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 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).
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.
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.
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.
https://www.caffeineinformer.com/cocaine-energy-drink-is-bac...
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.
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.
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.
See stocking fees in physical retail stores:
* https://financialpost.com/news/retail-marketing/loblaw-follo...
* https://www.canadiangrocer.com/top-stories/headlines/loblaw-...
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.
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.
Can we just admit that most people actually can't reasonably be expected to do so?
It very much is the norm [1]
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.
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.
(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.
Not so sure that's true in the USA. Though it could be payment processors and prudish culture are the drivers of this phenomenon.