Update: According to news.com.au, Apple has issued an official apology for letting this app onto the store.

Sometimes, you really have to question the App Store approval process.

Sure, this isn't the first time that Apple has made an unwise decision regarding the approval (or lack thereof) of applications to the App Store. But, this one takes the cake. For the span of a few hours on Wednesday, Apple allowed the release of "Baby Shaker," an app from Slkalosoft (ironically, the company no longer has the app listed on its site). The application displayed an image of a crying infant. You had to shake the iPhone or iPod touch repeatedly in order to get the child to stop crying -- literally shaking the baby to death. When the crying ceased and two red Xs appeared over the baby's eyes, you succeeded.

There's plenty of criticism over App Store standards. You can find a plethora of fart-simulating apps and other programs designed just to be a sheer nuisance, yet legitimate apps such as Tweetie get caught up in the pipeline because of potentially offensive language. "Baby Shaker" quickly hit a lot of news sites, and it didn't bode too well for an Apple doing its best to spotlight its second quarter earnings.

App Store approval is already something that is cumbersome and vague at best -- often leaving developers in limbo as to the status of their product. "Baby Shaker" certainly isn't the first dubious piece of software released into the App Store, but it is by far the worst. Even though Apple did yank "Baby Shaker" within a couple of hours, it does leave a nasty taste in people's mouths. It means that somewhere, somehow, there was a failure to communicate to employees that releasing an application promoting infanticide is a moronically stupid move. I do wonder how long "Baby Shaker" would have remained in the App Store if the media suddenly hadn't jumped on the story. What do you think this latest situation says about the App Store process? Let us know in the comments.

[Via CNet]

UPDATE: Apple has apologized for the app's release. [thanks to Paul for the tip]

Recently, TUAW has received numerous tips about near random iPhone boot loops that force users to restore their units. This forum thread suggests that these reboots may be due to the iPhone's onboard watchdog system.

The iPhone has to create a new Application Map whenever you load or unload apps to the system. Should the time to create that map exceed two minutes, the phone enters an endless boot cycle.

The solution proposed on the thread isn't of much general use -- it requires jailbroken shell access. You may want to limit the number and scope of Apps you load to your phone (i.e. cut down on those tip calculators and sudoku apps that we know you're secretly addicted to) to achieve the same, stable results.

Fewer apps mean a shorter time to generate that map and a better likelihood that your phone will work with greater reliability.

Thanks, Goran

Put yourselves in Nullriver's shoes for a minute: you create an app (NetShare - see TUAW passim), which as far as you can tell does not break any of the App Store rules. You submit it to Apple for inclusion. It passes the vetting procedure (so it must be OK, right?) and goes live online, for sale to real people.

Then it disappears, with no warning. No explanation is given. Then it returns. For a while. Again, no explanation. Then it goes offline again. (I've now lost count how many times NetShare has been online, then offline, rinse and repeat.)

And throughout all this, you get nothing from Apple. No explanation. No reason. No polite email asking you to wait. Not even an impolite email. Nothing.

MobileMe account holders trying to contact Apple's email outage chat support service have been promptly and brutally cut off if they're not on Apple's list of the "1%" of users affected -- and in one case, even if they are.

Some TUAW readers have been in touch to tell us that when they tried to get chat support for MobileMe email, they were quickly given this automated (or hastily pasted-in) response:

"I'm sorry, according to our records, you were not one of the members affected by the email outage that began on July 18th. MobileMe Mail 24-hour chat support is a temporary measure designed specifically for users whose accounts were affected by that outage. For help, please visit http://www.apple.com/support/mobileme/ww for access to all of our support resources. I apologize for any inconvenience."

But one of our correspondents was doubly displeased, because he insisted he had been one of the 1%. But here was Apple telling him he hadn't -- and not giving him any chance to argue the matter.

It's that "according to our records" bit that seems to be the problem. What if Apple's records are wrong?

Thanks to Bill and Dom for the tip.

Deafmac.org reports that AT&T has withdrawn its $27.99/month no-voice plan, stating the offer was generated in error. AT&T writes that although they offer many options for the deaf community, they will not offer an iPhone plan. After Deafmac originally posted about the deal, AT&T was apparently contacted by enough hearing customers that they reconsidered their offer

What this says to me is that there are people who love the EDGE connectivity the iPhone offers but who just don't need to use their iPhones as a voice device. Will Apple and AT&T step up to the plate and extend the philosophy of Universal Access to at least the hearing impaired community or is too much revenue on the line?

Thanks, Nick.

So claimeth Mike Elgan of Computerworld in his article on PC World: "It's Official: Apple is the New Microsoft." Well, I'm certainly glad that is settled! On to the iPhone news... Wait a moment, on what grounds does Mike base his comparison? I'll break down the points and test their coherence.

Mike's first assertion is a familiar one: the iPod + iTunes ecosystem is the worst kind of monopoly, where you must use iTunes with an iPod. He says, "Not fair, you might say. Any hardware device that syncs data with a PC as part of its core functionality has software to facilitate that syncing. True enough. But operating systems have browsers as part of core functionality, too. Doesn't Mac OS X come with Safari? Doesn't the iPhone?"

First of all, his argument is akin to saying ATI has a monopoly because you have to install drivers to make their video cards work. Secondly, his parallel to browsers is nonsensical. What does a browser, a completely different app unwed to any external hardware device, have to do with iTunes or an iPod? I'm not really smart enough to tell which logical fallacy this is, but I know BS when I smell it. Buy CD's, they don't come from the iTunes Store.

Moving on to his one-line critique of iTunes: "ITunes is the slowest, clunkiest, most nonintuitive application on my system. But I need it because I love my iPods." iTunes is clunky and unintuitive, huh? Ever try SonicStage? PC World even called IE 6 one of the worst products ever. Of course, MMC plug-ins are models of intuitive design. Let's move on, shall we?

So, I've been eagerly banking on running out to my local Apple Store and grabbing a new Intel-based 20" iMac today, because every time I have called one of the stores over the past week, there has been this recording that is still up: "For information and product availability regarding announcements at Macworld 2006 press 9." I press 9 and then it says: "Apple made several exciting announcements at this year's Macworld 2006. The all new Intel Core Duo based imac will be available to view and purchase in stores beginning January 17th."

Well, since it is the 17th, I just called the Westchester Apple Store and the Palisades Apple Store, and asked if they had the new iMacs in stock. The gentleman at the Westchester curtly said "No," and when I asked if there would be any shipments arriving later in the day, he again rather curtly, and perhaps even a bit rudely, said "No. No shipments today." This is completely different from what another sales representative from the same store told me yesterday. That person said, "We could get them in at any time, so check back regularly." Both of these statements are entirely different from what I was told last week.

In any case, I called the Palisades Apple Store next, and a very nice woman answered the phone and said "Let me check." Then said, "No, but we should be getting them soon." I then asked if soon meant later on today or later on this week. She then said, "Most likely later on this week. They want to make sure the warehouses are full before we get them."

What?!?! I wanted this thing today, and I'm none too pleased with the iMac not being around on the day they said it would be around. If I knew it wouldn't be available today, then I would have gone ahead and ordered it online. Grrr... Bad Apple.