It appears that Apple is up to its old tricks again and exercising some quality control over the applications available through its App Store.

Hot on the heels of it banning applications it considers to be inappropriate, Apple is now pulling apps with Wi-Fi stumbling features, according to numerous reports.

Apps such as Wifi-Where, yFy, and Sekai Camera work by showing the user where all the nearest hotspots are to him or her, using both online directories and dynamic real-time tracking of local Wi-Fi hotspots.

Three Jacks Software, the company behind Wifi-Where, released a statement on its site sharing the email Apple sent by way of explanation.

Apparently Cupertino told the firm its app had been removed from the App Store because "there are no published APIs that provide the ability to manipulate the wireless connection or the show level of information regarding the wireless connection as demonstrated in the application".

So it seems the message to developers is loud and clear: don't use private APIs in your products or Apple will probably get around to removing them.

As Apple has stated its position on apps which use these so-called private APIs before, the news will be less controversial than Cupertino's last attempts to ban certain apps from its online marketplace.

At the end of February, Apple decided it would clamp down on "overtly sexual apps" after complaints from some parents and female customers. Some argued at the time that the rules were too restrictive and seem to have been only sporadically enforced, for example the FHM and Playboy apps were apparently overlooked.

In typically confusing style Apple has announced the launch dates for its iPad. Well, it had for the US. And only then for the Wi-Fi version. For the Wi-Fi + 3G version the dates remain unknown. But it's the end of April, so that's something.

Oh, but you can pre-order the device. Well, you can pre-order both versions online, but you can only pre-order the Wi-Fi version to pick up in store, as that's the only one with a release date. So you can pre-order the Wi-Fi + 3G version but you don't know when you might have it delivered. Simple.

Not in the US? Don't worry, it's simpler still. Both versions will be available in late April, not exactly sure when, but at some point. But then again, that doesn't mean both will ship at the same time, just that both will be available by then. So the Wi-Fi only version may well be out before the Wi-Fi + 3G model as it's slated for a late March availability on the Apple UK web site.

And surely, the one with 3G is the one you want right?

Apple chief Steve Jobs said, "We're excited for customers to get their hands on this magical and revolutionary product." Well, here's a revolutionary idea, why not make it a lot more magical by just being a lot more straightforward about when the damn thing will be launched, alright Jobsworth?

A recent analyst report contends that Apple may limit or even delay the release of the highly-anticipated iPad.

According to Canaccord Adams analyst Peter Mizek, delays at one of the manufacturing plants Apple uses to produce iPad parts is slowing down production of the device. So much so that Mizek thinks Apple may put off the launch until April and even then just limit the iPad to stores in the United States.

Even when the iPad is released, Mizek predicts that only 300,000 will initially be available while the manufacturers iron out the "bottleneck" in the production process.

Keep in mind that that is only an analyst report, however. Reports can be and often are either partially or completely wrong. Even if the speculation is spot on, the company could deal with other manufacturers, or iron out the issue causing the slowdown, or find out some other way to lessen the damage and still deliver the iPad on time worldwide.

Still, coming in the wake of accusations of employee mistreatment at these same manufacturing facilities, the report is obviously not going to come as a welcome bit of information for Apple.

...to the App store, that is.

In the aftermath of the mass-removal of thousands of racy and somewhat-racy iPhone and iPod Touch applications from the App Store, there's word that the company might allow the naughty bits back on to the store under an 'explicit' label.

Several reports have suggested that developers who upload their products for approval are being given the option to list their software as 'explicit', though later reports claim that the option has since been removed. Perhaps a slip from Apple on future plans for the store?

No word on how such a feature would be used, or how it could integrate into the App Store, but it could be used to create a special 'adult' section for the App Store. Given the huge market for such content that the web has brought about, I'm guessing that more than a few developers would be very happy with such a decision.

There are, however, concerns that Apple should have. Adult content is one of the most popular ways to spread malware. It seems that people are willing to install just about anything on their phones and computers when there's the promise of dirty pictures and movies. By keeping overtly sexual content out, Apple may be doing iPhone security a huge favour.

There's also the question of decorum. As we all know, Apple as a company is a big bunch of control freaks. It carefully manages the image of both the company and its products, and it's quite likely it doesn't want a bunch of crude content on its online software service.

They say sex sells. Not so much at the App Store, however.

Apple has begun a crackdown on overtly sexual applications. According to multiple media and developer reports, the list ranges from flat out smut to bikini girls and the number of banned apps is said to reach into the thousands.

Given the percentage of web sites devoted to... ahem... "mature" content, I'm guessing that Apple has given up on the "whole internet" iPhone campaign. I'm guessing that more than a few developers will be upset by this, but in the end I'm not sure how much of an issue it will be.

Apple has made it clear that it doesn't want to cater in cheap, low-brow content on the App Store. Premium content gets all the face time and the company does whatever it can to put the spotlight on well-made games and utilities rather than gimmick apps and girlie pictures.

Which leaves an interesting question: will Android be willing to step into the..err.. void? Obviously adult content is a big seller on the web, and while nobody wants to be known as the "porn phone" vendor, sooner or later won't someone step up and try to cash in on the market?

The chief executive of Blackberry maker Research in Motion has made comments which some are taking as a thinly-veiled jab at the iPhone.

In an interview with Reuters, CEO Mike Lazaridis said in effect that third party developers were destroying the wireless broadband market: "Manufacturers had better start building more efficient applications and more efficient services. If we don't start conserving bandwidth, in the next few years we are going to run into a capacity crunch."

Given the prominent role that the iPhone and App Store have played in smartphone growth as of late, and given a recent Consumer Reports posting that pegs the iPhone as a data hog, it's not hard to see why some are suggesting that the move was a shot at the iPhone.

But what exactly should application developers do? After all, the Apps are only there because the users want a feature that the handset maker didnt want or have the time to implement? To some extent, developers can put certain measures in place to conserve bandwidth, but ultimately it's the carrier's responsibility to make sure its network can handle the device before they contract to carry it.

And what can the carriers do to manage bandwith issues?

Aside from the obvious solutions (developing and releasing LTE/WiMax networks) how about increasing WiFi usage? One of the hotspots of 3G congestion, San Francisco, recently had to kill off funding for a city-wide WiFi network that would have no doubt taken much of the traffic strain off of the 3G network in the city. If AT&T were to help with similar programs, or strike a free access deal similar to the one T-Mobile has in the US with Starbucks, they could help ease much of the big-city 3G congestion without having to tick off customers and developers by limiting access or charging extra for network usage.

Less than one week after its unveiling and three weeks before its retail debut, the iPad is already generating buzz about its hardware, and lack thereof.

The story all began when Apple first started to ship iPad replacement items to various ceritified repair shops. With a big release on the horizon, Apple obviously wants to make sure that technicians are equipped to handle any early models that may possibly break down or suffer damage.

One of those shops to receive the various spare components was Kansas-based Mission Repair, which noticed something curious in the frame. It seems that the top part of the iPad's frame is perfectly equipped for the exact same camera that is built-in to the MacBook and MacBook Pro models.

This has touched off a new set of rumours and speculations about a camera shipping as an option in either the current iPad model or a future revision version. Since Steve Jobs made no mention of a camera during his carefully-prepared unveiling last weekend, I'm inclined to believe the latter.

So why would a camera have been scrapped? There are a number of reasons, the first being price. Given everything already included in the iPad, Apple's profit margins have to be pretty thin. Though not super expensive, the camera hardware may have been part of the compromise to get the tablet down to $499.

The second being battery life. Every time you add bells and whistles, you add a drain on the battery. For a tablet system designed to be portable, this is a big deal. Not only is there the drain from the camera itself, but you also have the processing power stepped up to crunch all the imaging. If Flash was left out because of its drain on batteries, the same fate befalling video would not surprise me much.

Finally, you have the relative usefulness of a camera. At some point Apple must have weighed the number of people that would really make use of a built-in camera and decided that it was not enough to trump the first two concerns.

Perhaps, as Mission Repair suggests, we could see the camera come back in the iPad 2.0, when power management and battery life improve.

Well, that was certainly an interesting day. Apple delivered everything we expected and a bit more.

Steve Jobs formally unveiled the new iPad, and while most of the specs were already known, there were some surprises and plenty of things worth discussing.

First off, the "iPad" name itself. Not to get too into titles, but in this case I think it merits a brief discussion. Apple is increasingly viewing its hardware as falling in two categories: "Mac" computer and "i" electronics. That Apple made this the iPad and not MacPad could really indicate that Apple is not seeing this as challenging computers, meaning it is and will be more of a tablet than a netbook. Those who were looking for any sort of serious photo/video editing or higher-end gaming features probably didn't want to hear that.

Big thumbs up to Apple for the development and inclusion at launch of the dock. As much as Jobs and others like to talk up the keyboard, it's pretty clear that a touchscreen keypad is simply not going to cut it for most any task beyond Tweeting. For students this is huge. The textbook store component of iBooks is a tough sell on its own, but when you have a word processor and keyboard/stand combination, you have something that could be a huge hit in campuses around the world.

One question, however, is how the iPad will connect to printers. The iPhoneOS was never designed with the need for printing. I'm sure Apple has already addressed this, but it will be interesting to see how it works.

The vast range of devices being offered was a change of pace for Apple, and could indicate just how much Apple wants the iPad to succeed. Even the Mac models come with three or four options with a fairly short range of prices between each. iPad ranges from $499 to $825 and ranges from a Wi-Fi-only 16GB device for students and home users to the 3G-equipped 64GB system for road warriors. Apple obviously wants the iPad line to succeed in a big way, and it looks like it has higher hopes for the iPad than the iPhone or iPod. A lofty goal indeed.

Finally there's the question of 3G. Currently in the states the iPhone is tied in with AT&T, and with today's announcement that partnership will continue, unless the rumours or new carriers floated earlier this week are not only true, but also applicable to iPad. Will the company also go for exclusive deals in Europe? And if so, will anti-trust authorities go after Apple for it?

Steve Jobs and his company answered a great number of questions today, but a great many remain in the 60-day run up to the iPad's release. Those hoping for an end to the years-long Apple tablet hype will have to suffer for at least another few months.

Amazon has to be more than a little worried by this. iPad makes the Kindle look completely antiquated. E-ink displays are said to cause less eye-strain than LCD screens, but that's not much of a selling point against the laundry list of advantages iPad has. If it's going to compete in this market, Amazon needs a massive overhaul and fast. Perhaps even the adoption of a new platform. Which leads us to our final point...

The wild-card in all of this: Android. At this year's CES there were several devices demonstrated, but only sparingly and as little more than prototypes. With this news, Google and its hardware partners are on the clock. If they can not only show but give release dates on rival devices to the iPad, the Android community can take some of the wind out of Apple's sales.

Out here in the States one of the biggest gripes about the iPhone has nothing to do with the phone itself, but rather with its exclusive carrier, AT&T. Complaints ranging from sluggish and spotty 3G speeds and dropped connections are common with any carrier, and in different parts of a state or even a city, reception can vary greatly from one network to another.

If a recent analyst report is anything to go on, however, we could see that issue resolved for a great many people. Apple's biggest and oldest carrier deal may be set to expire and the company could be preparing to expand to other networks.

Oppenheimer analyst Tim Horan recently suggested that the deal with AT&T will expire in May, and that Apple may spend the following months rolling out deals with T-Mobile, Verizon and Sprint.

Should those carriers agree to Apple's current subsidisation rates, such a move could send iPhone sales and Apple's profits through the roof. That doesn't seem as likely with multiple deals, however, as the companies would not want to pay those sorts of costs without getting an exclusive contract.

Instead, if true, the news could mean that Apple is willing to take a cut in profit margins and make up for it by selling more iPhones. Given the popularity that the iPhone has had with even one carrier, that may not be such a far-fetched idea.

It might not be long before you fire up your iPhone's copy of Safari, tap the search window and run yourself a search on... Bing?

If a recent report from BusinessWeek is correct, Apple and Microsoft are in talks on a new partnership which would replace the iPhone's current Google search bar with a Bing search in Safari.

While it's possible that this is the result of Apple being impressed by Bing (and if such a deal goes down I'm sure that will be Apple's standard explanation) it's just as likely that Apple is in fact pretty miffed with Google. It's hard to imagine a company being disliked enough by Apple to make Microsoft a favorable alternative. Perhaps Steve Jobs was a lot more upset about Eric Schmidt and the rest of the company's actions with Android than we were led to believe.

On another note, if Apple does in fact turn its back on Google and go to Bing, will the faithful follow suit? For so many years Microsoft was seen as the enemy, and the upstart Google was viewed by Mac users as a close ally. How long would it take for longtime Mac users to come around to the company's new stance?