That's very silly. The times are ready for a new job title: software product namer, to make sure a name won't offend anyone or violate trademarks and store guidelines.
replies(3):
I’m guessing the software authors don’t have children and don’t have multiple friends and family who’s lives have been destroyed by meth.
Instead it’s just a bro having cool fun with words “hey keeps your computer awake! Get it? Ha! So clever!”
It's important to remember that reviews are superficial, and passing review is not at all the same as being compliant with the terms. Compliance is the burden of the submitter.
Now, that app store monopoly makes terms unfair and arbitrary is another discussion entirely.
Please go and read the post. Especially the following section: https://github.com/x74353/SaveAmphetamine#what-arguments-can...
The App is named Amphetamine and not Meth which imho is a big difference.
Amphetamine on the other hand has only one very well defined use case.
I get the reference to another similar app (Caffeine) but this is a step too far, indeed portraying a dangerous drug in a positive light.
Huge fan of Amphetamine(the app) but its Apple’s walled garden. This nonsense is a consequence.
It’s a clever name because it rhymes and they’re both stimulants. That’s all.
My advice is to immediately rebrand as gracefully and effectively as possible and use all that activist energy to effect the transition.
They kind of have a point which doesn’t make them right, but they hold all the cards and you will lose this one and regret the wasted bandwidth.
Apple's App Store moderation is embarrassing. They routinely fail to catch harmful junk—I've shut down a few top-grossing bogus antivirus apps for Mac, and the publisher of Untitled Goose Game routinely posts screenshots of clones that are trying to make money off confused users.
They've banned apps like Phone Story and a drone strike tracker for being "objectionable and crude," yet they don't apply any content moderation to the Book Store or to Music or TV (or to Safari for that matter). They've yet to provide a cogent justification for why they're inconsistent on this.
If it’s just the name, how far does this go? Can I not name a band after a drug? Can I no longer write a book about drugs? What about a company? What if I’m a pharma company? Who is deciding these rules and how do we get rid of them?
Amphetamine isn't meth.
Looks like it's you that has the meth obsession. Shouldn't you be ashamed with yourself for having used the word? What about all the people whose children's lives have been destroyed by meth? Shouldn't you delete your comment?
Also can you please link me to a study that shows a causal link between names of apps, and an increase in usage in that drug the app is named after?
And then one that shows an increase in usage in a different drug (because again, amphetamine is not meth)?
I'd really, really like to read that study.
Presumably you want to ban WINE too, because of all the people who know someone who was an alcoholic? Have you written to the WINE maintainers telling them how evil they are?
When I hear “Amphetamine” I instantly think if they people I know who’s lives have been destroyed, but you feel I’m mistaken and you’ve got a good argument against my line of thinking.
Telling me how to think.
Given that most other coffee names were already taken, I can understand the logic of why they chose the name.
As you said though, it is now considered by many to be insensitive. So Apple it's probably in the right here.
I'm sure they would welcome suggestions on how to rebrand.
Also, why is Apple making a political statement that doctors should not prescribe Retalin or Adderall ?
It doesn't seem like Apple's place to be making judgements on what medicines are good or bad.
Would Apple ban an app called NyQuil that puts your computer to sleep when it gets hot?
Books are really bad though. Amazon is no better, neither have any modicum of curation or taste when it comes to their bestsellers lists. The New York Times doesn't put salacious romance novels at the top no matter how many copies sell, yet Amazon and Apple Books would lead you to believe there's nothing else being published.
The same goes for the App Store. It doesn't need moderation by way of censorship, it just needs tasteful, manual curation.
1) They are worried of bad PR from a headline being published that goes: "Apple encourages drug abuse with multiple apps such as Amphetamine".
2) They are worried of a lawsuit if it is found some app contributed to the sell of illegal drugs.
3) They are worried of parents complaints being concerned that they've found an app called Amphetamine on their kid's device.
And in some way, I can agree that as a Company, I'd rather not take my chances with any of them. Now, the policy being applied inconsistently is another issue. And ya, I wish the world wasn't so that a company needed to worry about these, but it isn't, so I'm not sure I can blame Apple that much for it. This also seems like a silly cause for them to champion.
> A little taste of 'Caffeine'.
This will prove to be a complete waste of time for Apple.
[0] https://apps.apple.com/us/app/caffeinated-anti-sleep-app/id1...
On Windows, you could just host the msi or exe on your website.
What are some TV content that's similar to these banned apps?
Amphetamine is not meth and no amount of crying will change that.
Nor does someone naming an app "amphetamine" cause an increase in drug usage.
If you’re feeling brave/stupid, try calling it something like Khat.
This is why it keeps getting worse and worse. People just comply!
See also: "Speed goat" which is another word for "antelope."
(Yes, I'm mostly joking. Just change the name.)
Just like how the hydrocortisone I’m using for my eczema is a steroid, yet it would be unwise to confuse it with Winstrol or Dianabol.
This app associates itself with the recreational use of amphetamines in much the same vein as candy cigarettes. Is the rule kinda stupid? Yep. Is it ultimately a cultural thing? Yep. But it’s Apple’s sandbox and you’re playing in it.
There’s always going to be issues of where to draw the line. “Columbine. A bulk process killer.” is obviously over it but amphetamines could go either way. Just rebrand to something else and get back to actually making useful stuff.
How about this one? Considering that the app also has a picture of a pill as a logo, I think it would be ill-advised for former addicts to have the app installed. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00213-004-1828-4
Also have this blog post from psychology today https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-addiction/...
Methamphetamine is a derivative in the class of amphetamines (amphetamines being the family that was originally established by amphetamine). I know that's confusing. But, it has its own chemical structure, N-methylamphetamine, which is chemically distinct (yet extremely similar).
If your point is 'meth is an amphetamine', that's fine but it doesn't strengthen your arguments.
I’m glad someone made an alternative to Caffeine.app but “they’re both drugs” doesn’t weaken my personal objection to the choice of name. I am glad that Apple is compelling the name to be changed, and I hope the author complies. This is where “universal freedom” clashes directly with “common sense for a department store” for me, and while I understand others aren’t on my side, I prefer department stores to flea markets.
If everyone could see this decision and easily move over their apps to 1 of 20 other iOS app markets then it might be reasonable for Apple to have self-determined restrictions in place.
You could just ignore articles that don't interest you, and you certainly don't need to go to the trouble of commenting on them, although I support your efforts to encourage people to change platform (and reduce their customer base by half).
Companies change policies all the time. I get dozens of terms of service revision alerts in my e-mail each year.
Same goes for government policies, and even personal policies. You wouldn't make decisions today based solely on things you thought ten years ago.
Life changes. Policies change. Things change.
Both Drone+ and Phone Story could have been done as web apps (which iOS supported before native apps), but of course there are many APIs that you cannot access from WebKit.
This profession already exists, and has for at least a century. Where do you think the name "Exxon" came from?
What about all the people with ADHD, eating disorders, and other problems whose lives have been saved due to amphetamine?
Also I take it you'll be demanding the removal of WINE from all package managers due to the existence of alcoholics?
PS: I vote for Redeye as a new name (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red-eye_flight, just as Amphetamine was used by pilots in the past https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_and_culture_of_substit...).
Just like you’d say to kids, you don’t ever need to take those pills, maybe you should use your energy to push Apple so that your app isn’t necessary? I certainly try to educate my kids such that they will not be in a position to need those meds.
We like to think we own our hardware and make decisions about how it works and Apple sucks cuz they take away ownership, but cmon like you got to choose sensible defaults for your brain? “What’s in your .brainrc?” Random lines from your parents and friends at school, that’s what
An app is software that can be harmful to your device. Books and movies are not software and can't affect your device in any way.
Therefore, there is a very obvious justification for disallowing some apps; that doesn't apply for books or movies.
It's also not "hypocritical" for Apple to choose to have a curated App Store (which is feasible and realistic) but choose not to actively censor books (which isn't really feasible).
And fwiw, you're welcome to just ignore any threads or stories that you feel are getting repetitive. Many of us have a personal list of such topics, but our lists may not match.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or if you think the whole 'if you don't like something then shut-up and move' strategy is actually a logical solution.
How is just using the word or a charicature of it encouraging drug use? This puritanism is a mind disease.
I actually think Windows/MacOS should build the most commonly used sleep-gating functionality into the OS. (On Windows there's Coffee and Milk, where Coffee helps you keep it awake and Milk helps you figure out why it doesn't sleep. Seems like basic modern OS stuff to me.)
I have a story that makes me relate from Microsoft/Skype. A few months after Microsoft acquired Skype, a JIRA ticket was opened by one of the compliance teams at Microsoft with a simple request. Remove the mooning emoji from Skype [1], as it could be considered offensive in some countries and thus Microsoft could be at risk of being sued.
All of Skype erupted. The mooning icon was a symbol of playful cheekiness at Skype and has always been part of the app, and Skype never got sued for over 10 years. There were about 1,200 Skype engineers at the time and that ticket had more than 500 comments from engineers protesting this change. Some made good arguments. Some voiced frustration. Others called that this is a step towards censoring.
It didn’t matter. The icon was removed, the ticket closed.
In a similar vain, I’ll assume that not everyone at Apple will agree with this “violation”. But it won’t matter, as long as the legal teams says it’s a risk to have apps with such names and icons in Apple’s store.
I agree. When I turned my wife's old MacBook into a media server, I needed an app like this. I chose one that didn't share its name with controlled substance.
Branding 101. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
This name is pretty rings rather badly in my ears, though I’m not offended by such things. I’d feel similarly if they had named it “fuck sleep”. I’m not offended by the word “fuck” but I don’t really want to buy products that are named that. Do apps need energy drink names to be successful? I’ve noticed a trend in talking about men’s balls in ads, manscaping, underwater fart jokes. It’s seems so much like idiocracy more then something offensive.
On the other hand a rose is still a rose. So I agree they should probably just rename it. I doubt there would be any major loss from doing so.
If anyone is willing to make a big case out of this then you can use that media attention to grow your application's user base. This has potential for easy free advertisement through media controversy.
After you have gotten enough free advertisement, go forward with this recommendation of changing your branding.
In some cases, they're selective about which groups will and will not be sheltered from offense. And they may refuse to admit that, let alone engage in a public, civil debate about their choices.
Amphetamine is great - I use it daily to stop annoying infosec rules from locking my computer after 2min since I’m working from home. It’s my favorite kind of software, focuses on one issue and does it well.
They don't have a point based on basic common sense either, because this application isn't telling people to use amphetamines. It's a metaphor.
They don't (the claim is the app promotes drug use, which it doesn't), and it's quite likely that it's a reviewer mistake that will be overturned once the stink on social media gets big enough to reach the right person.
I'm only discussing moderation for content, rather than moderation for security, privacy, stability, etc.
> actively censor books (which isn't really feasible)
I don't think it's infeasible. I just searched for a piece of literature today on Apple's Book Store and instead found a book with a pretty raunchy title. Could they not at least moderate that?
Keep in mind they make it seem "feasible and realistic" that they can analyze apps to determine if they "can be harmful to your device," but anyone familiar with static analysis would know there are serious limitations to how much you can deduce about the behavior of an arbitrary binary.
See, for instance: https://www.reuters.com/article/apple-security-idUSN1E7A71ZS...
"In all, ASPI’s research has identified 82 foreign and Chinese companies potentially directly or indirectly benefiting from the use of Uyghur workers outside Xinjiang through abusive labour transfer programs as recently as 2019: Abercrombie & Fitch, Acer, Adidas, Alstom, Amazon, Apple, ASUS, BAIC Motor, Bestway, BMW, Bombardier, Bosch, BYD, Calvin Klein, Candy, Carter’s, Cerruti 1881, Changan Automobile, Cisco, CRRC, Dell, Electrolux, Fila, Founder Group, GAC Group (automobiles), Gap, Geely Auto, General Motors, Google, Goertek, H&M, Haier, Hart Schaffner Marx, Hisense, Hitachi, HP, HTC, Huawei, iFlyTek, Jack & Jones, Jaguar, Japan Display Inc., L.L.Bean, Lacoste, Land Rover, Lenovo, LG, Li-Ning, Mayor, Meizu, Mercedes-Benz, MG, Microsoft, Mitsubishi, Mitsumi, Nike, Nintendo, Nokia, Oculus, Oppo, Panasonic, Polo Ralph Lauren, Puma, SAIC Motor, Samsung, SGMW, Sharp, Siemens, Skechers, Sony, TDK, Tommy Hilfiger, Toshiba, Tsinghua Tongfang, Uniqlo, Victoria’s Secret, Vivo, Volkswagen, Xiaomi, Zara, Zegna, ZTE."
They start with the premise of culpability of a name. Which _is_ the problem in the first place.
That culpability was not demonstrated but was simply declared by remote association. The same arbitrary judgement can be made for an innumerable list of other words without making that judgement neither correct nor just.
Personally, I think this is a bad name for an app of this sorts. Caffeine is good one, amphetamine is borderline.
It’s basically bullshit to dismiss what they were saying on the basis of this pedantry.
Amphetamine is a structural class.
It’s also clearly true that people not versed in chemistry associate meth with amphetamine.
What’s ‘technically’ correct to a chemist really isn’t relevant to this debate.
We wouldn’t generally argue that it’s incorrect to say that champagne is wine, even though it’s more technically accurate to say that champagne is a wine.
In the case of amphetamine, we feel the need to make the distinction more strongly because the word has two meanings.
This is only true for those of use who are aware of the presence of both meanings.
Those who think of amphetamine as a class and don’t distinguish it from the substance are not wrong. They are just less precise.
Ouch
> Customize Your Mac’s Sleep Settings
> Amphetamine gives you granular control
Pound for pound you’d likely be better off putting your energy into policy. The scale is still tilted there, but there is some traction behind fairer app marketplaces.
The logo is basically a big pill and the tagline "Powerful keep-awake utility" which is clearly alluding to the drug. https://imgur.com/a/RJXHaBa
This was consistent with the feedback the author received: "[the] app appears to promote inappropriate use of controlled substances. Specifically, your app name and icon include references to controlled substances, pills"
Almost all of the other top apps in the app store in the same category use some reference to caffeine either in the name or tagline or description (e.g. "Jolt of Caffeine" or "Owly" which has a logo of an owl in a cup of coffee) https://imgur.com/a/yySBqEL
There's one other, much less popular app called "Coca" which appears to reference cocaine, but doesn't also have a drug-referencing icon or tagline, and which only has 15 reviews. By comparison, Amphetamine seems to be the most popular result, at least for the search term "awake", with 1.37K reviews
The guideline in question doesn't seem to consider excessive use of caffeine as problematic to encourage. "1.4.3 Apps that encourage consumption of tobacco and vape products, illegal drugs, or excessive amounts of alcohol are not permitted on the App Store. Apps that encourage minors to consume any of these substances will be rejected. Facilitating the sale of marijuana, tobacco, or controlled substances (except for licensed pharmacies) isn’t allowed."
Overall, Amphetamine did seem to be pushing the drug-use angle much harder than other apps in the category based on the logo, tagline and title, especially if you consider caffeine abuse not problematic.
Added: I don't have a strong opinion on this one either way, other than edgy naming has pros and cons. Word of mouth is easier, but sometimes a problem like this happens.
I believe it's Bitcoin, which is a silent, non-violent libertarian protest against the whole central banking system that produces huge powers, but I know that I am in the minority.
It's funny that much of the public only associates Github with Open Source even though all their paying customers use it for closed source development...
Of course it's just a name. There shouldn't be an argument that it's encouraging use
People, especially tech oriented folks, always seem to decry the threat of religious persecution by politicians but failed to recognize that enforcement of morals by any group can have very dangerous side effects. We see statements to that effect here all the time, people judged for lifestyle choices that are not in favor by one group or another. Morals become weaponized as they can be undefinable immeasurable standard applied to those who are no longer in favor by action, deed, or thought.
Related, the former are not amphetamine derivatives, which is a common misnomer.
It doesn't want apps that jokingly call themselves "Crack Cocaine", "Crystal Meth", or "Mango Vape". It doesn't have anything to do with them actually promoting drug use, but it helps normalize illegal drug use in a way, while Apple wants to keep a "family friendly" approach to its App Store.
Honestly, if I were the creator I'd just rebrand it.
I remember coming across the app years ago, it wasn't obvious from the name what it did, and when I finally understood it, it just seemed like the creator was trying a little too hard to be "edgy". And if you want the widest possible usage/distribution of your app, "edgy" is usually not the way to go.
I don't know for how many cases this didn't work but it's clear that it works for _some_. They don't want to make a difference and don't want to change platforms.
For what is worth, I'm glad for this publicity for it's clear it's part of a continuing stream of issues that should steer away any newcomer with open eyes.
https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/cfr/1308/1308_12.ht...
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 and avoid conflict at work over improving the product.
Sometimes public outcry can create a new risk and change the direction of management.
Perhaps the argument is that people have a duty to learn about genocides going on in the world, whereas there is no moral imperative to learn about bad policies of tech companies, but by that logic nearly every discussion on this site should be removed.
This should be clear?
Sure it’s just a chemical. Everything is just chemicals but I don’t need “meth” for my computer. Same reason our kids don’t need toys advertised as “crack for your baby”.
Agin not offended its just not a good name. Even if let’s say you build an app that’s hooks into some other program and you sell said app for two dollars, you may think it’s hilarious to call it “two dollar hooker”, hell I myself might even chuckle. But only once, then I’ll just get annoyed every time I see “two dollar hooker” in startup, “two dollar hooker has crashed” etc.
I also would not buy your product if it were called alcohol poisoning. I love alcohol. I’m drinking a beer right now (happy New Years everyone). But naming a computer program after it sounds like an odd thing to do. And more to your point would also be a violation of the same rule Apple is using in this case.
Headed?
This disingenuous take on the term does not help your case nor reflects positively on your reputation as a honest person. Amphetamines have a long reputation as recreational and illicit drugs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphetamine
Amphetamines, much like cocaine and heroin, are not a mere chemical, nor do they convey a mental image of chemists doing science in a lab to the public. And please don't try to pass everyone as a bunch of stupid idiots by claiming that an app designed to keep a device awake is named after a mere chemical, with a long track record of being used as an euphoriant, without any popular connotation with drug abuse.
Look no further then to this very thread.
But if almost all of the materials referring to the app by that name are on your own web site, I agree with you, change it and move on. Use those efforts in better places.
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.
I’m saddened to see so many equating amphetamines to illicit drugs, when that’s simply not the full story. This perception is exactly what stops people from taking their medication when they should and balking at the idea of a medication being able to help them.
What's really sad is why this kind of feature even needs to be implemented through a third-party application when it should really be handled on the OS side...
This isn't going to be popular, however getting away with something for a period of time is not the same as being approved/sanctioned/etc. In the petition the author claimed that the app "spontaneously began violating" one of the guidelines, when clearly it has violated it all along. Yet that disingenuous angle is used constantly when people get away with something for a while and suddenly aren't.
As an aside, it's interesting that anyone thinks that making a big noise about this will cause Apple to revert their stance (as app using a pill as their icon, naming it after a controlled substance, and using narrative like "the most awesome keep-awake"). That is improbable. It seems much more likely that Apple will be very certain this app is renamed, and the narrative changed.
At what point did they become aware that forced labor was being used, and what are they trying to do to change the situation?
If you don’t know the answer to these questions, it seems unclear that they are ‘doing something nefarious’.
I think doing business in China inevitably creates exposure to these problems.
I think people knew China had problems like this when they started investing there.
However I don’t think anyone anticipated China getting worse in this way.
The article is actually quite well written and even highlights, with examples, how Apple applies such naming rules arbitrarily.
I've said this before - all developers who distribute their apps through the macOS / ios app store should feel like a JACKASS for not only giving Apple control over distribution, but also paying them for the same. YOU DEVELOPERS ARE THE ONE WHO CREATE MORE VALUE FOR THESE APPLE PLATFORMS - why in the hell do you think it is some kind of "privilege" to PAY them for it??
With its exclusive app store, Apple acts like a CORRUPT bureaucrat who unnecessarily imposes himself in the middle of you and your clients, demanding a bribe from both to connect you and them. Thus, increasing costs for your clients, and reducing your profits!
Especially on the macOS, which Apple is desperately trying to turn into a closed platform like ios, developers are being incredibly SHORT-SIGHTED by distributing apps on its app store and adding more value to something that will end up hurting them when everyone's choice is ultimately limited to it.
A stimulant drug, just happens to be legal.
Or Coca? A plant that release a stimulant when chewed.
Now if the app was called "Sweet Meth", you'd have a better parallel with "fuck sleep", but it's not.
Sensibilities about naming things do change over time - as various sports clubs have found.
I'm sorry for the developer, but I can see why the guidelines might have been triggered.
I guess I was assuming that anger and happiness are somewhat mutually exclusive.
What I see here as complacency on peoples' part here is ridiculous. Companies and people never stop until they are tested. Apple would have never made a small business contract for the app store had it not been for Epic's lawsuit.
There even a comment below where Apple had no issues featuring the app: https://apps.apple.com/us/story/id1470456860
This is winnable in court. Settle for Apple paying for the cost of re-brand and lawyers if they do not want to continue the dispute in court.
Though, Schedule II means it has accepted medical uses, so it is not illegal. For instance, lots of kids are prescribed amphetamines for ADHD.
The part of the policy that actually references "controlled substances" only forbids apps that facilitate their sale by non-pharmacies.
I think the GGP has a point if you replace "controlled substances" with "illegal drugs." The reviewer obviously seems to think the terms are synonymous (which is false), and banned the app under the clause that forbids "encourag[ing] consumption of ... illegal drugs."
Leaving everything else aside, this reviewer pretty clearly failed to understand and reasonably apply the policy as written. Reference != promotion and "controlled substance" != "illegal drugs" (all illegal drugs are controlled substances, but the reverse is not true).
Similarly, I would avoid naming something potentially weird or offensively for much the same reason, no matter how appropriate or funny it might seem at the time.
While rebranding might be a pain, I suggest just doing it. This not a free speech hill worth dying on, in my opinion.
One of the main points is that apple has a hierarchy of priorities for their App Store: protect Apple's brand, protect the customer, then make money (timestamp 5:08 in video). Apple probably got some complaints about the name of the program (probably 100 or less) and decided it wasn't worth the $0 it was making to leave it up.
Well it gives you an argument I think. Along the lines of a trademark infringement -- if you have let people use your trademark name for years without protest, that can work against you if you suddenly start demanding that it be enforced.
Not sure it would hold much weight here, since it's a case of Apple deciding what they want to allow in their own store.
Taking this literally, is an amphetamine an illegal drug? It’s a class of Schedule II drugs that are legal in all 50 states.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine_(drink)
https://m.riverfronttimes.com/foodblog/2010/01/20/the-beerte...
It's not that they're uniquely evil, rather that they don't have the moral authority to lecture.
Apple’s policies are bullshit, don’t get me wrong, but let’s not act like download numbers give the developer any leverage.
Learning not to be offended by things is a skill that is worth learning.
It is also the road the tolerance.
Edit: To expand, Apple inspires strong opinions in a lot of people. They have a lot of fans for various reasons, and a lot of detractors for various reasons. And then there's everyone in between those extremes too. It's to be expected that any comment thread about Apple will have a lot of opinions that you disagree with, no matter what your viewpoint is.
Any app store vendor is the alpha and omega on its platform. Any app store has a monopoly on its walled garden. There are some good aspects like user protection against bad apps, but on the whole, is it worth the price.
Main question now is how society should deal with this. Some ideas from the top of my head
* One option is to simply break the monopoly. A platform could be obligated to implement a store API, and the default platform store should use that same API as any other.
* Another option is a separation of duties. Just like lawmaker, judge and police can't be the same entity in a democracy, they could be split up in the app stores.
* Maybe the safety of the user device can be guaranteed independently from the app store. If the OS enforced walls between apps are strong enough that malicious apps can always be removed and no data theft is possible, the damage done by bad app stores can be lowered?
It applies to both sides here: Apple could continue to choose not to be offended after 6 years. The developer could choose not to be offended at Apple’s decision and rebrand.
Having said that, this is censorship any way you look at it. Whether it’s “valid” censorship depends on your point of view.
> Argument #1: Amphetamine Does Not Promote the Use of Illegal Drugs or Facilitate the Sale of Controlled Substances
> Amphetamine does not promote the use of illegal drugs. Not only that, Amphetamine does not promote the recreational use of legal/prescribed drugs. In the United States, amphetamine is prescribed by doctors to adults for narcolepsy and to children for ADHD...
> ...Just like amphetamine (the organic compound) can be legally used to keep humans awake and attentive, Amphetamine (the app) can be legally used to keep your Mac awake."
While "amphetamine" isn't itself an "illegal" drug, promoting the use of amphetamines for anything other than the FDA-approved indications (e.g. narcolepsy and ADHD) is something that can approach illegality [0]. For example, Pfizer and many other companies have had to pay billions to settle charges of promoting drugs for non-approved indications [1].
The author doesn't help his case when he asserts, "amphetamine can be legally used to keep humans awake and attentive". Yes, that's an effect of the drug, but it's only official legal uses are for treating narcolepsy and diagnosed ADHD. Adderall's manufacturer would get in big trouble if it started a campaign to convince doctors (who can basically prescribe for any reason they judge necessary) to get patients on Adderall for general boosting of performance and productivity.
Of course, the author (I assume) isn't in the pocket of Big Pharma. it's also not a stretch to see how this falls afoul of Apple' policy against encouraging the illegal use of drugs, in that the application's very name creates an association between "Amphetamine" and "making your computer more productive". Alcohol isn't an illegal drug either, but as the author notes, Apple explicitly bans encouragement of "consumption of...excessive amounts of alcohol" – i.e. a harmful use of an otherwise legal drug.
To use a hypothetical example, if a developer created an app that reduced screen glare and excessive contrast in UI elements, and then called it Fentanyl, I'd imagine Apple would have the same complaints as it does against Amphetamine, even though Fentanyl is a drug legally prescribed for severe chronic pain.
[0] https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20160719.05588...
[1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-...
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 too. You do have to accept some things in life are beyond your control. But it does not mean you should not be an advocate for necessary change. Speaking up is the beginning. (And in fact, more positive to your well-being). And you can even stop with that. But speak up.
The author has made some good arguments and I urge everyone to read it. Irrespective, of what the author ultimately decides to do, he should be glad for having the courage to speak up. And that many of us appreciate it and support him.
Apple shouldn't forget that while it may have hoodwinked many developers to pay them for the "privilege" of creating and distributing apps on their platform, it is the developers who are the ones adding more VALUE to their platform. And that there's a limit to how much you can abuse and gauge them (one would have that all the law suits on the app store would have made them realised that by now).
Whether you find the situation distasteful, it has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Neither the offended people nor Apple is infringing on the developer's freedom speech.
> I also would not buy your product if it were called alcohol poisoning. I love alcohol. I’m drinking a beer right now (happy New Years everyone). But naming a computer program after it sounds like an odd thing to do. And more to your point would also be a violation of the same rule Apple is using in this case.
What about an application that assists in force-quitting other programs? One might call that "Scotch", since that's what it does ("It 'scotches' other processes, you see..."), and the application might have a cutesy whiskey glass as its icon. Would that run afoul of your sensibilities?
If you look at this and think of street meth, that's your own problem.
We can have lots of lively debate about how to draw the boundaries. But we'll get a lot farther if we can move beyond the two-state absolutism of "allowable everywhere" vs. "outright banned with breath-taking severity."
Just because people use the app doesn’t mean they like the name.
> it’s not referring to a street drug.
Amphetamine (and other amphetamines) are certainly available as 'street drugs'. The stigmatization of 'street drugs' (and generally, drug use as part of someone's self-directed diet) is also harmful.
I don't think we as a society should be this sensitive/prone to suggestion. If anything, I believe the censorship promotes the idea that people have no responsibility to make their own choices, and we must build to the lowest common denominator.
Note, I'm not really making a judgement about whether Apple should be allowed to do this - I think that is harder question.
For example, if you have issues staying awake from narcolepsy it's possible to legally obtain amphetamines, and our society generally accepts this to be a good thing.
Hehe your fucking five, but then it just gets annoying.
The fact remains that in most places amphetamines are an illegal drug when acquired without a prescription.
I think he should just rebrand. A name change is not a big deal, given the app has low name recognition in the first place. News of the rebrand will be the first Google result for people who are unaware of it.
Apple holds all the cards here. There is little to be gained if he wins, and if he loses he will have to rebrand anyway after much wasted effort.
Demeaning me with the phrase "pushing your puritan views" is is tasteless and inappropriate, and makes incorrect assumptions not only about the root of my objection but also about the belief systems surrounding it. You are wrong about both.
I personally have never dealt with an HOA, so my understanding of their popularity is shaped solely by what I have read online. I must say your comment is the only one I have ever seen that has put them in a positive light.
However, I did just get a nasty gram to take down my political "Giant Meteor for 2020 - just end it already" yard sign.
There is a command line tool called caffeinate that ships with Mac OS. Maybe Apple didn’t like somebody using something so similar their system utility name.
Originally I thought it was the same name, so this seems much less likely now that they're merely similar.
No doubt your secops are trying to justify their existence like app store reviewers if this is what worries them!
Yes. And the solution is:
1. Creating a viable alternative.
2. Promoting it.
Which is the opposite of what TFA is trying to do: They just want Apple to make an exception for them. Not to solve the root problem.
Freedom of speech means the government won't/can't prosecute you for what you say. It doesn't have anything to do with how companies or private citizens respond to your words.
You're (usually) legally allowed to say you'll fuck my mom but I don't have to bring you over for family dinner.
One could contend that apple's refusal to host this app on it's store is in itself free speech.
Either way, the government jasent gotten involved so nothing here treads on free speech issues.
I don't know you but based on that facile response, I'm guessing you're more down for the former - considering the deleterious externalities of bitcoin mining at scale are pretty well known.
I too recommend live to run another day approach ( ala Rincewind ).
..then again, this may be the right time to do stand up to Apple. Current upheaval in tech, clear battle lines being drawn over everything from section 230 to app store could stack up things in your favor..
Still, it is only a chance.
Scotch vs scotch whiskey is more of a word play joke as well than a direct analogy. But I see your point and your totally right that one sounds less bad to me. I'm only stating that as a matter of taste I do not like this particular apps name.
And since it's apple's store they have the right to not like it either. I just don't think this is a profound "free speech argument" like some do in these comments.
Personally I think it's really odd that someone would need an app to keep their computer from sleeping. This says far more about macs than the arbitrary naming policy.
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 have been following the saga of rental water heaters/furnaces/ACs in Ontario for a while. Long story short, construction companies sign a long-term contract with an appliance company instead of buying and installing necessary appliances like furnaces for new houses. They get a nice kickback for this. If you want to buy a new house, odds are you will be bound by a long-term contact. If you want to terminate it early, you end up paying 30k for an appliance that is worth 10k new and installed. If you keep your contact, you will pay the same over many years.
It is a deal that is very much to the benefits of the builder and very much against the interest of the homeowners. But they have been exploding in popularity. There are relatively more and more homes with rented water heaters and fewer and fewer homes with owned water heaters every year. It would still be wrong to conclude that "water heater rental is beneficial. See, the market has spoken."
It’s more like the government of the archipelago decided that they don’t like the name of the island as people interested in such an island are promoting narcotics.
I suspect that Apple has done studies and has a projected “likely lost sales” figure attributable to having an app store overrun with “mature content” apps.
(Edited: tried to clean up a clunky sentence :))
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.
They name several apps which would seem to violate the same guideline, at worst they're asking for the same exception Apple has already given to others. An argument can be made that they're snitching on the others, but it's also an argument for consistency that one could say is the root problem.
Maybe Apple should change their name? Given what apples did for Adam & Eve?
Yes, words are important. But so is context and intention. If we keep eliminating words - removed from context and intent -then all we'll have left are emojis.
Oh wait...nevermind.
Botton line: Come on Apple, really? Of all the fights to fight in the world, this is a good one? Shame on you.
I can see why Apple chooses the family friendly route and rebranding probably is the best option in this case as fighting it would most likely be futile.
I don't think they went overboard with the name in general tho. It makes sense for the app as much as the other coffee/coca branded ones do.
They explicitly chose "amphetamine" over "meth" which is a medical term and has valid uses.
So people aren’t going to like the HOA. But they also offer essential recourse and order.
The ones that hates the HOA are the ones that have paid a ton of money (I’m in the Bay Area) and can’t do as they please. Who wants to pay close to a million and have others chime in and start giving you directions on what to do to your own property.
I rent, but the principe of the HOA is a big enough leech in my mind that I’d hold out for a single home, whenever that is (if at all).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act#cite...
The end result is that the merge of the two ends up in the dictionary. Perhaps it's time to update the definitions but I doubt that 'amphetamine' will be defined as slang for 'meth' when in fact 'meth' is slang or short for 'methamphetamine'.
They are not telling the author they can't call his app whatever they want. They are saying they will not sell it in their app store under that name.
And that's the bargain you enter into when you sell in a walled garden ecosystem.
Then apparently they made a poor decision - the app apparently has been downloaded 500,000 times. That means it adds value to the users who use it, and that means it creates more value for Apple's platform. Apple shouldn't forget that developers add value to their platform, and moreover, with Apple charging them, they are also clients too!
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.
If you didn't want those strings, then go buy a property somewhere that doesn't have an HOA.
Same with this case, I sympathize with the author and I personally think this is a stupid thing for Apple to do, but the author (hopefully) understood the bargain they were entering into when they chose to enter the walled garden.
This is childish, nonsensical argumentation. The app has always been in contravention of the rules of the app store.
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.
>"When you leave your Mac idle, it smartly goes to sleep to conserve power and reduce wear and tear. But this can also stop a big download short or prevent a lengthy compile or render from finishing. Instead of having to periodically wiggle the pointer to keep your Mac awake, launch Amphetamine and rest assured your Mac won’t sleep until you want it to. Amphetamine sits unobtrusively in the menu bar until you Control-click it (or press Command-I) to kick it into gear. That’s it. Your Mac will stay awake until you end the session."
It is also extremely hypocritical, Apple distributes and profits from existing works of art that depict and describe drug use, among other topics, through Apple TV, iTunes, and Apple Music. Apple has no concerns with profiting from art after someone else approved it whether some other movie producer or record label. As long as some other large institution vouches for it then Apple will look the other way. But if every institution operated like Apple, most of the best works of literature, music, and film would never have been approved.
Honestly, I can not fathom why so much open source and free content is produced for Apple's ecosystem. Everything from the desktop MacOS operating system to Apple's app store policies is counterproductive for developers and anyone who disagrees with Apple's rules. The opportunity of the App store makes sense for commercial and profit driven apps but there is no reason to give charity to the most valued company on the planet.
Finally, I really doubt there is any legal ramification for Apple here. Apple can ban any app they want for any reason which is fine. I just think anyone starting to get into developing should consider anything but app development for this reason. If the product has to be an 'app' then try to make it a web app. Anything besides putting your life in Apple's hands.
It's also bad to name apps after drugs that are widely abused. It's just too extra. Call it something positive and pro-social like "matcha" or "oolong" or maybe "dark roast" or "espresso" or something.
This is also why I do not use any of these platforms, instead having spent the time to rig up my own alternatives: Google-free AOSP-derived Android on mobiles and tablets, Linux on laptops and servers, Searx for search, Nextcloud for "cloudy things", NC Talk and Jitsi Meet for videoconferencing, Exim and Dovecot for mail, Peertube for video, Airsonic and MPD for media streaming, etc. I've been doing this since the late 90's of the last century (minus the mobile stuff since that simply did not exist back then...) so I can state with certainty that this is not just hollow rhetoric, it is a viable alternative to submitting to the whims of companies like Apple (et al).
When I buy software, I certainly don't expect to get drugs. When I buy a game called "Surgeon Simulator" I don't expect to receive actual surgeon training any more than I expect to get amphetamine after getting an app called amphetamine.
(someone stated that amphetamines are now available in the EU market. But, if so, it's likely that few people will know, mostly because discussions of ADHD have somewhat faded)
But, when I read the name, it didn't register as offensive to me. Amphetamines are a class of drugs and there are both legal and illegal ones...it doesn't immediately equate in my mind to crystal meth. But it does immediately equate to "keeps you awake", which seems appropriate.
It also seems a bit unfair after 6 years and 500k downloads. Had Apple made an issue of it originally, the author might have built all the goodwill and ratings with some other, more acceptable name.
The internet is a pretty big place to have to launch a product. Picking a name that suggests a purpose seems like a big win to me and coming up with a string of words that won't offend someone is a pretty big challenge these days.
First, methamphetamine is not amphetamine. Meth belongs to the broad class of molecules properly known as "substituted amphetamines" or "phenethylamines." No one in-the-know refers to meth as "amphetamine" by itself, though some do broadly refer to assorted substituted amphetamines as "amphetamines" but this is pretty sloppy and if you want to refer to the class and "substituted amphetamines" is a mouthful, just use "phenethylamine" (PEA).
The name, of course, one of the most clever elisions in chemistry, Alpha-Methyl-PHenyl-ETthylAMINE, refers to the methyl group alpha to (the 1st substituent on the carbon backbone) the amine. This makes PEAs structural analogs of dopamine (DA, aka 3,4-OH-PEA) and norepinephrine (NE, aka 3,4,β-OH-PEA), and their the ability to modulate DA/NE receptors is what gives PEAs their general stimulating properties.
Meth-amphetamine has a methyl group on the amine. This seemingly small structural change makes a big difference pharmacologically. Methylation of amines makes drugs more fat-soluble, which makes them better at penetrating the blood-brain barrier and cellular membranes, while inhibiting its breakdown and clearance. This makes METH harder hitting, better at receptor binding, faster acting, and with far stronger effects than AMPH. Modelling addiction is tricky, but we can loosely approximate how strongly habit-forming a drug can be by multiplying the blood plasma curve by an exponential decay. The faster and higher a drug peaks, the more likely it will be addicting.
METH's lipophilicity also means it tends to cause DA to leak into places it shouldn't, resulting in unwanted chemical side-reactions which can damage neurons and glia, making it more toxic than AMPH. (this is a huuuge oversimplification; there are reams of studies on the mechanism of METH toxicity, and yes the literature uses METH as the abbreviation, I'm not being dramatic by all-capsing it)
Together, this makes METH much more dangerous than AMPH, and hence why AMPH and prodrugs such as Vyvanse (lysine-dexamphetamine) are commonly prescribed for ADHD, sleep disorders and eating disorders, while METH (under the name Desoxyn) is much more obscure medicinally (but still used! In fact another comment in this post mentions it).
Both are DEA Schedule II. Scheduling has basically no correlation to actual addictive potential or harm in any way. Psilocybin is SchI, has virtually no risk of addiction or overdose, Zolpidem is SchIV but is notoriously prone to abuse, and tobacco isn't even scheduled but is exceptionally addictive, causes easily >$100B in costs in USA alone. Yeah, the DEA schedule is kinda useless IMHO, but I digress.
AMPH can be abused and sold on the street, but that's true of literally any drug that humans find interesting to consume, including weak PEAs like bupropion, and OTC drugs like diphenhydramine and dextromethorphan.
Bottom line is - amphetamine is safe and effective when used as prescribed for improving focus and wakefulness. Lumping it in with METH or other street drugs is chemically imprecise, and does a disservice to those struggling with executive disorders. Apple makes it seem like just the name Amphetamine implies inappropriate drug consumption, which adds to the stigma those who benefit from amphetamine treatment already experience.
Thanks for coming to my TEDHN talk.
In the first situation, you have no way of knowing whether the cop even saw you. Or if they were on duty. Or if they were previously occupied responding to some other call.
In the second, the app was explicitly submitted for review and approved by Apple. Even more egregious, the app was explicitly mentioned, by name, by Apple.
Next time, I recommend you speed up and catch the cop to make sure they know you were speeding and see how things play out.
If so, I could see people liking it as it serves the same function as an HOA: a hedge against bad things happening.
Water heater died? Plumber comes out, no charge. Neighbor starting a junkyard on his front lawn? HOA sends a letter, no confrontation.
Some people will decline an HOA for the same reasons they decline extended warranties: they’d rather deal with situations themselves, as they arise. Others don’t want to be bothered and let someone else handle it. I think there is space for both.
The First Amendment says this. Freedom of speech is “a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction” [1]. It is broader than the First Amendment, and gave rise to it, though the First Amendment is its most successful codification in the modern world.
A society that shuns those who say “bad” things, even without state action, may not hold true to the values of freedom of speech.
Now, I’m not advocating to remove those. I like games, but let’s not pretend that somehow calling an app after a molecule is worse.
This isn’t even a so-called ‘walled garden’. Let’s take Instagram for instance: built on technologies provided freely by others (HTML, JavaScript, CSS) and exploiting user-created content, I still need to sign-up to a Facebook service to be able to see that freely-provided content.
If these apps were boxes on a Walmart shelf, why would it be seen as some sort of civil-liberty infringement if you got a call someday, to say that Walmart had decided to discontinue selling your product?
Just change the name and move on.
Apple was promoting Amphetamine not that long ago:
https://www.caffeineinformer.com/cocaine-energy-drink-is-bac...
Maybe it's an off day for him and he just doesn't care. Maybe he was confused about the speed limit on that stretch. Maybe he is waiting for a bigger fish. Maybe he likes my car (or skin) color and decided to look the other way. Regardless, I got away with speeding.
If I then at some future date pointed to that as legalizing my speeding for all time, that would be ignorant nonsense. Yet we see this exactly this sort of childish argument in all realms: Some guy deducts something unlawful for years and then one day the tax man says "Uh no...that isn't allowed", and they point to their prior years as if that makes it suddenly lawful. That getting away with it before grandfathers it in or something.
Some random Apple employee writing a story linked it (or a tax employee accepting a tax return, or a cop giving a pass to speeding), therefore it is officially sanctioned for all time. Give me a break. That isn't how any of this works.
But it makes for a lot of crybaby stories.
I believe so. But the price is so unreasonably high that you could replace the furnace literally 3 to 5 times and you would still be ahead compared to renting the furnace. How many people would purchase an extended warranty that is priced at multiples of the price of the object they are buying? More than none, but a very small number. New rentals are signed overwhelmingly by builders and not homeowners.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh2-iJj3dI0&ab_channel=Simon...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61FaYVGVY_I&ab_channel=Simon...
Far better to keep the money you have earned, recognizing that even the rebrand won’t save your app in the long run. It’s done.
If you buy a home warranty, or an extended warranty for your car, you are (on average) going to be out of pocket more than you would be without it. You are buying it for the peace of mind that comes from not having to deal with an unlikely but major repair expense.
FWIW, it's a net downside for me that my professional workstation has an app named "Amphetamine", so I'm quietly in favor of a rename. But it's obviously the author's prerogative to choose its branding, so long as it falls within (consistently) applied policies of those who they rely on to distribute it.
I removed Caffeine from the App Store when Apple started complaining that a click on a menu bar icon for an app without a dock icon must always show a menu (offering a Quit option). I wanted it to toggle the active state instead and show the menu on right-click/cmd-click.
You can always just disable the screensaver on your Mac if you'd like. Amphetamine really helps when you have MDM installed or something that requires your computer to sleep every so often.
That said, TV and movies are far more controlled than the App Store.
Not at this price. Usually the warranty is a percentage of the price of the goods. So for example, I expect a $1000 gadget to have extended warranty priced at $100 or so. I have never seen the warranty of a $1000 gadget to be priced at $3000 to $5000 dollars. And that is for stuff that break down more frequently, e.g. phones and laptops and cars. The odds of a furnace breaking down are even lower.
Not that I wanted to build a career around police scanner apps, but it was an independent income.
People here defending Apple are conformist fanboys.. the same people that were sitting staring at that video screen in the old 1984 ad.
Funny how the world repeats.
Or worse, because they are over leveraged and unable to fund a replacement without an installment plan – so they have no better option?
I’m not sure. I can see a consumer protection argument to be made.
You don't get to choose peoples reaction or the way they view you after you say something. That would be infringing on their right to hold or express opinions about your views.
What's complicated about that?
Here’s to the lazy ones, the mundane, the conformers, the rule-followers, the square pegs in the square holes… the ones who don't see things differently — they’re fond of rules… You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them, you can also safely ignore them because they dare not change things… they keep the human race stagnant, and while some may see them as the lazy ones, we see order, because the ones who are lazy enough to know that they can't change the world, are the ones who won't try
People are good at rationalizing. I'm sure my earlier comment, and many others, would be sufficient justification for someone inclined to do nothing.
I'm sure Apple is a political quagmire, but if you describe your experience working there the same way someone might describe their time at Auschwitz, it's probably you and not them.
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%.
I really don't understand how people can willingly buy and use Apple products given the kind of paternalistic, I-know-what's-best for-you attitude this abomination of a company has.
I generally dont like obnoxious marketing either, but unless it is inappropriate for the setting i dont think it should be banned, and this is far more tame than other apps on the app store
I only bring this up because if you're trying to educate folks on compounds in this sphere, being accurate is a nice thing to do.
I wish this project all the best. It's absolutely silly that the name of a commonly prescribed compound should be so maligned. What if I named an app "Metformin"? Would that be at risk of uh, encouraging type 2 diabetes?
Censoring language is a bad idea even for the richest corporation, partially because there's practically no way to do it without looking like a hypocrite or also doing massive collateral damage. Like in this case, where Apple argues calling an app "Amphetamine" is bad but calling one "Drug Mafia" or "Drink extreme" is supposedly okay.
They don't give two f__ks about being politically correct, they're a corporation, their main concern is profit, and if you're not being hysterically PC in 2021, you're gonna loose money because of the radical minority that's ruining it for everyone.
As an aside I’ve noticed that it’s Apples day to feature on the hn front page. Seems to be an unusual influx of bad apple press. I’m curious if it is coordinated? I’ve wondered the same about anti google/Facebook/Amazon as well. They all seem to come in waves.
Adderall®, Concerta®, Dexedrine®, Focalin®, Metadate®, Methylin®, Ritalin® are all “brand name” amphetamines.
Yup, and they're controlled substances that you can't buy without a prescription and which are only supplied in limited quantity. Your app branding is literally a kind of drug abuse - using a drug to stay awake rather than its medical use to just be normally functional.
This isn't to endorse Apple, which ought to apply its guidelines more consistently instead of ignoring or enforcing them in arbitrary manner, and which should be more transparent with communities of users rather than using its leverage against individual developers with no real process or recourse.
But when you get down to it, you are in violation of the ToS and there isn't a great moral crusade here. Rebrand and be happy.
Fun fact: There are serious surgery training apps in the app stores. Surgeons, too, like to practice in a simulation rather than on real patients.
They should be brave and rebrand it to Soma, nothing flies in the new world of apples and bananas.
Apple doesn't "hold all the cards" unless we believe it is so. The longer that belief is popular we will lose the option to fight when the stakes get higher.
Just saying.
Don't tie your income to a platform you can't control.
App store, youtube, ... they all can lock your out without reason and recourse. Don't rely on them.
I'm guessing it's been slowly changed by people big enough to realize the name doesn't matter.
To most people, it refers in this context to the noise an elephant makes.
I wouldn't read too much from that. The market preferring something doesn't mean most people dealing with it like it, it means that it makes money for the people with most say in the matter.
In this case, I think the sufficient explanation for the phenomenon is that HOAs are good at protecting property values. In my experience, most of the silly / annoying rules can be explained by either protecting property value, or by most people being too busy to attend meetings, allowing a small group of bored people to take control.
They're also quite different from opiods because unlike them, they aren't inherently addictive if prescribed properly. For example, prescribed for ADHD, all cause addiction rates do not increase from amphetamine use. In general, it's about as addictive as alcohol, and that's perfectly acceptable as the name for software such as WINE.
It's a free app. There is no business to sustain. The indie dev can walk away, and app can die and Apple users will suffer.
But they were indeed selling it under that name for 6 years!
How would you like it if you spend a lot of money to advertise your company or product and create a brand value to it, to one day Apple telling you that they would like you to change the name or they will not distribute it on their store?
Yes, the app store is a closed environment where they can dictate some terms. But don't forget that the developers PAY THEM to use it, and as such their terms cannot trump the consumer laws that exist to protect against such abuse. (By the way, "my shop, my terms" have already faced legal scrutiny some of which were found to be illegal - popular ones include refusing to serve people of colour or gays.)
FWIW, I do app review policy for iSH, which went though a similar situation recently (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25028252) where we managed to convince Apple that they had misinterpreted their review guidelines. If you’re looking for help to get Amphetamine approved as it should, feel free to contact me at saagar@saagarjha.com. I’d be really disappointed to see Amphetamine lose its years of brand value over such a petty review decision.
You surely know this already.
(By the way, "my shop, my terms" have already faced legal scrutiny, some of which were found to be illegal - popular judgements include that shops cannot refuse to serve people of colour or gays.)
Whether the name "Amphetamine" does in fact promote illicit drug use may be up for question, of course, but that's got nothing to do with monopoly power.
I just went through buying a furnace and had a few prospective installers. The first tried to sell the extended coverage: twice annual “checks and maintenance” and a 30% discount on all parts.
The second said he’d let me source the parts myself if I so desired and if I would be responsible for changing the air filter on schedule and hosing down the outside fan every summer I’d be better off putting the annual fee into a sinking fund. Or, I could pay him $200 a year to hold a hose, money he’d happily take. He got the job. ;-)
All jokes aside, I feel that this is a poor analogy that really misses the key issues (in my mind).
A developer creates an app and then submits an app for review. The app is approved and the app starts to build an organic following. At some later date, and without any explicit changes to the app or to the terms, Apple decides that the app is in violation of the terms for information that was available upon review. The developer and app are unfortunately the ones to pay the cost, as the organic growth is deterred. Will the new app be able to recapture the same market share? Hard to say. Regardless of Apple's action in this case, I think it would be in the company's best interest to consider the developer's experience when proceeding with issues like this.
Go to any gas station to see similarly edgy boner pills, designer drugs like bath salts, things that are genuinely more dangerous.
The dev makes a good point that there are much more explicit iOS games and it's odd for Apple to single him out.
The developer could try suing Apple on the basis of laches, the legal doctrine whereby if one party has 'slept on their rights' so long that the situation changed, they can't suddenly decide to enforce a term later. But there's no hard and fast rule about this, and since it would tie Apple's hands they'd probably fight it tooth and nail, throwing enough legal resources at it to wear out any opposition.
You say "[we] don't get to choose [people's reactions]", but this is not at all relevant. We're not asking whether their actions are legal or whether we can legally dictate what they think, we're asking whether they're acting ethically.
> Amphetamine updates have been rejected by Apple on numerous occasions. One time, Apple’s App Review Team did not like my “Preview” screen shots. Another time, Apple objected to the default behavior when clicking Amphetamine’s menu bar icon, saying it must open the menu by default and not start a session.
I'd have to see a documented event of this happening rather than a hypothetical scenario to believe a downside actually exists.
I, on the other hand, have taken (thus far) about 15 downvotes. And I regret none of them given that I'm absolutely right, and this is yet another stupid torch mob about nonsense.
The guy is going to end up changing the name (and icon) of his project. Life moves on. Story at 11.
This is not done by some random manager.
It’s a weird thing that a stimulant can help you chill; from this one could conjecture that an amphetamine to keep you awake isn’t being used to treat ADHD.
I am not a medical Doctor; I am not many things.
Although it would appear that A&E and GP Drs around here aren’t up on lis-Dex
Uh yeah, that's their defined purpose that everybody knows about and agrees upon. I've lived in several properties under HOAs, haven't had any trouble, and don't know anyone personally who's had any trouble either.
IMO, HOA problems are of those things that's extremely rare in practice, but makes for outrage-inducing stories on the internet that get upvoted heavily and widely viewed. Since this is well known and plenty of people will do anything for internet upvotes, I'd bet a significant number of the stories are either made up entirely or are highly exaggerated and misleading.
If HOAs were really that bad, you'd see a market for homes advertising the lack of them. We don't though. The better analogy is internet free speech. In theory, everybody likes free speech. But if you create a new forum specifically for the purpose of not censoring anything, it tends to get filled with the worst assholes of the internet. Similarly, you can guess who'd be itching to move in if you advertised your housing development as not having a HOA.
Unfortunately American culture is simply unsuited for free expression unless buttressed by something list the 1st amendment, which of course only applies to Government.
Fundamentally Apple can and will do whatever it wants and there is no point complaining to them. OTOH allowing direct installs and multiple apps stores is a security disaster. But parliaments can pass laws to regulate monopoly conduct, in the same way that essential services are. Privacy, competition policy (including market access), arbitration procedures for small vs large companies, etc are all mature fields of law, and action in any large market would have significant effect on Apple/Google policy.
Lobby your politicians. Support organizations like EFF.
[1] https://www.usenix.org/system/files/login/articles/login_dec...
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.
Which reminds me that ppl use random words for all kinds of things so I can't find what I'm looking for because now some animal or item is a software name...
See stocking fees in physical retail stores:
* https://financialpost.com/news/retail-marketing/loblaw-follo...
* https://www.canadiangrocer.com/top-stories/headlines/loblaw-...
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 boundaries of what is acceptable, and somewhere you're going to have to draw a line.
Apple has no real justification here, especially when it forcefully denies both the creators and the consumers a choice in the matter on many of its platforms.
Apple has no real justification here, especially when it forcefully denies both the creators and the consumers a choice in the matter on many of its platforms.
The HOA is becoming more and more like your American ISP. When more and more properties demand an HOA, there’s only so many choices for you.
Though I don’t like the answer of “go do it somewhere else” because the real problem is not analyzed and/or solved, I do agree on the Apple front.
That said there's a command line application that comes with MacOS X called caffeinate that does essentially the same thing.
People keep saying that but nothing on my Mac has ever stopped me from installing whatever software I want. I wish people would stop repeating this lie.
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)
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.
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.
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)
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.
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 tools. It does not prevent me from installing any software.
I have a ton of software on my Mac that's not part of the Apple developer program and the developers have never asked Apple's permission nor given Apple any money for the software and Apple has never once tried to block those developers from creating that software or me from installing and running it.
And given that they were explicitly breaking an app store rule, which they are now being held to: Yeah, they were getting away with something. I mean, this is patently obvious.
Also, all the local stores in my town sell some sort of colorful box with drug capsules depicted on them. Many advertising that they give energy to stay awake.
Or I expect to see booze, depicted as booze, one of the most addictive and destructive drugs on the planet.
Or I expect to see.....any number of things which can be abused when used incorrectly.
No offense, but I think this argument is weak.
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 beef with Apple that you're so willing to say so many outright lies on a forum filled with people who know better and can call you out on it?
Windows does this with UAC. Many Linux distros require executables to be explicitly set with the +x flag. macOS is not unique in this, and like with the other OSes it's a security feature.
Check out the warning and "bypass" for yourself: https://www.macworld.com/article/3140183/how-to-install-an-a...
Can we just admit that most people actually can't reasonably be expected to do so?
Like they said, doc or it didn't happen.
> 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
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.
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.
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?
It's a neat idea but that is just not the use case the menu bar was designed around and I don't think it makes sense for individual apps to go against the current in that way
Absolutely amphetamines have prescription medicinal applications including for chronic fatigue. Just like cocaine has applications such as a topical anaesthetic.
But it's completely disingenous to suggest that the app is using the name "Amphetamine" as if it were under the context of a doctor's prescription. It's obviously in the recreational context of healthy people staying awake. And exactly the same as with "cocaine", when most people hear "amphetamines" they think of illegal drugs, not prescription ones.
Apple has accused Amphetamine of violating the following guideline:
1.4.3 Apps that encourage consumption of tobacco and vape products, illegal drugs, or excessive amounts of alcohol are not permitted on the App Store. Apps that encourage minors to consume any of these substances will be rejected. Facilitating the sale of marijuana, tobacco, or controlled substances (except for licensed pharmacies) isn’t allowed."
Since the App store is global, it makes sense to just not allow anything that could run afoul of those rules.
Regardless, my point stands: when the average person thinks of using amphetamines to stay awake, they're thinking primarily of the illegal context, not the prescription one.
Clearly Apple has changed its mind.
It very much is the norm [1]
What's really nuts is if this was a company like Adobe instead of a small independent developer we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
That's the crux of the issue here, not to what degree this app may or may not be promoting drugs (give me a frigging break).
Inconsistency in sand boxing, especially with Apple apps distributed via the app store vs. non-Apple apps.
So much promise utterly wasted. What really is annoying is that it's been bad for so long without any seeming care from Apple in improving things. I'll use the app store for free or small dollar apps, but anything over $20 if I can buy it outside the App store I absolutely do even though it's more of a hassle.
Other than attention seeking what was the point of your original post? It certainly wasn't for dialog since you can't have a dialog unless you are willing to put all the points of discussion on the table.
People are rightly puzzled by your posting because this site is about dialog - not one direction orations. That you are attempting to act "above the fray" is even more amazing.
Good for you! That is exactly what everyone needs do when Apple starts being pointlessly petty. Yes, operating systems have UI guidelines. But they are guidelines - sometimes a developer may come up with something better, especially for power users, and no such developer should have to waste time trying to communicate and convince some committee of this, and worse, wait for an approval from them to launch the product.
You don't give a damn till you need to sell off your property. Once it is in the market, you don't want your neighbours attitude turning of potential buyers, or worse, bringing down the value of your property. (I hate HOA's too, but a decently run one does help increase property value).
The guidelines seem very reasonable and beneficial for the discussions, here are some excerpts:
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
BTW, I don't claim to follow the guidelines perfectly all the time, the reason I'm writing this comment is basically because I would have preferred if you managed to get your point across better.
The amount offended is far less than when Ronald reagan began his war on drugs - meaning that offense changes with time, and that offense changes based off of what other people believe to be acceptable. By allowing that kind of advertising you reduce negative reaction to it.
Also retail stores sell plenty of products that give all manner of nice names. Like death coffee. Or "personal massager" vibrators. Don't forget apple also hates the idea of sex, and that's plenty acceptable to market.
I also don't remember plague inc showcasing any substance abuse, but I could be wrong.
GateKeeper will also flag your app as malicious and having the potential to damage your Mac if Apple revokes your certificate, which they have done in the past by mistake.
Be careful when claiming knowledge of what "everybody" or "the average person" is thinking. You expose your own bias. It can come off as a weird self-own, as if you're saying that you use it that way so you can't conceive of innocent uses
Speaking of a straw man argument - heroin isn't a legal drug anywhere in the United states. Like the author pointed out, millions of Americans take legal amphetamines every year, I'd wager a bet that legal users of amphetamines outnumber the illegal users 10,000 to 1 or ever more. But all of that is irrelevant - the app doesn't promote the use of amphetamines any more than GTA promotes committing grand theft auto.
The name isn't related to the functionality, but that's not what is claimed. This restriction on drug references is spelled out in the terms, making it valid and non-arbitrary.
That the terms themselves aren't "just" is a different matter altogether, but there is no argument for it but being valid.
That the priorities in the terms the developer is subject to does not match yours is not a valid legal argument.
The app store monopoly should fall, but until then, you're subject to the terms unless you get it declared unenforceable by a court, or convince Apple to change them.
Literally that wording? No.
But that's the same as a politician doing favors for their biggest donor and then pretending there's no pay to play here since you didn't literally see him taking piles of banknotes in a smoke filled back room. Come on.
> they made a commercial decision
Yes but why? Because according to them it promotes objectionable items/behavior - that's a moral decision, it is also a commercial one but based on a moral judgment.
A commercial decision is not a class on its own. It is taken based on some factors. What were the factors here if not that Apple finds the name/icon morally questionable?
And in this case, a strategy including 'move' will almost always be superior to one without. Complaining to incumbents does very little.
Apple has full control of their platform and can make any arbitrary calls. If they wanted to censor all pg-13 material tomorrow, they could (though they would face consumer backlash).
One recent exception might be anti-competitive behaviors, but I don't think that applies here.
I think it's just hard learning that when you build your business entirely on a platform or via another business, you are at the mercy of their whims unless you have the resources to extract yourself.
I haven't met any Bitcoiner who wouldn't want CO2 emissions to be heavily taxed.
The problem with proof of stake that it decreases the security of the system. There are many ways to trade security of Bitcoin for convenience and extra features (Ethereum is a great example), but so far it seems that the market chooses security.
You make it sound like there's a lack of options for homeowners when you say this. Where I live (Toronto) that is not the case.
Of course there is no perfect deal, there will always be things that aren't ideal but I don't know anyone (and I'm old enough to know lots of home owners) who has ever bought a house that had some kind of feature or clause they absolutely hated or didn't want.
If it's that bad, you don't buy that house, and you find one that better suits your needs.
Otherwise, you're understanding and accepting the terms, and you're willing to live with them.
I hate the argument that "people" are too stupid/naive/stuck to understand or avoid the terms of an agreement they're entering into.. except for the narrator who sees themselves as the smart person who is yelling about it from the mountaintop.
It comes across as a weird self-own that you assume I can't conceive of anything else. Especially since I already mentioned the medical uses multiple times. It's simply which usage/meaning is more common, not that the other doesn't exist. It's about frequency, not bias.
In this case, the complainer had several important details on their side: Apple had previously featured the app, the rule that they said was violated wasn't violated, and they tolerate other apps which violate those rules. It seems likely Apple realized in this case that it would be easier to keep the app since it's not like the app was ruining their family friendly image (although many people, especially in the US, picture the negative effects of methamphetamine additiction when they hear "amphetamine", amphetamine is actually an approved drug used by many in the US).
(Full disclosure: I work at a sister company of Level Ex.)
Granting app store approval to an app encourages the company to build around the app and around the brand. And Apple gave that approval for many years. And then, after all that time, decided that the brand is projecting an ethos that they don't approve of?
Apple's process doesn't just involve tacit approval. It's very active. They had so many opportunities to not give approval, to not hit the button, but they did and for quite a long time.
Just like if I named a game "Alcohol" and the logo was a glass with some liquid in it, and the tagline was "Have a good time". Individually none of those would necessarily be promoting drinking alcohol. After all, alcohol has uses for cleaning, and the glass is just a glass, and "Drink in the fun" is just describing what it's like playing the game. But if you put them together, they unequivocally do.
As for there being legitimate uses of amphetamines, I'm not saying there aren't (I'm well aware of these uses, personally). That doesn't mean the off-label uses are legal. AFAIK, at least in the US, using amphetamines solely to "keep awake" is an illegal usage, and the tagline is referring specifically to that.
If you think of it, even when you're not at the top of the food chain in your social order, being part of a dominant group makes your actions still causal to some sort of undesired or painful (and therefore violent) consequence to a member of the out-group. Nobody gets to decide what's good or bad, you just need to follow the chain of opportunity cost, determine who foots the bill and who reaps the interest.
It's indeed pretty hard to swallow...
You're exposing a lot more about yourself and your lifestyle than you realize, evidently
If I'm standing right next to the fuse box, and I see someone in the process of being electrocuted, isn't it violent to not flip the switch to save the person?
Apple has reversed their position after the developer appealed. They did not lose anything or have to rebrand.
Given this outcome and the minor expense in time it took to achieve, do you still stand by your advice that people should immediately support and enable a unilateral decision because there is a power difference between the parties?
How has this updated your beliefs about the likelihood of amenable redress with the App Store appeals process?
Not so sure that's true in the USA. Though it could be payment processors and prudish culture are the drivers of this phenomenon.
Do you have a "citation" for the average person? If not, then I really don't know what you're arguing about.
I think that sums things up well
https://www.macrumors.com/2021/01/02/amphetamine-app-store-r...
One is law, the other is a principle.
Sounds like the Ray Ozzie motto