After reaching out to the Sun, Lorraine Goode with Sun Online tells WebProNews, "Please note the page 3 women will be wearing a bikini. There isn’t any nudity."

As reports have shown, there has in fact been nudity, so I take this to mean that this will cease.

Apple has been heavily criticized for having a puritanical double standard. Reports indicated that Apple had eliminated apps containing women in bikinis and even workout clothes in the past. It had even axed an app for a beachwear retailer that sells bikinis, though it later reinstated it. Meanwhile, apps from publications like Playboy and FHM, as well as the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue were allowed to remain. The Sun, apparently belongs alongside these publications.

Granted, there is much more content to The Sun, than this questionable section. People for the most part don’t appear to be upset that such an app is allowed in the App Store, but that Apple seems to have a double standard when it comes to this type of content.

Original Article: Apple has dominated tech headlines this week, as the company has created quite an uproar by unexpectedly removing over 5,000 apps from its App Store. The apps removed have been deemed "too sexy", but much of said uproar has been more about Apple’s definition of sexy, and its double standard. Apps containing women in bikinis and even workout clothes have been eliminated while apps from Playboy, FHM Magazine, and the Sports Illustrated Swim Suit Issue have remained available, and even promoted on Apple’s App Store home page.

Do you agree with Apple’s decision to pull some "sexy" apps, while leaving others? Tell us what you think.

After much of the ruckus had been raised, Apple SVP of Worldwide Product Marketing Phil Schiller talked to the New York Times, saying, "It came to the point where we were getting customer complaints from women who found the content getting too degrading and objectionable, as well as parents who were upset with what their kids were able to see." He also indicated that the difference with the Playboy, Sports Illustrated apps, etc. were that they were from well-known companies that were already available in "well-accepted" formats.

Obviously, the developers of such apps that have been pulled are not happy. It’s not hard to understand their beef, as many of them have likely put a significant amount of time and money into creating and maintaining their apps, only to have them yanked without warning (other than the emails they got from Apple as they were being pulled). Apple’s reasoning for allowing the well-knowns only adds fuel to their fire.

Apple reviews apps on a case-by-case basis. "Whenever we receive customer complaints about objectionable content we review them," Apple has said. "If we find these apps contain inappropriate material we remove them and request the developer make any necessary changes in order to be distributed by Apple."

Some have raised the question: why is Apple suddenly going "puritanical" (one of the apps was removed because of a cartoon character in a bikini)? They have blocked apps in the past, but just to yank so many that have already been accepted into the store seems like a sudden change in attitude. Is it coincidence that the company is readying the release of its much-publicized iPad device, which will run apps from the app store?

Many think these two things are strongly connected, and some even consider Apple’s choice to pull "sexy" apps to be a "smart business decision." For example, PC World’s Jeff Bertolucci writes:

As for the iPad, it’s clear that Apple will position its new tablet not only as a consumer device for the home, but also as an educational tool. Software developers are already designing interactive textbooks for the iPad, according to reports. Again, Apple must squash the impression that the App Store is a haven for smut to increase the odds of classroom sales. A few negative news stories about wobbly-boob apps could very well spur many school districts to think twice about adding the iPad as a study tool.

Bottom line: The porn purge is a smart business move on Apple’s part, even if it appears prudish to outsiders.

Beyond the classroom, Apple may be worried families will be less likely to purchase the iPad as well. The company’s comments regarding complaints from parents seems to suggest this very notion.

Not all complaints have come from concerned parents though. Even some developers have complained about apps such as those which have been removed. "Developers have been making similar complaints to Apple, but their concerns are also related to the volume of sexually-themed apps, which can represent as many as a third of the apps in certain iTunes App Store categories," says InformationWeek’s Thomas Claburn. "The spam-scale proliferation of these apps ends up making other apps less discoverable."

Others have pointed out, however, that there is plenty of R-rated content available through iTunes in the form of both movies and music, and Apple is keeping that stuff around, although that likely goes back to the same point Apple made about "well-known" and "accepted" sources. Many have also pointed out that users can always go to the web browser on their device and access all kinds of "nasty" stuff, but Apple doesn’t own the web, so unless Apple wants to start censoring the Internet, it is going to have a hard time keeping "sexiness" off its devices, even from lesser known sources. Apple can’t control that though, but it can control its own App store, and it is doing so.

Meanwhile, Google’s Android Market is growing significantly, and is currently in second place behind Apple’s App store in mobile application stores. Google has a significantly greater percentage of free apps as well, which could continue to fuel its growth. Perhaps another question is: can Apple afford to yank so many apps at a time when its competition is becoming greater than ever in the mobile space? Apple’s controlling "Puritanism" could come back to haunt it, despite its apparent motives. Evidently, that’s a chance the company is willing to take.

Do you think Apple is making the right decision by pulling all of these apps? Will Google benefit? Share your thoughts here.

According to AdMob, both the Apple App Store and the Android Market both show that the majority of application discovery comes through browsing and searching directly on the mobile device, rather than from computers. The top reason cited by users for paying for apps was that they liked the free version of the app.

"AdMob’s user data shows that free-to-paid upgrades are the leading factor in why users buy paid apps," an AdMob spokesperson tells WebProNews. "This has become a successful and popular way for developers to drive downloads of their paid content by first growing their user base on the free version of their apps."

Here are some highlights from AdMob’s report:

- Each month, Android and iPhone users download approximately 10 new apps, while iPod touch owners download an average of 18 per month

- Over half of Android and iPhone users spend more than 30 minutes per day using apps

- More than 90 percent of Android and iPhone OS users browse and search for apps directly on their mobile device

- Users who regularly download paid apps spend approximately $9 on an average of five paid downloads per month

- iPhone represented 60 percent of US smartphone usage in AdMob’s network in July 2009, followed by RIM and Android devices at 13 and 12 percent, respectively

If you wish to sign it, go here.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Apple is notoriously known for banning applications from the App Store for some pretty “iffy” reasons. Sometimes a ban is in order, but other times their decisions just seems ridiculous.

With Apple’s recent banning of all Google Vocie related apps for the iPhone, you can chalk this one up in the ridiculous column. But, why is Apple banning Google Voice apps? Only one reason comes to mind: Pressure from AT&T brought on by FEAR.

Who do you think was behind the Google Voice app ban: Apple or AT&T? Tell us what you think.

That’s right, AT&T is, and should be, afraid of Google Voice. Why you ask? With Google Voice, you can do a lot of the stuff free that AT&T charges for (e.g. calls in the US, SMS messaging).

Though Google Voice is still in beta testing, several apps were available for the iPhone. The developer of GV Mobile, Sean Kovacs, recently talked about his rejection from Apple’s App Store:

"Richard Chipman from Apple just called – he told me they’re removing GV Mobile from the App Store due to it duplicating features that the iPhone comes with (Dialer, SMS, etc). He didn’t actually specify which features, although I assume the whole app in general. He wouldn’t send a confirmation email either – too scared I would post it. I’ll see what I can do to get it back up there gang…"

Currently you can download the official Google Voice apps for both Android and Blackberry phones. But, don’t expect an official app from Google Voice for the iPhone, because Apple has already said "NO".

Apple and AT&T are playing a very dangerous game, one that could end badly for both parties.

Are Apple’s guidelines for app inclusion to strict? Tell us what you think.

Which do you prefer: Sirius XM or Pandora? Tell us.

What is the huge draw for Pandora versus Sirius XM for iPhone and iPod Touch radio fans? Unlike Sirius, Pandora is free for all (except a select few users).

Apple users tend to gravitate toward free content. Who can blame them… after paying for unlimited data, who wants to pay another subscription fee?

Sirius XM did give Pandora a "run for the money" with more than a million downloads in a short few weeks. It should be noted that the company hasn’t released any official numbers of new service agreements, which will ultimately tell if the Sirius XM app is a success.

With Pandora’s rapidly growing customer base (around 18 million), when do you expect the company to re-tool their monetization efforts? Do you think they’ll try charging a minimal fee for the service? Tell us what you think.

Sure, there will still be the "vinyl is better" argument for some, but for those in the mainstream that haven’t purchased vinyl since the late 80s, are they ready to give up CDs? They take up space, collect dust, and get scratched. Why do we need them?

Apple’s applications, which will kick off with an upcoming release from Snow Patrol in October, will not only provide content like what would be found in a CD booklet, but also interactive elements such as those found on enhanced CDs, according to Matt Hartley at theglobeandmail.com. So really, you’re getting all the benefits of a booklet, plus content that couldn’t be found in one.

That all sounds good, but questions revolve around age-old DRM-type issues. Is this going to be just an Apple thing? These applications from the Apple App Store are for use with iPhones and iPod Touches. What about other players?

"Kudos to Apple and Polydor [Snow Patrol's record label] for pushing the envelope," says Hypebot’s Bruce Houghton. "But if labels allow Steve Jobs to control content delivery vehicle then only iPhone and iTouch users will experience all that an artist is trying to convey.  New album cover applications must be multi-platform and open source or the music industry risks a repeat of Apple’s pre-mp3 stranglehold on music sales."

It will be interesting to see where this goes. Perhaps a new standard will evolve from this, and we will finally move on from CDs entirely. Though I’ll probably have my old ones until I’m dead and gone. I still have cassette tapes in the back of my closet somewhere.