Apple has threatened to remove Amphetamine from the App Store • Hacker News Board

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

#581

Post by CRConrad » Sat, Jan 02, 2021, 2:12 AM UTC

bambax wrote: post #210

Bodell wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly if your name your product stupid things I would think that some of us might be choosing not to download your product as a result. And if a store decides not to sell your product because of this it’s really their prerogative. Saying you violated their terms with impunity for 6 years doesn’t mean they lose the right to correct the mistake. This name is pretty rings rather badly in my ears, though I’m not offen…

> I’m not offended by the word “fuck” but I don’t really want to buy products that are named that. Then don't. How is this relevant? They say the app has been downloaded 500,000 times, so many people are fine with the name. These stories keep coming; they should remind us that nothing is more precious than the open web, and all those stores or walled gardens, their "rules" and vague TOS are the ennemy.

The App Store is already a walled garden, so complaining that it's not the open web is hardly a relevant objection. The maker of “Amphetamine” was gappy enough to get that half-million downloads on the App Store, so now that the other side of the coin rolls around he gets to accept that too.

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

#582

Post by oauea » Sat, Jan 02, 2021, 2:13 AM UTC

freehunter wrote: post #571

oauea wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You already forgot about the Epic games debacle where Apple did exactly that?

I must have forgotten it because I can open the Epic store and play Fortnite on my Mac right now without any warnings. I actually just downloaded the installer right from epicgames.com and it installed just fine. Apple doesn't even try to stop me. I remember Apple revoking Epic's access to Apple's developer tools because of a disagreement over their developer program TOS, but that only stops Epic from using Apple's t…

Yes, there were lawsuits and the courts forced Apple to stop their ridiculous behavior. That is why you can do this right now. Not because of Apple's goodwill, quite the contrary.

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

#583

Post by oauea » Sat, Jan 02, 2021, 2:14 AM UTC

freehunter wrote: post #575

oauea wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>Apple requires software to be "notarized" This is not exactly true and you know it. For example: >if you have enough technical know-how You right click the app and then click open. >Especially when all the dialogs are calling your software malicious, untrustworthy, etc. Another lie. The dialog says "this is from an unidentified developer" and does not say anything about being malicious or untrustworthy. What is your…

https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xcode/notarizing_m...

> Beginning in macOS 10.14.5, software signed with a new Developer ID certificate and all new or updated kernel extensions must be notarized to run. Beginning in macOS 10.15, all software built after June 1, 2019, and distributed with Developer ID must be notarized

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

#584

Post by solidsnack9000 » Sat, Jan 02, 2021, 2:20 AM UTC

joseph_grobbles wrote: post #451

solidsnack9000 wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If (a) there is no definite speed limit, just an imprecise policy statement (like "don't drive too fast") and (b) a person drives by the same cops for years at the same speed and gets clocked and doesn't get ticketed, and then (c) is one day pulled over and told that they're driving imprudently, then they indeed have a basis for complaint. That is exactly how this works. The interplay between vague policies and regul…

An app named "amphetamine" (a controlled substance in most countries), using a pill as its icon, with narrative like the "most awesome keep-awake". Yeah, there isn't a lot of ambiguity here. This was absolutely getting away with it . A lot of noise and bluster in here, but I'd peg the probability that Apple stays firm at 100%.

The issue with your analysis is the long standing approval and acquiescence on Apple's part. The app itself, and each update, only ever went out with Apple's explicit acknowledgment, review and consent.

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

#585

Post by neya » Sat, Jan 02, 2021, 2:21 AM UTC

0xEFF wrote: post #359

webmobdev wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My advice is to immediately rebrand as gracefully and effectively as possible and use all that activist energy to effect the transition. Apple will definitely appreciate it if all of us would just shut up and let them screw us. While I appreciate your well-meaning advise to the author - pick your battles in life carefully - I'd like to add that using your anger constructively at some injustice is a positive move to…

Do you expect to see a box on a shelf of any retail store labeled, “Amphetamine” with a colorful picture of drugs? It’s entirely reasonable for the retail store to tell the vendor to rename the product or else it will be removed from the shelf.

But this isn't a retail store, this is a software store. That's the difference.

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

#586

Post by solidsnack9000 » Sat, Jan 02, 2021, 2:22 AM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #501

solidsnack9000 wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If (a) there is no definite speed limit, just an imprecise policy statement (like "don't drive too fast") and (b) a person drives by the same cops for years at the same speed and gets clocked and doesn't get ticketed, and then (c) is one day pulled over and told that they're driving imprudently, then they indeed have a basis for complaint. That is exactly how this works. The interplay between vague policies and regul…

But there already is a bright line rule here, it has just not been diligently enforced up to now. The basic argument is that the Amphetamine app has been able to slide for so long that the ToS provision it violates should be treated as a dead letter, or as if some statute of limitations had expired; the Amphetamine brand has existed so long (and under such favorable conditions) in the app store that the developer now…

The only bright line rule in the provision is that an app should not facilitate the trade in controlled substances, and it doesn't.

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

#587

Post by Brian_K_White » Sat, Jan 02, 2021, 2:24 AM UTC

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.

I prefer to reject the process of turning a technical neutral term into some kind of bad word.

If a thing isn't bad, then it isn't, and if someone is ignorant and makes associations and assumptions that are wrong or unsupported, then I'd rather add my tiny influence against that rather than help it.

Or do you yourself do the same thing to your clients? What features of your clients do you use to prejudge them and make unfounded assumptions about them? Should your clients worry what clothes they wear in case you think it means they are gay, which maybe you associate with having Aids... Personally I woukd think things like that are none of my business but apparently you don't think like that.

Please don't smooth the way for the wrong things. I can't demand, obviously, that's why it's a request with the word please.

It seems to be a small thing but big things are made out of small things, and you and I can only do small things. All we have is the choice of which kinds of small things we do.

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

#588

Post by macjohnmcc » Sat, Jan 02, 2021, 2:28 AM UTC

0xEFF wrote: post #359

webmobdev wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My advice is to immediately rebrand as gracefully and effectively as possible and use all that activist energy to effect the transition. Apple will definitely appreciate it if all of us would just shut up and let them screw us. While I appreciate your well-meaning advise to the author - pick your battles in life carefully - I'd like to add that using your anger constructively at some injustice is a positive move to…

Do you expect to see a box on a shelf of any retail store labeled, “Amphetamine” with a colorful picture of drugs? It’s entirely reasonable for the retail store to tell the vendor to rename the product or else it will be removed from the shelf.

I knew somebody who got national attention for making an energy drink named Cocaine. It did not last long on the market due to the name.

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

#589

Post by michaelmrose » Sat, Jan 02, 2021, 2:30 AM UTC

colejohnson66 wrote: post #559

twitch-chat wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it a net downside? The entire purpose of the App Store being locked down is that it's reliable. There is no way any HR department will launch an investigation because you downloaded an app called Amphetamine. Worst case scenario they go look it up and realize there's nothing more to the situation. I'd have to see a documented event of this happening rather than a hypothetical scenario to believe a downside act…

Just because your HR would be ok with it doesn’t mean all would be

Who is dumb enough to think people get drugs by installing an app called Amphetamine, monitors user software installs anally AND also lets users install their own software locally in the first place?

Most corporate PCs are windows. On a fraction of the macs users are allowed to install their own software, on a tiny fraction of those amphetamine is installed, on a tiny fraction of a fraction of those maybe someone exists who has a problem with HR.

I'm not sure the last subset actually exists in the real world nor that we ought to support censorship to help imaginary people deal with imaginary morons.

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

#590

Post by Brian_K_White » Sat, Jan 02, 2021, 2:36 AM UTC

sbarre wrote: post #371

smnrchrds wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The housing market continues to show a preference towards communities with HOAs. Is it the housing market as homeowners who favours HOAs, or is it the builders who favour them? Are HOAs opted in by homeowners in existing communities because of their benefits, or do builders create them force them upon new communities because it benefits them somehow? I am asking because while I do not have any knowledge of HOAs, I…

This feels like a case where the market will dictate what works and what doesn't. It sounds shitty/shady to you (or at least that's how you're framing it here - apologies if I misunderstood) but if people are still buying those homes, then they must think it's an acceptable contract to enter into.

It sounds like exactly the opposite, where the market created or allowed a situation where the majority of people get something they don't want at all.

It's ridiculous to even try to say that a home owner will not weigh 50 different factors, and have to tolerate 10 things they do NOT want because they come packaged with 40 other things they either want or absolutely need.

Why does anyone even try to pretend like they don't recognize this unless they are themselves one of the few people actually benefitting from one of these consumer-hostile deals?