Tap Tap Revenge 3 is apparently going gangbusters over on the App Store -- Tapulous has gotten in touch with us to let us know about two different free promotions they're doing lately, as well as give you readers a chance to win their entire catalog for free.

First up, the free stuff for everybody. Today, October 22, they're giving away the great song "Fireflies" by one of my favorite new music acts, Owl City. It just happens to also be the number one song in iTunes today as well, which is a pretty big deal for Tapulous -- it's the first time they've been able to pair up a TTR track release with a #1 on the download charts.

To get that free song, just sign in to the application and pick it up. Additionally, if you don't have the app yet, buying the app before this Friday can get you a free premium two-pack -- all you have to do for that is email your iTunes reciept (or a screenshot of it) to "freemusic AT tapulous DOT com" and put your TTR3 username (and only your username) in the email subject line.

And hey, if that's not enough free stuff, keep reading -- here at TUAW, we're giving away licenses to TTR3's entire premium catalog (the whole thing, from A Perfect Circle to Robbie Williams) to three lucky commenters.

Disgruntled TUAW commenters, I'll save you some time: "OMG Mike of course a game powered by EA and one of the most popular franchises of all time is a hit. Try reporting some real news!" But not so fast -- Rock Band, which hit the App Store top 10 and conquered the Top Grossing list just days after its release this week, is actually a more unlikely hit than you think. For one thing, it sold at a price of $9.99 only -- no free versions, no trials, no pricing sales or schemes that have become the rule rather than the exception on the App Store lately. And for another thing, it had a comparable competitor in Tap Tap Revenge 3, selling for just 99 cents. TTR3 is a hit as well -- it's topping the list of paid apps that Rock Band is on -- but many people figured consumers would pass on the $10 app for the 99 cent one, and many people were wrong.

In short, even though, yes, Rock Band has EA's power behind it and it's based on an already popular game, it actually has bucked what we've seen so far: prices racing to the bottom, and tough chances of making a hit game, much less a profitable one, at the $9.99 price point. We don't yet know whether the game is profitable (or how either Rock Band's or TTR3's microtransaction models will do in the future), as it's just too soon.

But Rock Band is already seen as a game that stands as a shining example of what many were thinking wasn't true: big publishers with big name titles can put out big games at (relatively -- $10 is still cheap when you're talking about Rock Band at large) high price points and see them sell.

It seems like only yesterday Apple was surprising us with its App Store rejection antics. You'll recall that just last Monday, Apple was seen flaunting its control over the App Store by rejecting a remote-control client for the BitTorrent desktop application "Transmission" called "Drivetrain." Of interesting note in that case is that there is a web version of this application that I have on my iPhone's home screen.

Today we received word of an application called Eucalyptus that provided access to free-for-all books from Project Gutenberg. John Gruber over at Daring Fireball writes,

"Eucalyptus has been rejected by Apple, for the absolutely outrageous reason that one of the books you can search for and download from Gutenberg is Kama Sutra of Vatsyayana. Not only can anyone load and read this exact same book on any iPhone using MobileSafari, but it's also available through other e-book readers already in the App Store."

In both the Drivetrain and Eucalyptus cases it seems that Apple is playing favorites in terms of who it will let violate its rules. The strange thing though, is that both of these applications' functionality can be accomplished from within MobileSafari. Clearly Apple wants MobileSafari to be your only access to any pornographic objectionable content.

Before you get out your pitchforks however, there's more. If you have an application that has been approved twice, then guess what, the third time's the charm for you because you can expect the rejection hammer to come a'knockin'. At least that's the case for Yaniv Solnik's application "IsraelParty." When Yaniv submitted his app to resolve some routine bug fixes apparently the App Store royal guards decided they didn't like his marketing description of the application. The phrase that was so offensive as to warrant a rejection of an already-existing app that had been approved twice before? Adult content ahead, "Blow your iPhone's microphone to whistle."

Perhaps someone at Apple is bothered by the fact that they are not able to whistle themselves or perhaps they simply do not like the idea of an application that celebrates Israel's independence day. In any event the rejection is simply ludicrous; it brings me back to the late 90s when the over-zealous language filters in chat rooms would filter the phrase "the wind blows."

The clause that Apple cites in these cases refers to Apple's "reasonable judgment" (full text here). However, in my opinion, they are taking on a more overbearing role than they should. Not to say that I disagree with a filter on the App Store, on the contrary, I think a well-defined filter is absolutely necessary.

Because of Apple's unwillingness to firmly define and enforce the rules, I believe Apple is opening itself up to a "bag of hurt" by being the police of App Store city. It will not be long before advocacy groups will want Apple to provide the same filtering for Apple's own applications. I do not believe Apple wants to be in the business of filtering the web or our email, but by filtering applications based on availability of "inappropriate" content they are quickly headed down that path.

Hat tip to Peachfuzzy and Yaniv for the scoop.

If it's Monday, there must be a few more stories of iPhone apps rejected for curious and spurious reasons. Today's contenders are up to the line... and away they go!

First, it's Maza's Drivetrain app, a remote control for the Transmission client for Bittorrent running on the user's computer. Rejected! In this case, the reason is that Bittorrent is sometimes used for the trading of third-party copyrighted material. Yeah, but... um... the iPhone app isn't a torrent client at all, it's just a UI for a client running elsewhere. How does that make any kind of sense? iLounge quotes the developer as saying the rejection is "ridiculous," and it's hard to disagree.

Second, if you've ever wanted to replace the face of Jesus with your own, well, you can't do it with an iPhone app. SAI reports that the developer of the previously-approved Animalyzer (which let you replace animal faces with your photos) has gotten a rejection notice for the Me So Holy app that extends the face-replacement to religious figures. Apple's justification for the rejection is the catch-all "objectionable content" clause 3.3.12 of the developer agreement, which states

"Applications must not contain any obscene, pornographic, offensive or defamatory content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images, photographs, etc.), or other content or materials that in Apple's reasonable judgement may be found objectionable by iPhone or iPod touch users."

Could one reasonably judge that some iPhone or iPod touch users might object to an app that lets users replace a divine visage with a mugshot or LOLcat? Sure, they might... but when an app that lets you aim virtual urine at a toilet sails through to the store without a hiccup, 'reasonable judgement' doesn't seem to be a valid operating standard any longer. There are hundreds (if not thousands) of 'offensive' apps in the store already -- but offending religious sensibilities is clearly different than grading feces.

[via Engadget & Techmeme]

Building a native app that aggregates and spruces up the content of a single news organ's website is all the rage, although it seems like overkill in some cases -- personally, I enjoy curating my own reading list with good old Instapaper, which also offers the advantage of clearing out most of the graphical cruft and leaving nothing but yummy text. Still, if you like having all the news that's fit to print in the palm of your hand (yes, the 2.0 version of the NY Times app is quite nice), there are two new choices of single-site apps (SSA) for your reading pleasure.

In the right corner, weighing in at four sections, it's the Wall Street Journal! Yes, the official newspaper of American business (whatever's left of it) has an iPhone app, and according to Silicon Alley Insider it's pretty good; the app lets you cache content for offline reading (similar to the NYT app), and offers audio and video content from the paper, along with stories and rich media from sister sites like Uncle Walt's hangout AllThingsD.

Most notably, using the iPhone version of the WSJ -- which is free -- you can read most or all the content from the daily paper... which, via the WSJ.com website, is not free (most full stories require a subscription). There's no way to know how long this workaround will be in place, but for now it's a great way to get access to the paper's stories.

And, in the opposite corner, weighing in at one home page and sporting a killer left hook, it's the Huffington Post! The HuffPo iPhone app has been in soft-launch mode for the past month and was just updated to version 1.1, quashing bugs and improving performance. It's not as polished as some of the other SSAs yet, but it gets the job done. The app is free.

If you have a preferred single-site app for news, let us know below.

In a QuickTime screencast, Adobe's Russell Brown demonstrates content-aware scaling, a feature of Photoshop CS4, due to be released this month.

A lower-resolution YouTube demo from Lynda.com is available here, if you don't want to download a huge QuickTime movie. The content is different, but you'll get the idea.

Adobe licensed an algorithm that senses "dead" areas in photos, and resizes the image to avoid squashing or stretching every object.

In the video, Brown demonstrates resizing an image of four golfers, interactively removing space between and around the golfers, but leaving the golfers' proportions correct. He also demonstrates resizing a Volkswagen bus, making it a more "economical" size, but automatically keeping the wheels round.

For those looking for a compelling reason to upgrade to Photoshop CS4, this might be it. If not, what is? Let us know by leaving a comment.

[Via Swissmiss and Michael Sippey.]

Danny Gorog at APC Magazine has written a really nice analysis of something that's rather strange when you think about it -- why aren't there any high definition DVD drives on Macs yet? It has been asked for by a few folks, but by and large, Apple has pretty much ignored the whole high definition debate. And even now, when we supposedly have a winner in Blu-ray, Apple hasn't pulled the trigger, and consumers, as Gorog notes, haven't even really cared much.

In fact, across the entire PC market there's not a lot of wholehearted support for Blu-ray or any major high definition formats. It's not that DVDs are "good enough" -- HDTVs are selling by the truckloads -- it's more that consumers, apparently, just don't want to settle on another format. And that may be the key to this whole thing -- Apple has a vested interest in selling content, and implementing some other content producer's format into their machines will take away from their best HD content channel yet: iTunes.

And customers, happy to not have to buy yet another permanent format of their favorite movies, may be satisfied with having no next-generation disc format. I, like many users, have already watched tons of HD video without ever having bought a Blu-ray disc. If Apple doesn't need the drives to deliver the same quality content, why should they bother?

Steve Jobs just announced at the "Let's Rock" event in San Francisco that not only was NBC content returning to the iTunes store, but that Apple would start selling HD content on the store, playable both through the new iTunes 8, as well as AppleTV. Shows like Battlestar Galactica and The Office will be available in HD to watch anywhere you'd like.

HD shows will cost $2.99 each, while SD television shows will keep their price of $1.99. Stay tuned to TUAW for more from the event, and you can see news up-to-date in our ongoing liveblog.

Users of iTunes U, the free educational content channel inside iTunes, will have a lot more elementary education material to choose from -- the states of Arizona, Florida, Maine, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Utah have all added some of their K-12 material to the mix, and a number of school districts and museums from those states have also contributed videos and audio recordings.

The content is being uploaded by the SETDA, or the State Educational Technology Directors Association, which has been working with educators in member states to make more use of educational technology. This is definitely a great idea -- not only does it make this material much more accessible to educators and students alike, but anyone on iTunes can view and check out these resources through Apple's program.

Plus, it's a great way to distribute student work to a much larger audience. You can find most of the new content under the "K-12" tab on the iTunes U homepage within iTunes.

[via Macworld]

Time is running out for Toshiba and friends; the high definition format wars are almost over now officially over. HD DVD hasn't found the footing it needed to earn the support of retailers and studios alike, and it seems that Sony's champion, Blu-Ray, is going to win the day.

So what does that mean for Apple users? Several years ago, Apple latched onto Blu-Ray as a format, but aside from an MCE Blu-Ray drive, we still haven't seen HD media used in any of Apple's products. There have been plenty of rumors (aren't there always?), but whether it's because they want to sell HD content in iTunes or for some other reason, a Blu-Ray drive to replace the SuperDrive hasn't happened yet.

Which leaves us wondering: now that we've seemingly got a winner, will Apple step up with the Blu gear? Of course, the MacBook Air doesn't even have a drive, and we're sure Apple would love to have content distributed only through iTunes and Apple TV. But surely consumers still have a need for physical media -- will Apple now take advantage of its early-advocacy position on Blu-Ray and update the hardware?

Wil Shipley (he of Delicious Monster) has a big piece up about Apple, the iPhone, and the iPod that's making the rounds of online Mac onlookers. He calls out Apple (as they've been called out before) for leaving the iPhone a closed platform, and he answers a lot of questions that were asked by Erica's article the other day.

Shipley says that Jobs made a number of mistakes, the first of which was combining forces with other companies, including the record companies and AT&T. In the early days of all this, Jobs was seen as a hero, convincing the record companies to change their minds, and bringing AT&T into the realm of a really great phone. But, Shipley says, Apple plus another company doesn't equal Apple anymore. As much as Apple seemed to have brought record companies around to its point of view, it turns out that the record companies have brought Apple over to their side as well.

Case in point: ringtones, in which Apple is asking us to pay three times for the same song just so we can play it when people call us. And then combine that with Jobs' harsh requirements for locking down the Apple aesthetic, and suddenly, instead of finding ourselves locked inside a closed system we like (iPod + iTunes), we're trapped inside a closed system that charges us for no reason (iPhone + ringTones).

How to fix things? Shipley says an SDK for iPods and iPhones, which is a big duh. Apple should have done that long ago, and developers have been saying so ever since. They've trusted developers to make beautiful programs for the Mac, and they should trust them on the iPhone as well. And he says Apple needs to open up-- either let their music out, or let others' in. Clearly, people prefer having control over their content rather than, say, what NBC is planning, so if Apple makes a serious effort to free their content (music, movies, and ringtones alike), they won't need the companies-- they'll have all the audience.

Thanks to everyone who sent this in!

Rumors have been bouncing around all weekend about Steve Jobs' next big project-- no, it's not the iPhone Nano, or the long awaited iTablet. According to Moli.com (yeah, we've never heard of them either), it's a record company. Supposedly Jay-Z and Beyonce are going to Apple to start a recording division. Just imagine HOVA in this picture wearing blue jeans with his black shirt tucked in.

Frankly, farfetched is too nice of a word to describe this rumor, but the idea of an iRecords isn't that new or ludicrous. Obviously, SJ's got issues with the folks standing between him and musicians, and putting musicians under his own wing would allow him to digitally distribute their music DRM-free, and collect all the profits for himself. There's blood in the water around the recording industry, and the time is ripe for someone to jump in and take over.

Of course, this is Apple, so there's more to the story than that-- their first battle would be convincing Apple Records to come to some kind of agreement. Then there's the actual music management function of it-- Apple's great at serving consumers, but would they be able to serve the function of a record company in terms of promotion and booking? Digital distribution is super (and it definitely cuts down on costs), but no one's buying your music if no one's heard of it.

Then again, SJ managed the content producers at Pixar just fine, and if he has a little help (the Moli report says Apple has hired a publicist from Capitol Records), things might just turn out OK after all. I doubt Jay-Z and Beyonce are really involved, but if His Steveness decides to form a record company, he might just put the last nail in the traditional recording industry's coffin.

Thanks, Pat!

Of all the products Apple has been rolling out in the past few years, the Apple TV is easily one of the most debated. While I haven't seen any specific figures from Apple on how well or poorly the device is selling, Apple's first foray into the living room seems to be getting off to at least a decent start. Jobs made another uncharacteristic move in revealing upcoming plans to support YouTube next month. But could the Apple TV be a dud? CNN Money's Brent Schlender sure thinks so. In fact, Mr. Schlender goes so far as to take a jab at the Apple TV's development: "Apple TV is so Zune-like, you'd think Jobs was so busy with the iPhone that he outsourced the Apple TV project to the folks up in Redmond." He then follows with a list of the largest complaints against the device, which includes:

• No DVD drive
• The perceived requirement of an HDTV (though we know that to be not-quite-true) even though you can't buy full HD content from the iTunes Store
• The fact that you can't shop the iTS right from the Apple TV despite its internet connection
• The annoying conundrum with only being able to use images from one computer's photo library, even though most people's pictures are probably the one batch of HD-ready media that isn't rights-managed in any way and completely sharable over a network and amongst friends or even strangers

Schlender is quick to point out, however, that the one other device everyone expected to be able to shop online via its wireless connection - Microsoft's Zune - can't do that either.