Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple has threatened to remove Amphetamine from the App Store

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

561–570 of 693 posts

Re: Apple has threatened to remove Amphetamine from the App Store

#561

Post by webmobdev »

rleigh wrote: post #545
webmobdev wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But do you believe Apple should be the ultimate arbitrator of such silly things like the name of an app you create?

I'm going to say yes. This isn't unique to Apple. Debian and other Linux distributions have also had similar discussions when considering the distribution of packages with obscene, morally repugnant or inappropriate names, as well as the package contents themselves. Whether it's a commercial entity or a volunteer organisation, there are considerations regarding image and reputation. People can and will push the bound…

The difference is that Debian or others still give both the users and the developers a CHOICE to distribute / acquire the app through other means. Apple cripples (and even outright denies this) on some of its platforms.

Re: Apple has threatened to remove Amphetamine from the App Store

#562

Post by floatingatoll »

ubercow13 wrote: post #395
floatingatoll wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My issues with it stem from something unpublished in the late 90s, which is not something 'dismissable' that you can simply set aside using the negation-by-framing of 'outrage culture', so I can't offer any reply to your question. Please accept my apologies for how far off the mark my reasons are from your assumptions; perhaps another time we'll be better aligned.

On the contrary, intentionally obtuse and unsubstantive references to some unpublished something-or-other, and unspecified personal objections which are claimed to be 'common sense', are pretty vapid and dismissable.

Noted, thanks!

Re: Apple has threatened to remove Amphetamine from the App Store

#563

Post by colejohnson66 »

pixelatedindex wrote: post #339
jkmcf wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The HOA stereotype definitely is, but all HOAs are not the same. My HOA is generally hands off but you do need to ask permission for structural or cosmetic changes -- the neighborhood doesn't want to look like an amusement park. But, no one is going around measuring the height of your grass or other overly strict things I've read about. However, I did just get a nasty gram to take down my political "Giant Meteor for…

> the neighborhood doesn't want to look like an amusement park. I do think this is where a lot of the HOA problems come from - if someone wants to put something up on their front yard or lawn, then neighbors can intervene and say you can’t do that there. Since you bought the property and it’s yours, why do others get to have a say in it? I know I don’t give two hoots about what the neighbor does to their own home.

> Since you bought the property and it’s yours, why do others get to have a say in it?

Because you signed on a line that said you agree to being governed by the HOA when you bought the house. It’s that simple. The sad reality though is that if you don’t like it, you have to find somewhere else (which doesn’t work well if your whole city is under the HOA)

Re: Apple has threatened to remove Amphetamine from the App Store

#564

Post by oauea »

drKarl wrote: post #558
oauea wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are also doing everything they can to block people from distributing apps outside of their walled garden. So they are in fact telling the author that he can't call his app whatever he wants. Because if he does, they will do everything they can to prevent anyone else from ever using that app.

They probably want their users to use their proprietary store, but I got a new MacBook Pro for work in September and I installed everything I needed and wanted using Hombrew and brew cask, so I didn't use the Apple Store at all. You can also Download .dmf files and install Apps that way. What is it that you say they do to prevent people installing Apps outside the Apple Store?

Apple requires software to be "notarized" (signed by apple) be able to run on newer Macs. Apple also blocks developers they do not like from notarizing apps. See Apple vs Epic.

You might be able to bypass the notarization requirement as an end-user, if you have enough technical know-how, but good luck explaining that to your customers. Especially when all the dialogs are calling your software malicious, untrustworthy, etc.

Re: Apple has threatened to remove Amphetamine from the App Store

#565

Post by floatingatoll »

jjcon wrote: post #430
floatingatoll wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My issues with it stem from something unpublished in the late 90s, which is not something 'dismissable' that you can simply set aside using the negation-by-framing of 'outrage culture', so I can't offer any reply to your question. Please accept my apologies for how far off the mark my reasons are from your assumptions; perhaps another time we'll be better aligned.

> something unpublished in the late 90s Why should anyone care about this? I’m still confused.

I'm not here to help you determine whether you should care or not. That's entirely up to you. For some unknown reason you seem to care, and I certainly can't figure out why from the replies so far.

As best as I can guess from the evidence available, you're looking for some vector to "No, you're wrong!" disprove some aspect of my personal view of this. This will, of course, go nowhere. I didn't submit my personal view as some sort of entry in a debate, and I'm making no effort to persuade anyone to my view.

If you can't find a way to derive value or relevance from my viewpoint, other than trying to disprove it or debate it, then you'll just have to move on. I'm not going to try to pressure you, persuade you, influence you, argue with you, or otherwise make any effort to interfere with your freedoms of thought and choice. That would be inappropriate for an unsubstantiated personal view such as the one I have provided.

Re: Apple has threatened to remove Amphetamine from the App Store

#566

Post by sillysaurusx »

freehunter wrote: post #553
sillysaurusx wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why aren’t you okay with Amphetamine?

I use it on my work computer and it's not a word I'm comfortable showing to clients. You never know who may have had (or still does have) an addiction, and I also don't want them seeing it and thinking I have an addiction since that could be bad for business.

That's surprisingly reasonable. Thanks for the thoughtful answer.

Re: Apple has threatened to remove Amphetamine from the App Store

#567

Post by asddubs »

ufmace wrote: post #531
eecc wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I can’t help questioning the “non-violent” part: it takes incredible amounts of energy to maintain that is quite literally taken away from other - possibly more helpful at social scale - purposes.

Uhhh I'm not particularly a fan of Bitcoin, but implying that this is anything like violence is absurd. I gotta go against the trend of anything you don't like that could conceivably lead to somebody being harmed somehow is the same thing as actual violence.

It's not really that absurd, it's just not the most conventional definition. But I've heard it used that way before, especially in the context of philosophy

Re: Apple has threatened to remove Amphetamine from the App Store

#568

Post by monksy »

I remember when app stores started up and everyone said "this is great, you can get verified results, reviews, and they can handle disputes."

However, this is the reality. Apple created a fixed game and you are the victim. Don't play their game, poison their well. (Inform others and your users what goes on in that environment and that they're bad actors/middlemen)

Re: Apple has threatened to remove Amphetamine from the App Store

#569

Post by throwaway09223 »

suchnonsense wrote: post #519
throwaway09223 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a failure of management, as is your skype example. Balancing the risk of litigation against risk to the product is management's job. In both of these cases the risk is somewhere between minimal and non-existent. Big companies tend to have bad management. There are entire libraries of books analyzing why this is the case but the short story is "risk aversion." Employees are incentivized to save their own skin…

Such nonsense, balancing risk of litigation against the risk to the product isn't management's job. Companies have whole departments for this, called risk management with people specialized on the matter. This is not done by some random manager.

Departments specializing in risk related to mooning emoji? I think not. Your username is apropos.

Repetitive rule based risk assessments, such as made by lenders, are often assigned to specialized departments. This isn't at all the same as unique product design choices which are nearly always decided by the individual product leaders. Legal might rope in higher levels of leadership but never a "risk management team" for something like an offensive icon in an app.

Re: Apple has threatened to remove Amphetamine from the App Store

#570

Post by ufmace »

asddubs wrote: post #567
ufmace wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uhhh I'm not particularly a fan of Bitcoin, but implying that this is anything like violence is absurd. I gotta go against the trend of anything you don't like that could conceivably lead to somebody being harmed somehow is the same thing as actual violence.

It's not really that absurd, it's just not the most conventional definition. But I've heard it used that way before, especially in the context of philosophy

It's absurd in the sense that, if you accept that definition, then anything at all - taking any action or even taking no action at all - could be called violent, which makes the word meaningless. It points to an Orwellian level of thought control. If anything at all can be called violent by any level of tortured logic, then it's very good to be the person who decrees what actions will be considered to be violent and what will not.
Post reply on HN