The App Rejections site should help app developers better understand why certain apps were rejected, thereby avoiding those mistakes themselves. The site is set up as a simple blog and is therefore easy to read and follow.

Adam Martin, the site’s author, occasionally infuses his insights into the posts, providing some of his personal opinions and theories regarding Apple’s review process.

ReadWriteWeb reports that the blog’s purpose is to explain exactly why particular applications have been rejected. Posts examine information regarding API’s (Application Programming Interface) used or rules broken for example. The site is also useful because it reviews apps that had been previously rejected but later make it into Apple’s App Store. These posts are entitled “approved” or “overturned” (overturned refers when an app went through some sort of appeal process brought by its developer).

As the site catches on, perhaps Apple will, too, make it easier for developers to understand their review process. In the meantime, this site is a great utility for other developers to gain some insight that they would not ordinarily be able to obtain.

If a developer wishes to have his or her experience with Apple documented on App Rejections, Martin can be contacted through his company’s Twitter account, redglassesapps.

• None Found

One of these developers is Joe Hewitt, who worked for Firefox and its acclaimed developer plug-in Firebug. He was so agitated with Apple’s policies that he handed off the Facebook iPhone app to another engineer at the company. Ars technica believed that his decision could have been due to an issue with his Three20 framework rather than issues with the Facebook app. However, he later reported to ars technica that it was because of another experience which he was not at liberty to disclose.

The Three20 framework initially derived from work he did to create the Facebook app and it was named for iPhone’s 320-pixel-wide screen. The open source framework is used by several iPhone developers, which gives them drop-in support for several user interface enhancements in their own iPhone apps. Then Apple stepped in by rejecting apps that relied on the framework and used a private API (Application Programming Interface) call, which goes directly against the controversial iPhone Development Agreement. Although Hewitt should have been aware of this issue, it is likely the reason he decided to break away from iPhone development.

Other developers have proposed different reasons for discontinuing their development with Apple. Second Gear developer Justin Williams cited to the way the App Store is being managed and the risks involved for most developers. The recent rejection of Google Voice for iPhone is one example of what Williams was referring to. Fed up, when Williams attempted to transfer his apps to another developer that purchased them, the Apple Developer Connection prohibited this action, making the transfer much more difficult and costly to its users (who had to re-purchase the app), further illuminating his frustrations with Apple.

Apple leaves a sour taste in developers’ mouths for multiple reasons. Developer Rogue Amoeba, maker of many audio apps for Apple, ran into a development problem that derived from an intellectual property issue. Rogue had a minor bug they needed fix in its Airfoil Speakers ToCall app, the update’s purpose was solely to improve the way audio was received and did not change any functionality.

Regardless, Apple rejected its update multiple times. The reason was both predictable and simultaneously illogical: The app uses Apple-approved images and icons. The original app had already been approved and was in the App Store, it used the same mechanism, and Apple had provided developers public API for accessing these very images. And yet, Apple rejected the use claiming that it was an inappropriate use of “Apple-owned Graphic Symbols.” Like Hewitt and Williams, Rogue Amoeba got so aggravated by its experience that it is no longer developing for the iPhone either.

Developers are starting to question whether they should invest so much time and effort into iPhone development only to have their apps or ideas rejected. These frustrations that Apple has caused could be good news for Google’s Android. But it is unknown whether developers will give Android a try next.

The good news for Apple: in the app world there are plenty of other developers waiting for a chance to catch lightning in a bottle.

• None Found

The messages include traditional voice messages as well as Google Voice’s innovative new feature, transcribed voice messages.  What was most worrisome for Google was the inadvertent invasion of privacy, in which callers’ phone numbers and names are listed.

However, i4u.com reported that there was a possibility that the files were nothing more than promotional or test recordings done by Google.  If that were true, it still begs the question: why would these  recordings be hidden unless of course they weren’t promotional or test recordings at all?

The Boy Genius Report has reportedly received information that could clear up any confusion Google had created:

“UPDATE: It seems as if these voicemails have been publicly posted/shared online and Google indexes them. Here’s official word:

‘Since the initial idea behind posting a voicemail, was precisely to share it with others, we did not restrict crawling of those messages that users post on the web, but we can certainly understand that users would want to make them public on their sites but not necessarily searchable directly outside of their own website. We made a change to prevent those to be crawled so only the site owner can decide to index them.’”

Techcrunch.com claims that as a result, Google has decided to change its policy and no longer indexes the voice messages.

• None Found

As of now, iPhone users cannot take advantage of one of Google’s latest innovations, Google Voice. It takes advantage of the company’s online computing and extensive network. Customers can consolidate their home, office and cellphone numbers into one Google number. The account provides free calls in the United States, plus voice mail in audio and text formats.

Apple did not like what it saw and in July blocked Google Voice software from its iPhone app store.   The FCC took notice and began probing the dispute, as  Mark Milian of the Los Angeles Times reports:

“Apple has said it has reservations about the application’s interface and is still considering it for approval. AT&T said it was not involved in that decision.”

AT&T did not stay neutral for very long. The company complained to the FCC that Google was selectively blocking some calls on its U.S. voice service . AT&T claims that Google Voice refuses to connect calls to rural communities where local telephone companies charge more for a connection. The FCC is looking into these allegations as well.

Joelle Tessler of the Huffington Post chronicles the tiff, writing:

“Google Voice ‘has claimed for itself a significant advantage over providers offering competing services,’ AT&T said in a letter to the FCC last month. Those concerns were echoed in a letter sent to the FCC this week by 20 members of Congress who represent rural districts.”

AT&T’s complaint dovetails with an FCC vote Oct. 22 on a network neutrality proposal; it  would prohibit owners of broadband networks from setting selective speeds for traffic, writes Tessler.

“That proposal has pitted Google and other Internet companies that support net neutrality against the big phone and cable companies, including AT&T, that want to be free of restrictions on what they can do with their networks.”

Will the FCC sort out the differences or will the three companies head to court? The future of AT&T and Apple’s relationship with Google shows no signs of improving.  The market, not a judge, may decide the issue, though. If the Google Voice app is forever blocked on the iPhone, other carriers and phone makers could take advantage of Google’s game-changing application.

• None Found