

This app is not defamatory, harmful or speaking untruth. It is lighthearted and humorous. Does it imply critique? Of course it does, but not without crossing any lines of decency or the boundaries agreement. 
 

For a quick screen shot:

http://www.juggleware.com/iphone/freedomtime/       

Sincerely,

Alec Vance

juggleware llc

Mr. Jobs replied :

Even though my personal political leanings are democratic, I think this app will be offensive to roughly half our customers.  What’s the point?

Steve

I’m not sure if he’s asking what’s the point of the app (not much—just poking fun and a time-killer), or what’s the point of letting me risk alienating a portion of his customer base (which is what I think he’s asking, rhetorically).

My friend John Barousse (the guy who convinced me to write Mr. Jobs) makes the point that the market should decide. And why not? No one thinks this is an Apple app, it’s clearly from an independent developer. Why would Apple lose business because of this app? As John says, “It’s not Apple’s application; they’re the store.”