←back to thread

946 points giuliomagnifico | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.216s | 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 #
monocularvision ◴[] No.25608924[source]
The app was _featured_ in the App Store. They didn’t get away with anything.
replies(1): >>25609433 #
1. joseph_grobbles ◴[] No.25609433[source]
Yeah, someone said that, repeatedly, four hours ago. Why bother making this comment?

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.