For the first quarter of 2012, Apple has spent a mere $500,000 on lobbying efforts, which, as Politico points out, is pennies compared to what oft-targeted Google and Microsoft have spent during the same time: $7 million combined. And Apple, despite its current entanglement with the Department of Justice over its role in the e-books market, has actually spent less this year than last year.

This is just not how things are done in D.C. Here’s a sampling of what Washington insiders told Politico:

• “I never once had a meeting with anybody representing Apple,” said Jeff Miller, who served as a senior aide on the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Antitrust Subcommittee for eight years. “There have been other tech companies who chose not to engage in Washington, and for the most part that strategy did not benefit them.”
• “There’s a difference between being quiet and uncooperative,” said a congressional aide who has dealt with Apple. “Part of the problem being behind the scenes is they have no identity. They have no corporate identity in this town because nobody knows them.”
• “What’s happened in Washington more and more is that companies spend money dealing with the regulators even in the absence of pending investigations. … These are de-biasing visits,” said Bill Kovacic, a George Washington University law professor who was a commissioner at the Federal Trade Commission from 2006 to 2011. “I don’t remember Apple making a visit.”

While this may surprise political folks, this will come as a shock to few people in tech or who follow Apple. The company’s secrecy and reticence to telegraph what it’s thinking is legendary. So it’s no surprise Apple isn’t visibly mixing it up in Washington when, as Adam Lashinsky noted in his “Inside Apple” book released earlier this year, Apple doesn’t even mingle freely in its own backyard: employees aren’t visible at Silicon Valley mixers or events, executives don’t sit on other companies’ boards, and they don’t make a show of going out of their way to make any potential friends or gain partners.

Some get it. As one unnamed source told Politico, it could look really bad if they weren’t subtle about trying to gain political influence: “‘It wouldn’t take much to hit the tripwire’ to launch the narrative that ‘Apple has problems and is trying to buy the town.’”

This is not to say Apple won’t step up its lobbying game. It does have a small office for that purpose in D.C., but the way it tries to gain sway over politicians certainly won’t follow any pre-defined script established by other companies — even other tech companies.

And you could say Steve Jobs was plenty savvy about wielding influence in Washington: he just went straight to the top. Sending the president the world’s most anticipated new gadget before it was available to the public is a pretty decent way of making friends.

Thumbnail courtesy of Flickr user Mr. T in DC

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Forecast: Tablet App Sales To Hit $8B by 2015
• Controversy, courtrooms and the cloud in Q1
• Monetizing music in the post-scarcity age

As we reported here, Apple bought chip manufacturer P.A. Semi back in April 2008 for a cool $278 million, ostensibly to acquire the company’s engineering talent and manufacturing expertise, and, perhaps, the use of its existing facilities to produce its own custom-designed chips. Perhaps this helped save Apple a little money up-front, if the NYT’s is correct about the development costs of the chips alone;

Even without the direct investment of a factory, it can cost […] about $1 billion to create a smartphone chip from scratch.

Does this mean Apple saved a cool seven hundred million dollars when it bought P.A. Semi? If you’re a company with almost forty billion dollars in the bank, finding the ready cash to develop your own groundbreaking processor doesn’t seem quite such a mammoth undertaking. And I’ll be the first to admit I’m likely oversimplifying the whole thing, but y’know, that Jobs fellow is a wily old fox…

(Chip) War is Hell

From the New York Times;

Now, the chip wars are about to become even more bloody. In this next phase, the manufacturers will be fighting to supply the silicon for one of the fastest-growing segments of computing: smartphones, tiny laptops and tablet-style devices.

The fight pits several big chip companies — each trying to put its own stamp on the same basic design for mobile chips — against Intel, the dominant maker of PC chips, which is using an entirely different design to enter a market segment in which it has a minuscule presence.

Of course, Intel’s favorite chip for mobile devices is still the Atom processor, commonly found nestling at the heart of netbooks everywhere. The Atom processor is small, energy-efficient — and terribly slow.

The challenge, then, is clear: make a smaller, ever-more-energy-efficient chip that doesn’t trade performance for low-power-consumption. Steve Jobs, when announcing the iPad to the world in January, hinted that the iPad’s A4 processor might have achieved this lofty goal;

iPad is powered by our own custom silicon. We have an incredible group that does custom silicon at Apple. We have a chip called A4, which is our most advanced chip we’ve ever done that powers the iPad. It’s got the processor, the graphics, the I/O, the memory controller… Everything in this one chip. And it screams.

Mind you, Steve Jobs is the King of Hyperbole, so we should take his claims of speed with a grain (or ten) of salt. It’s encouraging, then, that the feedback from level-headed reporters, and specifically, beloved Mac-head Andy Ihnatko, confirms that, at least when compared to the iPhone 3GS, the iPad is unquestionably nimble;

This thing is FAST. I stretch-zoom a webpage and it keeps up with me now [sic] matter how fast I zoom and scroll. When you turn a page in iBook, it’s not “an animation of a page turning”… you are TURNING a freaking PAGE.

I think, most importantly, this “$1 billion” investment speaks volumes about Apple’s commitment to the iPad and iPhone product families. (We all fully expect the A4 to wind up in an iPhone sooner or later, yes? I mean, that much is obvious, right?)

The iPhone set the stage for mobile touch-based computing and the iPad will soon step into the spotlight. Let’s not forget, also, that Jobs very deliberately (re)defined Apple as a mobile devices company. Apple is taking its touch-based, mobile-computing strategy seriously enough that it’s prepared to spend real money investing in it.

Billions and Billions

Impressively, this isn’t the only billion-dollar investment Apple has made recently. I wrote here back in May 2009 how Apple’s still-under-construction server farm in North Carolina also represents an estimated $1 billion investment. Apple hasn’t confirmed what the server farm will be used for, but it’s sensible to assume Apple is looking to improve and expand its cloud-based services.

You see, a great many of Apple’s mobile devices are going to be connected to the web, so it makes sense that Apple should want to provide end-to-end software and services for its iPhones, iPads and MacBooks. Aside from the obvious aesthetic niceties of Apple-software running on Apple-hardware, the “it just works” ease-of-use of MobileMe and iWork on a MacBook or iPad more than make up for their expense.

Apple knows that if its software works exceptionally well, and is a pleasure to use, people will pay for it despite the existence of free alternatives. Sadly, MobileMe and iWork.com can only be described as “decent” and “adequate.” Perhaps the server farm is one step toward making them “exceptional?”

However you look at it, the facts speak for themselves; Apple is gearing-up for a future that is focused on mobile computing hardware and services, and its recent sizeable investments and acquisitions are bold steps toward that goal.

$2 billion in two years doesn’t sound like a lot for a company as wealthy as Apple. But make no mistake, it’s still a huge bet, and a particularly brave one, too, given how many tech pundits and punters have failed to understand the utility of the iPad and what it means for the future of computing.

News of the policy change comes via a letter sent to the developer of “Wobble iBoobs,” which informed them that under the new guidelines the app was determined to be inappropriate and would be removed. In the letter, Apple explained that the App Store policies are subject to change, and that it is “constantly refining” its definition of what’s deemed appropriate, based at least in part on user feedback.

TechCrunch received a copy of the email notifying Wobble iBoobs developers about the policy change and resulting removal of their app. Apple does note in the following excerpt that the ban is reversible:

We have decided to remove any overtly sexual content from the App Store, which includes your application. Thank you for your understanding in this matter. If you believe you can make the necessary changes so that Wobble iBoobs (Premium Uncensored) complies with our recent changes, we encourage you to do so and resubmit for review.

While a few other similarly-themed apps have been removed from the App Store, too, apparently in keeping with the new policy changes, some others remain, raising the question of what exactly Apple categorizes as “overtly sexual.” The top 25 and 50 lists appear to have been scrubbed pretty much clean, but some apps in the Entertainment category still seem pretty sexual to me. Hard to mistake the intent of the official “Playboy” app as anything but, for instance.

Though my gut reaction is to decry Apple for censoring something as relatively innocuous as sexually suggestive material (caveat: I’m a Canadian; we’re pretty okay with nudity and sex in general), I actually can’t help but be really pleased with the move as a regular App Store customer. As far as I’m concerned, the kind of novelty sexual app that Wobble iBoobs represents wasn’t doing much more than taking up valuable real estate in the App Store’s top downloads list, blocking spots that might otherwise be occupied by something useful I’d actually consider downloading.

Apparently, the apps were somewhat popular, since they managed to appear on those top lists with fair frequency, and Wobble iBoobs was downloaded more than 970,000 times during its App Store career. But if you feel the need to get your jollies on the iPhone (and I really can’t imagine why you would, for screen size issues alone), then take to the web and leave my App Store out of it. Mobile Safari’s right there, and I guarantee you’ll be much better served going that route anyway. Does anyone else see this as a change for the better, or am I alone here?

Related GigaOM Pro Content:

• Will Mobile Porn Pay Off?

The App Store is known for a few things, including the sheer volume of apps available, the tremendous success it’s brought some independent developers, and, most notoriously, for the constant stream of rejections that it issues with remarkable frequency. Now one scorned developer has taken it upon himself to make sure a record of the worst among those rejections is kept.

AppRejections.com is a simple blog that tracks App Store rejections, mostly via user submissions. It also points out the blatant hypocrisy of some of Apple’s rejection policies, highlighting what look an awful lot like different standards for higher profiles devs and studios (read: cash cows).

For example, the most recent article at the time of this writing is about how Star Wars Trench Run was accepted despite containing a huge image of an iPhone, something which has been a pretty boilerplate reason for rejection of apps put out by much smaller studios and independent devs before now. In fact, Apple put out a blanket ban on the use of the exact bitmap which features prominently in Trench Run’s control layout help screen.

It’s early days yet for the blog, with only 14 posts thus far, and it isn’t much to look at, but the idea behind the site is a fantastic one. Accountability is severely lacking in the App Store approval process, and till now, efforts to track and analyze rejections have been scattered at best. Despite the stock template look of AppRejections.com, site creator Adam Martin, himself an iPhone developer from the U.K., is doing a great job of tracking down and soliciting stories of Apple running afoul.

Martin also tracks what apps get let back into the App Store, and why, and also what the implications are for users who managed to grab apps that eventually got pulled before that actually happened. It’s a truly comprehensive approach to the problem of Apple’s pell-mell review policy. If you’re a dev who has a story to share, head on over to the site and let Adam know what exactly happened. The more points of data he can collect, the more complete a picture he can paint of App Store injustice.

If Martin can keep it up and create a really thorough record of Apple’s various hypocrisies regarding App Store management, it’s possible we’ll see some kind of change eventually, owing to a shift in public opinion, or increased rancor from the developer community. Do I think that’s the most likely outcome? No, but one can hope.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Mobile Q4: All Eyes Were on Android, 4G and the Rising Tablet Tide
• Report: A Mobile Video Market Overview
• In Q3, the Tablet and 4G Were the Big Stories

Even after the newest touch model was released, teardowns revealed what looked like a space reserved for the camera internally. Apple seemed to be holding back for some reason, and recently reports have been made that that is indeed the case, and that a camera-wielding iPod touch will appear in Spring of 2010.

The news comes via The Examiner, which ascribes the information to sources within Apple. They claim that as most people suspect, a camera was indeed planned for release this fall, but the product failed to meet Apple’s exacting standards:

We have heard from an inside source who claims the camera version of the iPod Touch 3G will be released this Spring. The source confirms to us that the iPod Touch 3G with camera had actually been planned for release this past September, but had problems passing quality control. Unlike Samsung, Apple actually has a Quality Control department.

The article goes on to say that the camera going into the iPod touch will be the same as the one in the current iPod nano, not that found in the iPhone. Presumably, that means that the new touch won’t be able to shoot still photos, which is something the nano camera isn’t able to do.

This newest claim about the iPod touch is backed up by earlier reports of production problems just ahead of the September event, which were said to have frustrated Apple’s launch plans. The nature of the problem wasn’t specified, but French Apple news site HardMac reported it affected “the first dozen of thousands units produced.” 

Spring 2010 makes sense as a launch time frame, too, because Apple did upgrade the iPod touch alongside the other iPod models in September, even without the addition of a camera. Even if it resolved production issues quickly, because it went ahead and launched the product without the component, the Mac maker will have to wait a decent amount of time before introducing another new model in order to clear on-hand stock and defer unnecessary production reconfiguration costs.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Why iPad 2 Will Lead Consumers Into the Post-PC Era
• The Near-Term Evolution of Social Commerce
• Content Farms: The Players, The Benefits, The Risks

Build 10C531 lists “MacBook Pro 6,1” and “MacBook Pro 6,2”, an indication of major revisions of the MacBook Pro lineup. The current family of MacBook Pro’s range from 5,1 to 5,5.

Last week’s introduction of refreshed iMacs brought Intel’s new Core i5 and i7 (Nehalem) processors to Apple’s most popular desktop machines, but the refreshed product lineup didn’t include any new MacBook Pros. Applesana suggests that the new MacBook Pro models will likely feature quad core processors based on Intel’s Arrandale architecture which brings i5/i7 technology to a more power-efficient mobile chip.

The last time Apple refreshed the MacBook Pro line was in early June at the Worldwide Developers Conference.

Hefty Update

10.6.2 is a significant update to Snow Leopard, bringing a raft of bug fixes and performance improvements to existing functionality. Nothing has been said about new features, however, the user guide for Apple’s new Magic Mouse makes the following reference to Mac OS X 10.6.2:

To use your Apple Magic Mouse and its full range of features, update your Mac to Mac OS X version 10.5.8 or later and install the Wireless Mouse Software Update 1.0; or update to Mac OS X version 10.6.2 or later.

Apple’s developers have been working hard. For those keeping count, this is 10.6.2’s fourth developer build in less than a month. The first, 10C514f, was seeded on Oct. 5. Only four days later, on Oct. 9, Apple produced build 10C519f. Developers were treated to build 10C527f just one week after that. And finally, 10C531 brings us to today.

At nearly 500MB, 10.6.2 is a hefty update, addressing an equally hefty assortment of bugs and issues affecting Snow Leopard. Most notably, this update is expected to fix a serious bug that can result in users losing all their personal data. MacRumor’s Doctor Q lists other fixes.

The seed is said to contain dozens of minor bug fixes and performance improvements in these areas: Address Book, AppleScript, AppleScriptObjC, ATS, ColorSync, Component Manager, Core Animation, Core Audio, Core Chinese Engine, Core Data, Core Graphics, Core Text, File Manager, Garbage Collection, Graphic drivers, Help Viewer, ImageKit, IOHIDFamily, Networking, NS Image, OpenCL, OpenGL, OSA, QT Kit, Speech Recognition, Sync Services, and Xtype.

There is no indication yet as to when 10.6.2 will be released, though the speed at which these builds are being developed — and the urgent need for that data-wiping bug fix — mean we probably won’t be waiting much longer.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• A 2011 Green IT Forecast
• Green IT’s Q4 Winners: Wind Power, Solar Power, Smart Energy
• Report: Cleantech’s Third-Quarter Growing Pains

For those who missed the reason why the app was pulled in the first place, El Gato had “accidentally left in” a feature whereby if you click the warning window that tells you Wi-Fi is required for live TV playback, instead of the “OK” button in the window, the dialog would close and streaming would occur over 3G anyway.

El Gato revealed that it had already resubmitted a fixed version when the problem was discovered, and that version has today been approved by Apple and is available for download. This time around, clicking the dialog box has no effect.

Whether it was an Easter egg, meant to pass undetected through Apple’s censors (which seems unlikely, given how easy it was to activate), or whether it was just an accident, the incident reveals that despite AT&T’s recent announcement that voice calls would now be allowed over 3G, that doesn’t mean it’s a free-for-all with all types of content.

I still think this needs looking into by a regulatory body. Data is data, and if wireless customers are paying not-insignificant fees in order to be able to use data on their cell phones, they should have the right to choose the nature of that traffic. My plan covers 6GB per month. Who’s to say I don’t want to use five of that on streaming video? I can see cutting me off once I exceed my limit, since I might then be causing undue strain on your network, but if you’ve assigned me 6GB, let me use that however I see fit.

At least Apple is being relatively understanding about the whole thing. It could easily have barred EyeTV from the app store for an extended period, or altogether, in order to punish what could easily be seen an a purposeful attempt to side-step App Store requirements. Instead, it acted quickly when a fix was issued and reintroduced in the app with very little delay following its removal. I think this especially points to the fact that AT&T is really still the one to blame in cases like this.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Mobile Wrap-up: Q1 2009
• Mobile Q4: All Eyes Were on Android, 4G and the Rising Tablet Tide

The specific stance Apple took issue with is the Chamber’s position against the idea that the EPA should regulate greenhouse gas emissions, using the authority it already has to do so under the Clean Air Act. Most agree that the EPA doesn’t actually want to do this, but that it’s a last resort measure in case the Democratic climate change bill that passed the house in June and now faces the Senate ultimately fails.

Apple spokeswoman Catherine Novelli wrote to Thomas Donohue, the Chamber’s president, explaining Apple’s decision to leave:

We strongly object to the chamber’s recent comments opposing the EPA’s effort to limit greenhouse gases. Apple supports regulating greenhouse gas emissions, and it is frustrating to find the chamber at odds with us in this effort.

Three other firms, California-based Pacific Gas and Electric and Exelon, and New Mexico’s PNM Resources, have all left the Chamber of Commerce based on the same policy decision. Both GE and Johnson & Johnson have both issued statements making clear their disagreement with the Commerce’s official stance. Nike stepped down from the executive branch of the Commerce, but maintains its membership, and made clear its position in a statement of its own:

As we’ve stated, we fundamentally disagree with the US Chamber of Commerce on the issue of climate change and their recent action challenging the EPA is inconsistent with our view that climate change is an issue in need of urgent action.

In the past, Apple has made its political leanings known when it felt the issue was important enough. When Proposition 8 was announced, Apple donated $100,000 to oppose the bill. The decision was met with strong reactions from both sides of the debate, with some questioning the right of a company to come out so publicly in favor of one side or another on such a contentious issue, and some lauding the uncharacteristic show of corporate political action.

I imagine this latest display of a political stance will be greeted with less controversy, since many see the value of climate change legislation. And the departure of a high profile company like Apple will do much to raise awareness of the issue in the business world. Still, the Chamber still counts more than three million companies among its membership, so the departure of four of those companies is unlikely do much effect the organization’s relevance.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Why iPad 2 Will Lead Consumers Into the Post-PC Era
• The Near-Term Evolution of Social Commerce
• What Google’s Honeycomb Means for Apple and Microsoft

Normally, Apple removes apps from the App Store at a rate we can digest and analyze, but it looks like it’s now adopting a different tactic, maybe to frustrate criticism with sheer volume. This time around, it has given the boot to a stunning 900 apps in one fell swoop. The apps aggregated various web content, and charged $4.99 for the service, despite not being copyright holders of any of it.

The app’s developer, a company called Perfect Acumen owned by one Khalid Shalik, employed 26 Indian and Pakistani programmers who churned out 943 apps last year alone. The purpose of all of the apps was to grab content tailored to a specific target audience and just display it on the iPhone. Even this simple task it didn’t handle very well, according to user reviews, which mainly criticized the app, and worse still, Perfect Acumen held no copyrights for any of the content they republished, including photos of hot celebrities, which tend to catch the attention of fair-use publication enforcers.

According to The iPhone Blog, Apple says it revoked Perfect Acumen’s developer account and removed the apps when Shalik or any company representative failed to respond to any of the 100+ complaints Apple received as a result of the applications. Other developers also criticized Acumen’s shady marketing tactics. All in all, it seems like for once, Apple’s review process actually got something right, albeit belatedly.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t end there. Perhaps as a direct result of the kinds of complaints received against Perfect Acumen, Apple seems to be clamping down on all content source provider apps, according to Erica Sadun at TUAW. First to go are e-book applications, which, according to TUAW’s sources, are now being met with a blanket rejection policy because of third-party rights infringement. Like its stance on charitable applications, it just doesn’t want the onus of having to vet each app for the accuracy of its claims.

The policy appears to be a blanket one, though, and covers even apps where the developer is the owner of the content, or has the right to reproduce it and can prove it. It’s bound to be a major door-closing for app store developers, and one that will only continue to sour developer sentiment towards Apple and the way it does business. Finally, the icing on the cake, all e-book readers apparently also now run afoul of Apple’s policies (which might explain the lack of a Stanza update in recent memory).

It’s one thing to make sure you’re covered when it comes to legitimate accusations of enabling copyright infringement, but it’s another altogether to wage war on an entire subcategory (literally, since “Books” is one of the App Store’s categories of apps) of software. I suspect this has something to do with the rumored launch of a tablet-type device in the fall, which is said in some circles to have e-reader capabilities.

If so, this preemptive thinning of competition borders on the sinister, and I’m seriously considering a permanent switch to RIM just to protest these shady business practices. That said, there’s still plenty of opportunity to prove me wrong Apple. Let’s hope you do.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Mobile Operators’ Strategies for Connected Devices
• How to Market Your iPhone App: A Developer’s Guide

Only a little while ago, we published a story about Apple’s inconsistent review process for the App Store. In that case, the question was one of imagery, and focused on some icons that Apple seemed to be of two minds about. Well, inconsistency is one thing, but their latest gaffe represents an entirely different kind of failing. In a move that garnered worldwide attention, Apple yesterday approved and then later removed an app called “Baby Shaker.”

If you aren’t already aware of the details of the app, it basically allowed users to simulate shaking a baby to death on their iPhone or iPod touch. On screen, you saw a pencil-drawn animation of a baby that would progressively move less and less as you shook your phone, until big red X’s would appear over its eyes and it would stop moving altogether, at which point the baby is presumably dead. Even just describing what the app does is horrific, let alone actually playing it.

It’s surprising, then, that such an app would sneak by Apple’s generally very conservative App Store review process. The very same process which, until recently, wouldn’t allow fart noises or overtly sexually suggestive material within their hallowed walls. Infanticide, though? No problem.

The quick removal of the app seems to suggest that its approval in the first place was a mistake or an oversight, and that in general, Apple is definitely not in favor of depicting this sort of thing on their platform. Nonetheless, it was there, it was live, and at least some people downloaded it before its removal. Advocacy and awareness groups are up in arms, and they’re looking for an explanation from Apple for why this could be allowed to happen.

I’d like an explanation, too. How about we celebrate the billionth app downloaded (imagine if it actually was Baby Shaker?) with some transparency regarding your review process? Because as of right now, considering this screw-up, the Instapaper/Pocket God issue, and the Tweetie misunderstanding regarding foul language, it seems like there are 10 guys at the office who draw straws to see who’s in charge of policy for the day.

On a slow news day like yesterday, something like Baby Shaker can quickly obscure any other message you might be trying to get across, like how much money you’re raking in, for instance. Apple would be wise to put a cap on this sort of thing before it starts interfering with bigger, more important messages, like new product announcements, for instance. Establish a clear and straightforward review process, with redundancies and checks and balances, and let developers know what the pipleline looks like. Do it now, before it taints people’s anticipation of your 3.0 release.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Mobile Q4: All Eyes Were on Android, 4G and the Rising Tablet Tide
• Report: A Mobile Video Market Overview
• In Q3, the Tablet and 4G Were the Big Stories