<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: REJECTED &#8230; and &#8230; ACCEPTED: Gravity Sling (use of setOrientation:)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://apprejections.com/index.php/post/132/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://apprejections.com/index.php/post/132</link>
	<description>Send app-rejection news to @redglassesapps on twitter</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2010 18:02:25 +0100</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Someone</title>
		<link>http://apprejections.com/index.php/post/132/comment-page-1#comment-3743</link>
		<dc:creator>Someone</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jun 2010 02:52:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://apprejections.com/?p=132#comment-3743</guid>
		<description>Why would Apple change it&#039;s (vague, inconsistent) policies?  It has no reason to when developers are stumbling all over it to develop an application for it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why would Apple change it&#8217;s (vague, inconsistent) policies?  It has no reason to when developers are stumbling all over it to develop an application for it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pixels 4 Charities</title>
		<link>http://apprejections.com/index.php/post/132/comment-page-1#comment-608</link>
		<dc:creator>Pixels 4 Charities</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 02:04:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://apprejections.com/?p=132#comment-608</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t have a confirmed case, but I really hope Apple redesigns the app approval process really soon.  It makes no sense that they will accept an update that includes private APIs but not a first time app.

We are still waiting for our free app to be approved.  It doesn&#039;t include any private APIs but the uncertainty of the app approval process is mind-boggling.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t have a confirmed case, but I really hope Apple redesigns the app approval process really soon.  It makes no sense that they will accept an update that includes private APIs but not a first time app.</p>
<p>We are still waiting for our free app to be approved.  It doesn&#8217;t include any private APIs but the uncertainty of the app approval process is mind-boggling.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
