...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.