Looks like our friend Phil over at WMExperts was right all along, Engadget has the scoop, and it’s pretty much what we expected. AT&T thinks their 3G network is just too fragile to handle the iPhone running SlingPlayer:

“Slingbox, which would use large amounts of wireless network capacity, could create congestion and potentially prevent other customers from using the network. The application does not run on our 3G wireless network. Applications like this, which redirect a TV signal to a personal computer, are specifically prohibited under our terms of service. We consider smartphones like the iPhone to be personal computers in that they have the same hardware and software attributes as PCs.

Check out the Engagdet link above for the full statement, which includes the hollow flattery of their considering the iPhone less a smartphone and more a computer…

What about Windows Mobile running SlingPlayer, you may ask? Why is that okay? They think it might be too difficult to police hundreds of individuals side-loading the application, whereas the App Store — controlled totally by Apple — is only a one phone call ban away.

However, the iPhone is also an unprecedented consumer success with millions of users on AT&T, using never-before-seen levels of mobile data, and proven track record for taking down AT&T’s — again fragile — network.

Fear is seldom rationale. We’re guessing AT&T is banning first, asking questions later. It’s much easier to take the heat for preventing it now, then allowing it, seeing Sling adoption rise, network traffic suffer, and taking even more heat for removing it later (or — gasp! — having to build out their network reliability faster).

What’s your take?

This is a story by the iPhone Blog. This feed is sponsored by The iPhone Blog Store.

Official: AT&T Prevented SlingMedia Player from Running on 3G

We already told you about the UK banning Apple’s “just the internet” ad, and why they were wrong. Well, the BBC is reporting yet another Apple iPhone 3G television ad has just been yanked off the UK airwaves by the British government’s advertising standards watchdog group. Why? For exaggerating the iPhone 3G’s speed.

The advert boasted the new 3G model was “really fast” and showed it loading internet pages in under a second. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) upheld complaints by 17 people who said the TV advert had misled them as to its speed.

Seriously? I would love to meet the 17 people who complained that the speed of the iPhone 3G did not match the above commercial. [Ed- ladies and gentlemen, Paul Thurrott!] I understand that the phone is nowhere near being that fast but do they not realize that is a 30 second advertisement displaying the top features of the iPhone 3G. Maybe I am crazy but I like to think I have the common sense to know the difference between a 30 advertisement and reality.

Well if you are like me, you’d want to get some insight from at least one of the 17 people who complained, then let me introduce you to a man named Roger Browning. It seems he did not have anything better to do with his time but to get “revenge” for having his own iPhone 3G stolen. Yes, you heard me correctly, “revenge”. Be sure to check out the link to read his story.

Sound off in the comments, we are curious to see what our readers have to say about this!

[Via BBC News]

This is a story by the iPhone Blog. This feed is sponsored by The iPhone Blog Store.

UK Government Pulls Another iPhone 3G Ad

Null River sends word that Apple has officially responded to them (at long last) and the response is sadly what we expected:

Looks like Apple has decided they will not be allowing any tethering applications in the AppStore. As such, NetShare will not be available in the iTunes AppStore. We are seeing a lot of similar reports from various developers who’s applications were abruptly removed and banned from the AppStore without any violations of the terms of service. This is all unfortunate news for the iPhone platform end-users.

Of course, this also bodes ill for PdaNet and any other folks looking to create tethering apps. Just ain’t gonna happen, folks.

The App Store cancellation / banning / NDA / mystery is starting to approach critical mass. Dave Winer nails the real issue here: there’s no way to app developers to find out whether or not they’re going to even be allowed to sell their app via the App Store until after they’ve put all the work into creating it. Developers are all sitting “Before the Law,” hoping the gatekeeper will suddenly become reasonable and rational. For tethering apps, at least, that hope is in vain. We’re still holding out hope for Podcaster and, well, for a lot of others.

(Netshare and Winer links via Daring Fireball)

This is a story by the iPhone Blog. This feed is sponsored by The iPhone Blog Store.

Netshare Officially Banned from the App Store

People are remarkable. We can spend time figuring out precisely what we’re not allowed to do. Spend even more time doing it. Then spend triple that complaining when we suffer the foreseeable and reasonable consequences of our informed and deliberate actions. Heck, Dr. Phil has amassed a money-bin throwing us up on TV for just such spectacle.

Witness all the PR flackery and blog blustering (present posting included!) going on about the strategic geniuses who decided to go ahead and make an iPhone App Store-optimized engine for navigating and displaying specially formatted comic books.

Was their debut feature a family friendly installment of the Tremendous Super-Spider? Nope. It was “Murderdrome” and it was rejected. Find out why after the jump!

The App Store’s policy — which is part of the License Agreement the writers/developers agreed to when they got the iPhone SDK — expressly states: “Applications must not contain any obscene, pornographic, offensive or defamatory content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images, photographs, etc.), or other content or materials that in Apple’s reasonable judgement may be found objectionable by iPhone or iPod touch users.”

Is this a good policy, as Lying in the Gutters rightly points out:

“…you need to have a credit card to download content. And, say, viewers are able to download the “300″ movie.”

Maybe, maybe not. TV and Movies are mature mediums with a parental guidance system that is well understood in the market and long inoculated against the most extremist of faux-puritanical propaganda (wardrobe malfunctions not withstanding). App Store is a brand new platform delivery model, likely in the sights of every hyper-litigious, uber-manipulative fringe group, and Apple is undoubtedly playing is safe as a result.

Will “Murderdrome” ever make it onto the App Store? Probably some day, maybe even soon-ish. LITG, however, points out that it might be better to get the comic reader App up separately, and then establish downloads for content, like eBooks.

Er… Could it be that was the plan all along? Let’s face it: a killer comic reader (and admittedly, this one looks sweet), would definitely be in high demand, especially if Marvel or DC ever decided to explore the mobile internet delivery model for their content. A nice little well-manufactured controversy could bring a lot of attention to an App that wants to own that space, now couldn’t it?

As an artist, I’d like to believe in vision without compromise, pushing boundaries, and finding new outlets for creative expression. As a blogger, however, I’ve grown just a little more jaded, especially when press releases seem so ready to fly…

What do you think?

This is a story by the iPhone Blog. This feed is sponsored by The iPhone Blog Store.

“Murderdrome” Comic Banned From App Store. Duh…

Casey already told us about how an iPhone ad was banned in the UK for “misleading consumers” about providing “just the internet”, and based on how many ZOMG! No Flash Vidz! comments we get, I’m going to go out on a limb and say most people probably share the belief that MobileSafari – ( Flash + Java) != the internet.

Fine.

But allow me to retort. As a long time web (and Flash) developer, however, I’m calling shenanigans on that, and on the UK Advertising Standards Authority. Flash and Java are factually and empirically NOT part of the open, standards based Internet (i.e. HTML, CSS, Javascript/AJAX). Flash and Java, along with things like SilverLight, Real, ActiveX, and a host of other proprietary add-ons are plugins, extensions, and otherwise additions to the Internet — with all the benefits and drawbacks that go along with that.

Like what? Read on after the break!

Okay, so Flash, Java, et. al. allow for some neat multi-media effects and interactivity (though HTML 5 and CSS are catching up), and some measure of portability (though never as much as they claim), but they bring in additional security and cross-platform problems as well.

The web is supposed to be a structured container (CSS) through which content flows (HTML), which is why MobileSafari can subtly reformat font sizes, line wraps, and other elements to suit the smaller screen and multi-touch interface. As an open standard, Apple can also integrate their own containers and attributes to, for example, define the screen size for rendering.

Flash? Kinda sorta sometimes if the developer puts the effort in. Being proprietary (even “open” proprietary), however, Apple can’t exactly make changes to the source to, you know, make a version that’s not as bloated and greedy as Adobe has long allowed the Mac OS X version of Flash to remain. To prove that point, Apple has significantly developed the plugin they do own, Quicktime, creating Quicktime X to better fit their mobile vision of the future.

All this to say that there are several very good reasons why the iPhone doesn’t support Flash, Java, and the other plugins. They may be reasons that can eventually be overcome with newer/better technology, or reasons some people may even disagree with, but for the UK to randomly pick those two plugins as being “the internet” just because they happen to be ubiquitous (compared the aforementioned Silverlight, for example) is as capricious as it is wrong headed.

Apple, as they themselves rightly point out, is delivering the full standards-based Internet to the iPhone. Any site coded to conform to those standards will work just fine on the iPhone. Any site deviating, or depending on plugin extensions won’t (as anyone whose ever tried to get a secure installation to “just add this Java widget” or “just download this ActiveX control” to enable some web conferencing or like utility will all too readily tell you).

Bottom-line, the UK is showing ignorance of the real web. Sure, I wants my vidz as much as the next Viddler, but I understand the issues behind these technologies, which is something the Advertising Standards Authority might want to do before banning commercials, right?

This is a story by the iPhone Blog. This feed is sponsored by The iPhone Blog Store.

Why the UK was Wrong to Ban the iPhone “Just the Internet” Ad!

The Advertising Standards Authority, which we at TiPb are going to (foolishly) assume is the executive power of advertisements across the pond, has deemed an iPhone Advertisement as misleading in the UK. The sticking point? When Apple said:

“…all the parts of the internet are on the iPhone.”

We think to please the guvnuhs on the other side, Apple will probably throw in one of them fine prints across the bottom of the page that specifies on what technology you ‘really’ do get. Does anyone know if Apple makes the same claim on the US commercials? Methinks yes.

Thanks Lee Richards!

Read

This is a story by the iPhone Blog. This feed is sponsored by The iPhone Blog Store.

iPhone UK Advertisement Banned For Misleading Consumers