←back to thread

946 points giuliomagnifico | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.718s | source
Show context
silentsea90 ◴[] No.25606177[source]
The name was approved by Apple years ago. The developer built the brand on that name. What changed? Apple's policies (on their whims). If Apple has to come down hard, they should bear the cost of the re-branding at least to measurably communicating widely regarding the rename. It is sad that Apple exercises so much power callously.
replies(3): >>25606319 #>>25606822 #>>25611819 #
joseph_grobbles ◴[] No.25606822[source]
"The name was approved by Apple years ago"

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.

replies(3): >>25607011 #>>25607483 #>>25608924 #
silentsea90 ◴[] No.25607011[source]
Apple approved of the app. Hence the name was approved. Not sure what we mean by "getting away" here
replies(1): >>25607439 #
joseph_grobbles ◴[] No.25607439[source]
I drove by a cop over the speed limit yesterday. He didn't pull me over. Therefore I can always drive over the speed limit and it is "approved".

This is childish, nonsensical argumentation. The app has always been in contravention of the rules of the app store.

replies(2): >>25607502 #>>25607628 #
1. Daho0n ◴[] No.25607502[source]
Apple wrote a story about the App. They approved it and approved of it.
replies(1): >>25607992 #
2. dinkleberg ◴[] No.25607992[source]
Apple isn’t a singular entity, it is made up of lots of people. I’d find it unlikely the people approving apps are the same as those who pick the apps to showcase. And neither of those groups are likely involved with making up the rules.
replies(1): >>25610668 #
3. EricE ◴[] No.25610668[source]
So because Apple is inconsistent internally developers should have to deal with those consequences?

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).