Apple Approves Rhapsody App, Palm Rejects NaNPlayer

Rhapsody [free - iTunes Link (opens in new tab)] is now available in the iTunes App Store. It was less than a month ago that we told you about the submission of RealNetwork's Rhapsody iPhone app, well Apple may have been scared straight by the FCC because it's been approved and is now available as a free download.

Now don't don't forget there is a $15/month subscription fee you must dish out if you want all of that music streaming goodness over AT&T's data network or Wi-Fi. Sorry folks, no off-line access like Spotify here.

In a strange twist of fate, tells us Palm has rejected their first App Catalog app, NaNPlayer, a (superior according to PC) replacement for the built-in Pre music player. Why did they do this? The developer used an undocumented API and that violates the SDK agreement. Sound familiar, TiPb readers. Will Palm now get the same grief Apple does?

Sound off in the comments!

IM Staff

Your source for all things Apple

  • No using undocumented API is a good excuse to reject apps
    nothing like apple
  • I don't think anyone will make a huge deal about it. Apple is expected to be perfect and have everything. While people want the pre to be perfect also. I think they'd care less about that app since it would admit to apple users that palm fe'd something to the point that someone else has to fix it.
  • Will grooveshark get approved, now?
  • This is a great app. I've been waiting for this since I got my iPhone last year and dropped my Rhapsody subscription when it looked like there would be no app. Now I have the music I want when I want it -- I assume this model works well for Rhapsody and can't figure out why Apple hasn't offered a similar subscription plan for iTunes.
  • The rhapsody app has poor sound quallity, worse than pandora or slacker (which are suprisingly good). This is useless to me
  • I signed up for the free trial. The app works well. The sound quality at 64 kbs is horrible. I listened to the same song via rhapsody, simplify and the version I have on my iPhone. Rhapsody was by far the worst of the 3. I wouldn't say it's unlistenable, but it is a major noticable difference.
  • Rejecting an app because it uses undocumented API is a legitimate reason to do so. Using undocumented API can make the app unstable and has a high potential to break with OS/firmware upgrades. It can also adversely effect an operating system itself. It is also made clear and is a reasonable expectations that that you should not use undocumented API.
    Apple also does this (sometimes) but they rarely actually catch undocumented API problems (see Googles app and others).
    More often their rejections are based on the reviewers own interpretation of a rule, ambiguous documentation of rules or simply a lack of context and applying a rule that does not even apply at all.
    If Apple were ever to reject an app based on the fact that it used undocumented API I would have no complaints. Even if it were our own app.
    This is not the same thing that Apple has been receiving bad press for with regards to reviews. This type of rejection is totally reasonable and good for the user and I'm sure the developer agrees. If they don't, they are just looking for publicity.
    The developer should comply, resubmit and get their app out there.
  • PC has posted a crucial update, please update this post. Clear differentiation form the App Store. I'm no longer frustrated.
  • Apple App Rejection != Palm App Rejection
    1) Palm told the Palm App developer that the App would not be approved for the App catalog at this time, because it use undocumented APIs that Palm is specifically working on significantly modifying in an upcoming release to the OS.
    2) Palm told the Palm App developer that the App was not being rejected, but rather would be considered once the undocumented APIs that it uses have been finalized and documented over the next several months.
    3) Palm told the Palm App developer that they are happy for the App to continue as a homebrew App (as it has been for some time now) in the vibrant homebrew App community they support, until such time as they can release support for the APIs that the App uses.
    I would give anything if Apple could, within a day of rejecting an App, give such details about why it was rejected, and making certain that the developer and the users know that they are happy for folks to keep loading the App onto their phones via a non-official method, and that they will reconsider the App as soon as they release an update to the APIs in the next several months.
    You can read a post from Palm Developer Community Manager
    Chuq Von Rospach at the link below:
    -Oh, and what I wouldn't give for Apple to have an iPhone Developer Community Manager that was working with developers to get their Apps approved, and explaining why they are not approved, and to let everyone know that they are perfectly happy for users to circumvent the official App store to load Apps onto their iPhones that cannot be approved at this time.