I went through the same process with FarFinder’s iPhone client. (For those who don’t know, FarFinder lets you access the files on your Mac from your iPhone or a web browser, and presents a Finder-like view.)

FarFinder gives you a choice of Macs to connect to and, similar to Airfoil ST, displayed an image of the appropriate Mac model using much the same mechanism.

Note the past tense. To get through the review process, I had to remove not only the delivery of Mac images, but also Apple-authored file icons: application icons, standard folder icons, etc, even though these weren’t contained in the application but delivered over the network. Consequently the overall quality of the user experience is reduced on the iPhone. Oh good.

I made the network-delivery argument (VLC) and the favoritism argument (other apps do the same thing) but met the same mindless stonewalling.

Needless to say I now won’t touch the damned platform with a barge-pole for core business activities. (FarFinder’s iPhone app is only part of the product, and I’m not ready to give it up.)

However, I’m somehow doubting they were granted explicit usage of the iPhone image within their app as shown here http://img684.yfrog.com/i/7vu.jpg/.

Approved today, November 17th.

I think there is a big possibility this app will even be featured by Apple in one of their exclusive lists.

I suggest that the person is a VERY low man (woman) on the org-chart. That this person barely knows anything about icons inside Cocoa, or iPhone, or the man in the moon.

I suggest that the person looked at the icons and said, “Oh, wow, I better check with the lawyers to see if this is allowed.”

And the lawyers said, “Oh no, we can’t have outside developers using our icons in their art. That could diminish our copyright on the look and feel of our software.”

And the app was declined.

Now, as has been very well explained in this bog post, there is NOTHING here that infringes on Apple’s art.

But a LAWYER has decided that it would be easier to decline the app than it would be to find out the background.

From what I understand, most of the problems of the app store are like this.

Very low-level people (if they were higher-ups they would not be working on approving iPhone apps) scared to do anything except say no.

Perhaps that will be the new Apple marketing campaign. Instead of “Think Different” it will be “Just Say No.”

My guess is that one of two things happened: 1) Some other developer or developers submitted an app after Airfoil Speakers Touch 1.0 was already approved that abused Apple’s trademarks, and a decision maker at Apple decided that the only way to manage the issue was to enforce a stricter policy on all new submissions; 2) A personnel change caused a new manager or perhaps lawyer to get involved, and they decided that a change was necessary in order to avoid the possibility of (1).

I don’t mean to defend Apple here. Their policy, or their ability to explain their policy, or both, have clearly failed. I salute RA’s decision to vote with their feet — that sort of move by a developer of their renown is just the sort of thing that could help bring some reform.

There are certainly many people inside Apple that understand their position is factually untenable but they are countered by others with the Apple ” must not be crossed” mentality. It is a stand off inside Apple as the common “..still under review..” comments is stand bureaucratic speak for when the system is caught in an infinite “do-loop” waiting for an adult to hit the ESC key.

In any case this makes Apple look a bit foolish if not childish by many developers and casual company observers.