Macro.org, from the developer behind Tumblr and Instapaper, has a post up highlighting the latest App Store controversy — that all web-embedded apps must be rated 17+ and now don’t get Promo Codes — and comes to this conclusion:

Apple thinks reviews can take 8-30 days and web-capable apps need nudity warnings and the management interface can be buggy as s**t and they don’t need us to be able to reach them and nobody really needs to take any of this very seriously. Because it’s working for them. They’re making a killing taking their 30% commission on the 1.5 billion copies of $0.99 top-25 games that they’ve sold. Who cares if the App Store discourages good developers from putting serious effort into it? Apple doesn’t need to care. And, clearly, they don’t.

The whole post is definitely worth reading, and brings to mind the classic riff — “any incompetence sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from malice”.

Here’s the the thing, though: Apple is not only serving developers. They’re being served with lawsuits. And their hyper-vigilant legal departments are no doubt saying — perhaps rightly — that if someone uses a Twitter client that embeds a WebView and happens to see the f-word or a nipple, they’ll sue Apple.

Ridiculous, sure. A poor solution, of course. But it’s the kind of rolling triage Apple seems to be doing as the App Store grows beyond even their expectations.

Don’t get us wrong, all the problems marco.org mentions are real, frustrating, and need to be fixed yesterday. For Apple to force 17+ Ratings on these apps, and remove Promo Code functionality, is intolerable — and we wonder why Mobile Safari, Mobile Mail, iPod, etc. aren’t forced to pop up the same warning under that logic.

It’s entirely Apple’s fault, setting themselves up as editors to the App Store, and then not implementing the policies or staff necessary to keep up with the content requiring editorial approval.

But we don’t think Apple doesn’t care. They surely do, and will no doubt continue to make slow, steady improvements and address developer and user concerns, while at the same time making other clumsy and what look like bone-headed decisions and mistakes. Lots of them.

We don’t know. BGR originally posted that it had, but has updated with a comment from Sling PR saying they haven’t heard from Apple one way or another yet.

While SlingPlayer was submitted quite a while ago, all we have right now are questions. Bandwidth is likely a concern for AT&T. Sure, they’ve had other devices running Sling Player for years, but suddenly dropping 10 million odd iPhones streaming video into the mix is a non-trivial concern from their perspective — remember their quickly rescinded “new terms of service“.

However, we’re still keeping our fingers crossed. YouTube app runs off 3G, after all, and while Ustream was forced to be WiFi only for now, Sling Player should at least have that option over flat out rejection.

Or do we the people demand our Sling over 3G now? (Even if we have to still get a new SlingBox to enjoy it…)

TiPb scored the above eyes-on way back at Macworld 2009, and now TUAW brings word that SlingMedia’s Player for the iPhone has finally been submitted to the App Store. Of course, no one but the magic 8-ball knows how long it will take for — or even if — Apple to approve it, but this is SlingPlayer, folks, so we’re taking even the tiny little steps as they come.

Any super-keeners revving up their SlingBox’s in anticipation? Or do you doubt Apple (or the carriers?) will actually let it into the App Store and onto the iPhone?

Was it the outcry on Twitter? The evisceration courtesy of numerous blogs? Or did someone at Apple actually take our advice and wake up? We don’t know. But we do know this: according to developer Loren Brichter:

Great news! [Tweetie] 1.3 has now been approved! Alright Apple!

Hopefully this wasn’t as capricious a reversal as it was an earlier refusal, and Apple is actually investing some thought in how to get the App Store approval process back on track.

Hey, we can dream, right?

So, who could it be running the approval process for the iTunes App Store at Apple? Hmm. Tough one. Let us put on our little thinking caps here for a moment…. SATAN?!

No, of course, not, nor the Church Lady from SNL, but it must be someone equally cartoonish, how else do we reconcile the App Store rejecting Tweetie 1.3 for containing “offensive language” in search results returned from the public Twitter “Trends” rankings? (via Twitter)

We can search for all manner of unholy pr0n in Mobile Safari, should Apple Reject their own core application because of what it may return as well? Are they expecting developers to become censors and str the fck out of words the way Apple.com does? (see below).

Of course, this could just be one rogue App Store review processor gone horribly wrong, but Apple still bears responsibility for a totally opaque, seemingly capricious review process that creates incidents just like this — over and over again.

They’re likely selling enough fart apps and games to make this a small problem from their end, but they’re losing badly when it comes to the good will of truly innovative developers and bleeding edge techies who form the core of any true next-generation platform.

Wake up, Apple. You’re better than this.

(And good luck to Tweetie developer Loren Brichter on getting Tweetie 1.3 approved — as it should be — and into all of our waiting iPhones quickly!)

Screen shots showing the rejected “language” in Tweetie and others for the sake of comparison after the break (NSFW-L)…