Apple has finally published the rules stating what types of content aren’t allowed in the famous App Store, though copiousness of questions sojourn unanswered. In actuality, a series of apps in a App Store appear to contradict these discipline.

In today’s tweet of the day, iPhone developer Layton Duncan (@PolarBearFarm) creates this shrewd observation: “I’d say 70% of apps now on a App Store protest the capitulation discipline recover today.”

Seventy percent is the hyperbolic estimate, though Duncan has whacked a nail upon a conduct: There have been in truth some bizarre offerings which done their approach into a store which substantially shouldn’t be there, according to the discipline.

Notably, a single order labeled “Objectionable content” states: “Apps that have been primarily written to disappoint or disgust users will be rejected.”

Interesting which this order exists, since Apple’s own App Store executive Phil Shoemaker sells iPhone apps which a little competence find outrageous. His app “Animal Farts” depicts an painting of a panda’s anus emitting gas (pictured next, along with an existence of the wrinkly exposed male farting, as well. This seems both contradictory as well as false.

Especially droll is the bullet indicate in Apple’s examination discipline, that states, “We don’t need any more Fart apps. If your app doesn’t do something useful or provide some form of durability party, it might not be accepted.”

Shoemaker also sells an app called iWiz, that simulates a, er, pleasures of urinating in the toilet, which a little might disagree is a form of rather than short-lived entertainment (unless you drink mammillae of Gatorade each day) as against to “lasting.”

And on top of a apps that come during contingency with Apple’s newly published guidelines, it remains a poser as to because Google’s Google Voice app hasn’t been approved or rejected — for over the year. You know, the important Apple non-rejection rejecting that stirred an FCC investigation. The guidelines don’t say anything about why a piece of program which offers a benefits of free voice calls, content messaging as well as voicemail has got Apple’s App Store reviewers so undetermined that they’ve been “studying” it since 2009.

With all that pronounced, publishing the App Store examination discipline is the outrageous step for Apple. By telling calm creators what a rules are (even if they’re deceptive, they now have the leisure to innovate, and maybe pull a pouch, but fearing a ban hammer. This preference is estimable of acclaim, though App Store programmers should goon to demand some-more honesty from their partner.

Seen any especially awesome tweets you’d like us to underline? Share them with Gadget Lab by Twitter.