←back to thread

946 points giuliomagnifico | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
mmaunder ◴[] No.25606123[source]
You’re angry. I’ve felt this in a trademark lawsuit. You think the world should get behind you and change the corrupt system.

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.

replies(33): >>25606208 #>>25606212 #>>25606283 #>>25606293 #>>25606297 #>>25606321 #>>25606344 #>>25606360 #>>25606390 #>>25606393 #>>25606407 #>>25606449 #>>25606498 #>>25607021 #>>25607059 #>>25607219 #>>25607787 #>>25607915 #>>25608000 #>>25608011 #>>25608017 #>>25608073 #>>25608099 #>>25608152 #>>25608166 #>>25608206 #>>25608337 #>>25608771 #>>25608889 #>>25614737 #>>25615210 #>>25618043 #>>25620562 #
Bodell ◴[] No.25606390[source]
Honestly if your name your product stupid things I would think that some of us might be choosing not to download your product as a result. And if a store decides not to sell your product because of this it’s really their prerogative. Saying you violated their terms with impunity for 6 years doesn’t mean they lose the right to correct the mistake.

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.

replies(9): >>25606579 #>>25606628 #>>25606797 #>>25606852 #>>25606882 #>>25606920 #>>25606925 #>>25607172 #>>25607194 #
bambax ◴[] No.25606797[source]
> I’m not offended by the word “fuck” but I don’t really want to buy products that are named that.

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.

replies(7): >>25606844 #>>25606918 #>>25606977 #>>25607100 #>>25607185 #>>25607701 #>>25609581 #
freehunter ◴[] No.25607100[source]
I download and use the app despite the name. I’m not okay with it, but I need the features it offers and there isn’t a better alternative with a better name. There used to be (called Caffeine) but it disappeared from the store and I’m not sure why.

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

replies(7): >>25607149 #>>25607159 #>>25607282 #>>25607295 #>>25607457 #>>25607574 #>>25607821 #
webmobdev ◴[] No.25607149[source]
But do you believe Apple should be the ultimate arbitrator of such silly things like the name of an app you create?
replies(2): >>25607418 #>>25608860 #
sbarre ◴[] No.25607418[source]
In their environment that they clearly indicate is their environment from the outset? Yes..

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.

replies(2): >>25608077 #>>25608616 #
oauea ◴[] No.25608616[source]
They are also doing everything they can to block people from distributing apps outside of their walled garden.

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.

replies(2): >>25608977 #>>25608994 #
drKarl ◴[] No.25608994[source]
They probably want their users to use their proprietary store, but I got a new MacBook Pro for work in September and I installed everything I needed and wanted using Hombrew and brew cask, so I didn't use the Apple Store at all. You can also Download .dmf files and install Apps that way. What is it that you say they do to prevent people installing Apps outside the Apple Store?
replies(1): >>25609030 #
oauea ◴[] No.25609030{3}[source]
Apple requires software to be "notarized" (signed by apple) be able to run on newer Macs. Apple also blocks developers they do not like from notarizing apps. See Apple vs Epic.

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.

replies(1): >>25609481 #
1. freehunter ◴[] No.25609481{4}[source]
>Apple requires software to be "notarized"

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...

replies(2): >>25609596 #>>25611760 #
2. oauea ◴[] No.25609596[source]
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xcode/notarizing_m...

> 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

replies(1): >>25610036 #
3. pseudalopex ◴[] No.25610036[source]
That just says signed apps and kernel extensions must be notarized. Unsigned apps still work.
4. saagarjha ◴[] No.25611760[source]
There's no need to be confrontational. Apple themselves say that software must be notarized going forward in Catalina, as GateKeeper will check all apps that are quarantined, which is essentially all apps that you download from the internet. Apple would very much like you to notarize your applications and the workaround you provided is not intended to be a general-purpose solution.

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.