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.
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.
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.
Just because people use the app doesn’t mean they like the name.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
> 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
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.