Well-written argument for the app reviewers to get bent, especially the highlighted examples of other apps that show the rule is clearly applied inconsistently.
Apple's App Store moderation is embarrassing. They routinely fail to catch harmful junk—I've shut down a few top-grossing bogus antivirus apps for Mac, and the publisher of Untitled Goose Game routinely posts screenshots of clones that are trying to make money off confused users.
They've banned apps like Phone Story and a drone strike tracker for being "objectionable and crude," yet they don't apply any content moderation to the Book Store or to Music or TV (or to Safari for that matter). They've yet to provide a cogent justification for why they're inconsistent on this.
I don't necessarily agree that TV/Music/books need more moderation in terms of censorship (and they do have plenty of that), but more curation. Apple TV is a good example of that, it's highly curated.
Books are really bad though. Amazon is no better, neither have any modicum of curation or taste when it comes to their bestsellers lists. The New York Times doesn't put salacious romance novels at the top no matter how many copies sell, yet Amazon and Apple Books would lead you to believe there's nothing else being published.
The same goes for the App Store. It doesn't need moderation by way of censorship, it just needs tasteful, manual curation.
I mean the opposite—not that they should censor/moderate their other stores, but why are they hypocritical (edit: or inconsistent, if you prefer) in saying that certain content is harmful when consumed as an app, but not as a book or movie that they are happy to sell to you?
That's not hypocritical; it's surprising you can't see that.
An app is software that can be harmful to your device. Books and movies are not software and can't affect your device in any way.
Therefore, there is a very obvious justification for disallowing some apps; that doesn't apply for books or movies.
It's also not "hypocritical" for Apple to choose to have a curated App Store (which is feasible and realistic) but choose not to actively censor books (which isn't really feasible).
I don't think it's infeasible. I just searched for a piece of literature today on Apple's Book Store and instead found a book with a pretty raunchy title. Could they not at least moderate that?
Keep in mind they make it seem "feasible and realistic" that they can analyze apps to determine if they "can be harmful to your device," but anyone familiar with static analysis would know there are serious limitations to how much you can deduce about the behavior of an arbitrary binary.
I think the simplest explanation is that they don't have automated review processes for media like they do for software and Apple isn't a single person making decisions about what they sell on every app all the time.
That said, TV and movies are far more controlled than the App Store.
Nothing! Just that they're over represented in listings and publishers/authors will game their way to the top of search and best seller results on book apps. It makes it more difficult to find content I would like to read.
I think this is helping to make the case that they could be consistent in applying the guidelines to books/music/TV. "We're trying to be family-friendly, so we're not interested in selling any content that references drug use, but you're more than welcome to get it elsewhere." But they aren't; they only censor such content on the App Store.
Both Drone+ and Phone Story could have been done as web apps (which iOS supported before native apps), but of course there are many APIs that you cannot access from WebKit.
And it is thus important to recognize that our cultural perception of book banning, book burning, etc as a bad thing isn't something intrinsic to humans, and its not something we got for free. It took years of effort from major authors and members of the literary community to shift that perception. And we need to fight that fight again for applications, and especially for platforms which give their users and developers no other recourse, on behalf of the vast majority of users who don't have the knowledge or context to understand why it matters.
Apple's morality is very hit and miss at times. However it really comes down to squeaky wheel advocates get a lot of traction and Apple responds by going after the targets. Its a worse form of moral enforcement because its a completely moving target.
People, especially tech oriented folks, always seem to decry the threat of religious persecution by politicians but failed to recognize that enforcement of morals by any group can have very dangerous side effects. We see statements to that effect here all the time, people judged for lifestyle choices that are not in favor by one group or another. Morals become weaponized as they can be undefinable immeasurable standard applied to those who are no longer in favor by action, deed, or thought.
They're literally censoring JWZ's XScreensaver for iOS because they're worried about the political thoughts people might have watching one of the hacks.
I thought I should look at the App Store and see what this app is doing in comparison to similar apps.
The logo is basically a big pill and the tagline "Powerful keep-awake utility" which is clearly alluding to the drug. https://imgur.com/a/RJXHaBa
This was consistent with the feedback the author received: "[the] app appears to promote inappropriate use of controlled substances. Specifically, your app name and icon include references to controlled substances, pills"
Almost all of the other top apps in the app store in the same category use some reference to caffeine either in the name or tagline or description (e.g. "Jolt of Caffeine" or "Owly" which has a logo of an owl in a cup of coffee) https://imgur.com/a/yySBqEL
There's one other, much less popular app called "Coca" which appears to reference cocaine, but doesn't also have a drug-referencing icon or tagline, and which only has 15 reviews. By comparison, Amphetamine seems to be the most popular result, at least for the search term "awake", with 1.37K reviews
The guideline in question doesn't seem to consider excessive use of caffeine as problematic to encourage. "1.4.3 Apps that encourage consumption of tobacco and vape products, illegal drugs, or excessive amounts of alcohol are not permitted on the App Store. Apps that encourage minors to consume any of these substances will be rejected. Facilitating the sale of marijuana, tobacco, or controlled substances (except for licensed pharmacies) isn’t allowed."
Overall, Amphetamine did seem to be pushing the drug-use angle much harder than other apps in the category based on the logo, tagline and title, especially if you consider caffeine abuse not problematic.
Added: I don't have a strong opinion on this one either way, other than edgy naming has pros and cons. Word of mouth is easier, but sometimes a problem like this happens.
"1.4.3 Apps that encourage consumption of tobacco and vape products, illegal drugs, or excessive amounts of alcohol are not permitted on the App Store. Apps that encourage minors to consume any of these substances will be rejected. Facilitating the sale of marijuana, tobacco, or controlled substances (except for licensed pharmacies) isn’t allowed."
Taking this literally, is an amphetamine an illegal drug? It’s a class of Schedule II drugs that are legal in all 50 states.
It's not illegal, it is perfectly legal, but like driving a car you need to go through a process for it that not everyone can clear.
For example, if you have issues staying awake from narcolepsy it's possible to legally obtain amphetamines, and our society generally accepts this to be a good thing.
Opioids are often prescribed for good reason as well but there's still an opioid epidemic and referencing them in your app's name or icon probably isn't a good thing to do. Some amphetamines are schedule 2 drugs in the US so possession is illegal in most circumstances.
Most amphetamines except for methamphetamine are generally possessed legally. Surprisingly, most of the illegal market for non-meth amphetamine is misdirected legal pills.
They're also quite different from opiods because unlike them, they aren't inherently addictive if prescribed properly. For example, prescribed for ADHD, all cause addiction rates do not increase from amphetamine use. In general, it's about as addictive as alcohol, and that's perfectly acceptable as the name for software such as WINE.
One way it's different from driving a car is that you can own a car without having a license -- car possession is not regulated -- whereas the possession of controlled substances is what's regulated.
Even for legal drugs most (maybe all?) countries have rules about how you can market or promote them. The classic example would be things like cigarette and alcohol marketing needing to include health warnings.
Since the App store is global, it makes sense to just not allow anything that could run afoul of those rules.
Considering the context can be helpful. Apple has their caffeinate utility, seems to me amphetamine is an appropriate name for a more powerful “stimulant” utility, given the naming convention Apple themselves have laid out.
What drug-use angle are they pushing? The pill logo is actually pretty typical of generic 15mg amphetamine/dexamphetamine salts, a common ADHD prescription, and nothing about the tagline strikes me as drug-adjacent. "Powerful keep-awake utility"? It does what it says on the tin.
You seem to be trying to say that each element in itself doesn't invoke the illegal drug use metaphor. Even if that were the case, my argument is that the three pieces bolster work together.
Just like if I named a game "Alcohol" and the logo was a glass with some liquid in it, and the tagline was "Have a good time". Individually none of those would necessarily be promoting drinking alcohol. After all, alcohol has uses for cleaning, and the glass is just a glass, and "Drink in the fun" is just describing what it's like playing the game. But if you put them together, they unequivocally do.
As for there being legitimate uses of amphetamines, I'm not saying there aren't (I'm well aware of these uses, personally). That doesn't mean the off-label uses are legal. AFAIK, at least in the US, using amphetamines solely to "keep awake" is an illegal usage, and the tagline is referring specifically to that.
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.
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.
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.
You want to talk about a nonsensical argument, take a look at the comparison you just made.
In the first situation, you have no way of knowing whether the cop even saw you. Or if they were on duty. Or if they were previously occupied responding to some other call.
In the second, the app was explicitly submitted for review and approved by Apple. Even more egregious, the app was explicitly mentioned, by name, by Apple.
Next time, I recommend you speed up and catch the cop to make sure they know you were speeding and see how things play out.
Let me be more explicit for you, then: I speed past a cop who is pointing his radar gun at me, staring at me, but for some reason he doesn't decide to pursue me (an experience many of us have actually had).
Maybe it's an off day for him and he just doesn't care. Maybe he was confused about the speed limit on that stretch. Maybe he is waiting for a bigger fish. Maybe he likes my car (or skin) color and decided to look the other way. Regardless, I got away with speeding.
If I then at some future date pointed to that as legalizing my speeding for all time, that would be ignorant nonsense. Yet we see this exactly this sort of childish argument in all realms: Some guy deducts something unlawful for years and then one day the tax man says "Uh no...that isn't allowed", and they point to their prior years as if that makes it suddenly lawful. That getting away with it before grandfathers it in or something.
Some random Apple employee writing a story linked it (or a tax employee accepting a tax return, or a cop giving a pass to speeding), therefore it is officially sanctioned for all time. Give me a break. That isn't how any of this works.
If (a) there is no definite speed limit, just an imprecise policy statement (like "don't drive too fast") and (b) a person drives by the same cops for years at the same speed and gets clocked and doesn't get ticketed, and then (c) is one day pulled over and told that they're driving imprudently, then they indeed have a basis for complaint. That is exactly how this works. The interplay between vague policies and regular practice is how people gain clarity in the absence of a bright line rule -- playing ball.
The issue with your analysis is the long standing approval and acquiescence on Apple's part. The app itself, and each update, only ever went out with Apple's explicit acknowledgment, review and consent.
But there already is a bright line rule here, it has just not been diligently enforced up to now. The basic argument is that the Amphetamine app has been able to slide for so long that the ToS provision it violates should be treated as a dead letter, or as if some statute of limitations had expired; the Amphetamine brand has existed so long (and under such favorable conditions) in the app store that the developer now has an economic interest in the brand, gained through a reliance on Apple's non-enforcement of this ToS provision.
The developer could try suing Apple on the basis of laches, the legal doctrine whereby if one party has 'slept on their rights' so long that the situation changed, they can't suddenly decide to enforce a term later. But there's no hard and fast rule about this, and since it would tie Apple's hands they'd probably fight it tooth and nail, throwing enough legal resources at it to wear out any opposition.
Apple has accused Amphetamine of violating the following guideline:
1.4.3 Apps that encourage consumption of tobacco and vape products, illegal drugs, or excessive amounts of alcohol are not permitted on the App Store. Apps that encourage minors to consume any of these substances will be rejected. Facilitating the sale of marijuana, tobacco, or controlled substances (except for licensed pharmacies) isn’t allowed."
Down vote away, my challenge still stands for you to catch up to the cop or to pull over and ask "Hey I was just going x over the limit, do you want to give me a ticket?" :P
All jokes aside, I feel that this is a poor analogy that really misses the key issues (in my mind).
A developer creates an app and then submits an app for review. The app is approved and the app starts to build an organic following. At some later date, and without any explicit changes to the app or to the terms, Apple decides that the app is in violation of the terms for information that was available upon review. The developer and app are unfortunately the ones to pay the cost, as the organic growth is deterred. Will the new app be able to recapture the same market share? Hard to say. Regardless of Apple's action in this case, I think it would be in the company's best interest to consider the developer's experience when proceeding with issues like this.
Are you confused into thinking I downvoted you? I hardly have the karma to, nor would I, however misplaced your comment is.
I, on the other hand, have taken (thus far) about 15 downvotes. And I regret none of them given that I'm absolutely right, and this is yet another stupid torch mob about nonsense.
The guy is going to end up changing the name (and icon) of his project. Life moves on. Story at 11.
>"When you leave your Mac idle, it smartly goes to sleep to conserve power and reduce wear and tear. But this can also stop a big download short or prevent a lengthy compile or render from finishing. Instead of having to periodically wiggle the pointer to keep your Mac awake, launch Amphetamine and rest assured your Mac won’t sleep until you want it to. Amphetamine sits unobtrusively in the menu bar until you Control-click it (or press Command-I) to kick it into gear. That’s it. Your Mac will stay awake until you end the session."
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.
I don't have a dog in the fight since I'm no longer a Mac user and, when I was, I didn't use the app.
But, when I read the name, it didn't register as offensive to me. Amphetamines are a class of drugs and there are both legal and illegal ones...it doesn't immediately equate in my mind to crystal meth. But it does immediately equate to "keeps you awake", which seems appropriate.
It also seems a bit unfair after 6 years and 500k downloads. Had Apple made an issue of it originally, the author might have built all the goodwill and ratings with some other, more acceptable name.
The internet is a pretty big place to have to launch a product. Picking a name that suggests a purpose seems like a big win to me and coming up with a string of words that won't offend someone is a pretty big challenge these days.
Lawyers will be lawyers. I assume this request from Apple’s side originates from on of the legal teams, who are paid to pre-emotive ensure Apple won’t be sued.
I have a story that makes me relate from Microsoft/Skype. A few months after Microsoft acquired Skype, a JIRA ticket was opened by one of the compliance teams at Microsoft with a simple request. Remove the mooning emoji from Skype [1], as it could be considered offensive in some countries and thus Microsoft could be at risk of being sued.
All of Skype erupted. The mooning icon was a symbol of playful cheekiness at Skype and has always been part of the app, and Skype never got sued for over 10 years. There were about 1,200 Skype engineers at the time and that ticket had more than 500 comments from engineers protesting this change. Some made good arguments. Some voiced frustration. Others called that this is a step towards censoring.
It didn’t matter. The icon was removed, the ticket closed.
In a similar vain, I’ll assume that not everyone at Apple will agree with this “violation”. But it won’t matter, as long as the legal teams says it’s a risk to have apps with such names and icons in Apple’s store.
This is a failure of management, as is your skype example.
Balancing the risk of litigation against risk to the product is management's job. In both of these cases the risk is somewhere between minimal and non-existent.
Big companies tend to have bad management. There are entire libraries of books analyzing why this is the case but the short story is "risk aversion." Employees are incentivized to save their own skin and avoid conflict at work over improving the product.
Sometimes public outcry can create a new risk and change the direction of management.
Such nonsense, balancing risk of litigation against the risk to the product isn't management's job. Companies have whole departments for this, called risk management with people specialized on the matter.
Departments specializing in risk related to mooning emoji? I think not. Your username is apropos.
Repetitive rule based risk assessments, such as made by lenders, are often assigned to specialized departments. This isn't at all the same as unique product design choices which are nearly always decided by the individual product leaders. Legal might rope in higher levels of leadership but never a "risk management team" for something like an offensive icon in an app.
By this logic 1000s of Apps should be removed. Does Fruit Ninja glorify violence? It sounds like someone is trying to justify their job, can’t go after apps that impact Apple’s bottom line so chase apps like this.
Huge fan of Amphetamine(the app) but its Apple’s walled garden. This nonsense is a consequence.
You mean fearless bullet sponges that leak red liquid after health bar exhaustion and fall without screaming in pain, or for their lost friends, or without begging you to spare them with horrified eyes? It's less realistic than in hollywood movies. [Don't] watch real footage to compare. Realistic-enough violence games usually can't even make it to the market, except few nsfl/ryona self-publishing niches. Would you ever like to promote one to AAA-grade, honestly?
Might as well call it Poison Pill. What a waste of energy on Apple's part and a perfect grounds for a lawsuit. Apple approved this app with no problems and all of a sudden there is a problem where nothing has changed. Take them to court and dispute it. I assure you they will not be able to prove that this app violates the contract that was agreed to.
What I see here as complacency on peoples' part here is ridiculous. Companies and people never stop until they are tested. Apple would have never made a small business contract for the app store had it not been for Epic's lawsuit.
It is almost a certainty that the Apple's ToS mandates arbitration instead of a real court and definitely allows them to remove an app at any time for any reason. There is no reason for Apple to not CTA in their ToS since developers have no where else to go.
Apple has full control of their platform and can make any arbitrary calls. If they wanted to censor all pg-13 material tomorrow, they could (though they would face consumer backlash).
One recent exception might be anti-competitive behaviors, but I don't think that applies here.
I think it's just hard learning that when you build your business entirely on a platform or via another business, you are at the mercy of their whims unless you have the resources to extract yourself.
Unfortunately I concur, if this is your main thing. If you can outsource it: let the lawyers duke it out. If this feels personal: follow mmaunder’s advice. There are no winners in that scenario so just take back control.
I wonder if that phrase is still protected by the USA network, for those of you old enough to remember when regular ol’ cable would show topless women. Now you can’t name an app Amphetamine. It is interesting to watch the pendulum swing.
They’re a $2 trillion dollar company, unless you have an incredibly strong case (this isn’t one) then you will lose a war of attrition every time... even sometimes if you do have a strong case. Choose your battles wisely, live to fight another day, etc...
Pound for pound you’d likely be better off putting your energy into policy. The scale is still tilted there, but there is some traction behind fairer app marketplaces.
You do this by leaving the platform. There are plenty of alternatives for Apple's products so those who get tired of the ever-increasing censorship inside the walled garden are better off outside of its walls. Eventually the Apple world will become something akin to Disneyland, nothing but "wholesome" infotainment without anything that could give offence.
Do you really believe the app developers should close their doors and stop making the app rather than change their name, all as part of an ideological fight? I just want to make sure that is really your good faith argument.
Yes, I really do believe there is no fighting a $2 billion (and counting) behemoth, other than by shunning it. If enough developers and users - in any order - leave their platform they will reconsider their stance. That is, after all, what it means to have (at least the semblance of) a free market where people make choices based on things like this. The same goes for the other digital empires, whether those be Facebook, Twitter, Google or any of the others. Absent regulation - and is regulation really where we want to go? - I do not see any other way than to "choose with (my) wallet".
This is also why I do not use any of these platforms, instead having spent the time to rig up my own alternatives: Google-free AOSP-derived Android on mobiles and tablets, Linux on laptops and servers, Searx for search, Nextcloud for "cloudy things", NC Talk and Jitsi Meet for videoconferencing, Exim and Dovecot for mail, Peertube for video, Airsonic and MPD for media streaming, etc. I've been doing this since the late 90's of the last century (minus the mobile stuff since that simply did not exist back then...) so I can state with certainty that this is not just hollow rhetoric, it is a viable alternative to submitting to the whims of companies like Apple (et al).
Not every fight is a 2-trillion dollar fight. If you say decide to commit some fraudulent chargeback against an Apple purchase they are unlikely to pursue it, for example, even though they are a 2-trillion dollar company that could crush you. Spending $5000 of lawyer time to recover $50 may not be worth their time and they know it.
You change it by going for the weakest point in a peaceful way under the radar.
I believe it's Bitcoin, which is a silent, non-violent libertarian protest against the whole central banking system that produces huge powers, but I know that I am in the minority.
Well, I can’t help questioning the “non-violent” part: it takes incredible amounts of energy to maintain that is quite literally taken away from other - possibly more helpful at social scale - purposes.
Yet another reason to implement a Carbon Tax & Dividend [0] ASAP. There's certainly an argument that the intentional waste of Proof of Work is more efficient than the overhead of existing banks; but I suspect the whole crypto world would migrate to Proof of Stake if forced to pay for their externalities. As is it, they simply borrow against the planetary credit card (probably at a rate of ~100x interest), sticking future generations with the bill for their "innovation".
Actually not at all: the elegant design of the difficulty adjustment means that even if the price of electricity went up or down by 10x, the rate of new Bitcoin issuance would change only temporarily.
I haven't met any Bitcoiner who wouldn't want CO2 emissions to be heavily taxed.
The problem with proof of stake that it decreases the security of the system. There are many ways to trade security of Bitcoin for convenience and extra features (Ethereum is a great example), but so far it seems that the market chooses security.
Yeah, you use the one that fits your narrative, and it works wonders until you try to pass it off to people who haven't latched onto that narrative, and then you come to a crossroads, do you summarily discount their perspective and go on your merry way unfazed and unchanged, or do you reconcile this new perspective and potentially confront issues with your narrative.
I don't know you but based on that facile response, I'm guessing you're more down for the former - considering the deleterious externalities of bitcoin mining at scale are pretty well known.
Uhhh I'm not particularly a fan of Bitcoin, but implying that this is anything like violence is absurd. I gotta go against the trend of anything you don't like that could conceivably lead to somebody being harmed somehow is the same thing as actual violence.
It's not really that absurd, it's just not the most conventional definition. But I've heard it used that way before, especially in the context of philosophy
It's absurd in the sense that, if you accept that definition, then anything at all - taking any action or even taking no action at all - could be called violent, which makes the word meaningless. It points to an Orwellian level of thought control. If anything at all can be called violent by any level of tortured logic, then it's very good to be the person who decrees what actions will be considered to be violent and what will not.
Well, no. This reaction is what people refer to when they say "loss of privilege" causes reactionary behavior.
If you think of it, even when you're not at the top of the food chain in your social order, being part of a dominant group makes your actions still causal to some sort of undesired or painful (and therefore violent) consequence to a member of the out-group. Nobody gets to decide what's good or bad, you just need to follow the chain of opportunity cost, determine who foots the bill and who reaps the interest.
I don't know, I think it's less absurd than your usage of the words "orwellian thought control" in the context of a different opinion on the definition of a word.
If I'm standing right next to the fuse box, and I see someone in the process of being electrocuted, isn't it violent to not flip the switch to save the person?
I'm pro-crypto, but so long as Apple maintains absolute hegemony over their ecosystem (backed in part by an artificial state monopoly on ideas!), even the rosiest scenario for Bitcoin doesn't change the power dynamic. Apple could literally add support for buying apps with BTC tomorrow, yet still disallow sideloading or competing stores, while kicking out apps they don't like on a whim.
This situation would not be solved by a change of payment mechanism, currency choice, monetary policy, or anything like that. It's not what makes Apple a large powerful corporation. The entire world could switch to bitcoin, but if millions of people still buy iPhones, Apple will still have power over what is done on those phones.
you don't fix anything if you don't pick your battles. it has to be worth it, otherwise you will expend all your energy on doomed causes that ultimately don't even matter all that much
Agreed. I've found that there's a meta-skill in life: accepting that one can't right every injustice, and to not let that fact prevent you from being happy.
Sure, but that also doesn't mean you should stop voicing your concerns publicly at injustice. Being angry at some injustice doesn't automatically make you unhappy too, if the anger is used constructively and positively. You can voice your concern and be practical too.
The article is actually quite well written and even highlights, with examples, how Apple applies such naming rules arbitrarily.
I've said this before - all developers who distribute their apps through the macOS / ios app store should feel like a JACKASS for not only giving Apple control over distribution, but also paying them for the same. YOU DEVELOPERS ARE THE ONE WHO CREATE MORE VALUE FOR THESE APPLE PLATFORMS - why in the hell do you think it is some kind of "privilege" to PAY them for it??
With its exclusive app store, Apple acts like a CORRUPT bureaucrat who unnecessarily imposes himself in the middle of you and your clients, demanding a bribe from both to connect you and them. Thus, increasing costs for your clients, and reducing your profits!
Especially on the macOS, which Apple is desperately trying to turn into a closed platform like ios, developers are being incredibly SHORT-SIGHTED by distributing apps on its app store and adding more value to something that will end up hurting them when everyone's choice is ultimately limited to it.
Learning not to be offended is a great skill to learn.
It applies to both sides here: Apple could continue to choose not to be offended after 6 years. The developer could choose not to be offended at Apple’s decision and rebrand.
Having said that, this is censorship any way you look at it. Whether it’s “valid” censorship depends on your point of view.
Yeah, I’m sure this rule is applied inconsistently but that doesn’t mean you don’t have to pay your speeding ticket just because everyone speeds.
This app associates itself with the recreational use of amphetamines in much the same vein as candy cigarettes. Is the rule kinda stupid? Yep. Is it ultimately a cultural thing? Yep. But it’s Apple’s sandbox and you’re playing in it.
There’s always going to be issues of where to draw the line. “Columbine. A bulk process killer.” is obviously over it but amphetamines could go either way. Just rebrand to something else and get back to actually making useful stuff.
Yeah, the real lesson here is stop giving Apple et al control. You play on their ground, they own you. It's getting really hard to do these days, sadly.
That advice is better for the individual, but these constant complaints that reach social platforms do eventually add up and cause change. The author doesn't have as much to lose here as if he were running a business. Choosing to die on this hill is respectable.
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.
I don’t buy your claim that there’s a double standard here. “Beer bong” would be another bad name for this app that I wouldn’t blame Apple for restricting. This isn’t about the arguably mixed up public policies that treat certain drugs as more dangerous than other drugs.
Anything that could have offensive connotations could also be trivialized as "just a [noun]". That doesn't make it any more or less likely to be taken badly by the intended customer base
I’m very glad you brought up weed actually. See I have no problem with weed and like to smoke a joint every now and then. However what I don’t want is to have to buy weed called dumb things like “bro down”, “the obliterator”, and “brain destroyer”. I’d much rather you just named something not so click baity.
Sure it’s just a chemical. Everything is just chemicals but I don’t need “meth” for my computer. Same reason our kids don’t need toys advertised as “crack for your baby”.
Agin not offended its just not a good name. Even if let’s say you build an app that’s hooks into some other program and you sell said app for two dollars, you may think it’s hilarious to call it “two dollar hooker”, hell I myself might even chuckle. But only once, then I’ll just get annoyed every time I see “two dollar hooker” in startup, “two dollar hooker has crashed” etc.
I also would not buy your product if it were called alcohol poisoning. I love alcohol. I’m drinking a beer right now (happy New Years everyone). But naming a computer program after it sounds like an odd thing to do. And more to your point would also be a violation of the same rule Apple is using in this case.
The application keeps one's Mac from going to sleep. Its name is basically a direct analogy, and doesn't imply any wrongdoing or illegality, as far as I can see.
> I also would not buy your product if it were called alcohol poisoning. I love alcohol. I’m drinking a beer right now (happy New Years everyone). But naming a computer program after it sounds like an odd thing to do. And more to your point would also be a violation of the same rule Apple is using in this case.
What about an application that assists in force-quitting other programs? One might call that "Scotch", since that's what it does ("It 'scotches' other processes, you see..."), and the application might have a cutesy whiskey glass as its icon. Would that run afoul of your sensibilities?
I don't think it implies wrongdoing, just sounds like a silly joke.
Scotch vs scotch whiskey is more of a word play joke as well than a direct analogy. But I see your point and your totally right that one sounds less bad to me. I'm only stating that as a matter of taste I do not like this particular apps name.
And since it's apple's store they have the right to not like it either. I just don't think this is a profound "free speech argument" like some do in these comments.
Personally I think it's really odd that someone would need an app to keep their computer from sleeping. This says far more about macs than the arbitrary naming policy.
Haha. It's just a convenience, not a need. There's nothing stopping you from going to screensaver settings and energy settings, manually setting it to "never", then going back after you've completed the download, screenshare, or whatever, and changing your settings back. Alternatively, you could use Apple's built-in CLI tool, `caffeinate`, as others have mentioned.
I can see why Apple chooses the family friendly route and rebranding probably is the best option in this case as fighting it would most likely be futile.
I don't think they went overboard with the name in general tho. It makes sense for the app as much as the other coffee/coca branded ones do.
They explicitly chose "amphetamine" over "meth" which is a medical term and has valid uses.
Amphetamine sounds clinical to me, I used to take prescribed, 24 million people in the US, including me in the past, are prescribed amphetamines.
I generally dont like obnoxious marketing either, but unless it is inappropriate for the setting i dont think it should be banned, and this is far more tame than other apps on the app store
It doesn’t sound offensive, just stupid and provoking. Along the lines of Condom Antimalware Suit or Holocosta Firewall. Condoms are great for protecting you and holocaust just means “burn all” - had nothing to do with burning people. It only burns network packets, look at the context, it’s fire wall! No need to come the raw prawn here, simply rename it.
> Amphetamine is a chemical. What is wrong with that?
This disingenuous take on the term does not help your case nor reflects positively on your reputation as a honest person. Amphetamines have a long reputation as recreational and illicit drugs.
Amphetamines, much like cocaine and heroin, are not a mere chemical, nor do they convey a mental image of chemists doing science in a lab to the public. And please don't try to pass everyone as a bunch of stupid idiots by claiming that an app designed to keep a device awake is named after a mere chemical, with a long track record of being used as an euphoriant, without any popular connotation with drug abuse.
There are lots of software that I won’t touch simply because if I ever had to explain the name, I would immediately be put on the defensive, regardless of how useful they may be. It’s a conversation that would waste my time.
Similarly, I would avoid naming something potentially weird or offensively for much the same reason, no matter how appropriate or funny it might seem at the time.
While rebranding might be a pain, I suggest just doing it. This not a free speech hill worth dying on, in my opinion.
> 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.
In my mind maybe this is something like an HOA. Sure, your friends might love your house parties, but your neighbors have to deal with the consequences
But do most people consider them as such, i.e. painful but necessary/beneficial? My understanding was that they are widely regarded as parasitic organizations full of busybodies who are there to advance their personal agenda and to feel a sense of power over people at the expense of all the reasonable people who just want to live their lives; they are considered the polar opposite of live and let live.
I personally have never dealt with an HOA, so my understanding of their popularity is shaped solely by what I have read online. I must say your comment is the only one I have ever seen that has put them in a positive light.
HOA does have what feel like arbitrary busybody restrictions, but they are also the authority that makes people remove the broken washing machine from their front yard and they are the only recourse in my region (when I lived briefly in a suburban house) for someone who refuses to do anything about their dog that barks 24/7 or flings trash into your neighboring yard. HOA fixed it for me on both occasions. The police certainly don’t care.
So people aren’t going to like the HOA. But they also offer essential recourse and order.
Most people I know who have been pro-HOA are the ones who have a say in it and are on the board, or have strong opinions on how their neighbors should outfit their own house.
The ones that hates the HOA are the ones that have paid a ton of money (I’m in the Bay Area) and can’t do as they please. Who wants to pay close to a million and have others chime in and start giving you directions on what to do to your own property.
I rent, but the principe of the HOA is a big enough leech in my mind that I’d hold out for a single home, whenever that is (if at all).
I grew up in a large neighborhood with an HOA. There were a few times where my family butted heads with the HOA (replacing fences with a non-standard style, a play swing/slide thing being a bit tall) but for the most part the HOA was nice. They managed a park and pool for the neighborhood's exclusive use. They decorated the entrance signs to the neighborhood for the holidays. They put on some holiday events like an easter egg hunt/picnic, a fourth of july bike parade, Christmas light judging/awards. People didn't have tons of clutter in their front yards, the streets weren't super crowded with cars.
No. Certain internet communities have a culture of dunking on them, but they do not represent any kind of real majority. The housing market continues to show a preference towards communities with HOAs.
> The housing market continues to show a preference towards communities with HOAs.
Is it the housing market as homeowners who favours HOAs, or is it the builders who favour them? Are HOAs opted in by homeowners in existing communities because of their benefits, or do builders create them force them upon new communities because it benefits them somehow?
I am asking because while I do not have any knowledge of HOAs, I have been following the saga of rental water heaters/furnaces/ACs in Ontario for a while. Long story short, construction companies sign a long-term contract with an appliance company instead of buying and installing necessary appliances like furnaces for new houses. They get a nice kickback for this. If you want to buy a new house, odds are you will be bound by a long-term contact. If you want to terminate it early, you end up paying 30k for an appliance that is worth 10k new and installed. If you keep your contact, you will pay the same over many years.
It is a deal that is very much to the benefits of the builder and very much against the interest of the homeowners. But they have been exploding in popularity. There are relatively more and more homes with rented water heaters and fewer and fewer homes with owned water heaters every year. It would still be wrong to conclude that "water heater rental is beneficial. See, the market has spoken."
This feels like a case where the market will dictate what works and what doesn't.
It sounds shitty/shady to you (or at least that's how you're framing it here - apologies if I misunderstood) but if people are still buying those homes, then they must think it's an acceptable contract to enter into.
The fact that people grudgingly sign a contract does not mean all the terms of the contract are fair. People sign away their right to sue or join a class action lawsuit as a prerequisite to buying goods or services from companies all the time, but I still believe it is unfair. People grudgingly sign work contracts with strong non-compete, non-disclosure, and IP assignment clauses, but I think those clauses are unfair.
It sounds like exactly the opposite, where the market created or allowed a situation where the majority of people get something they don't want at all.
It's ridiculous to even try to say that a home owner will not weigh 50 different factors, and have to tolerate 10 things they do NOT want because they come packaged with 40 other things they either want or absolutely need.
Why does anyone even try to pretend like they don't recognize this unless they are themselves one of the few people actually benefitting from one of these consumer-hostile deals?
> It's ridiculous to even try to say that a home owner will not weigh 50 different factors, and have to tolerate 10 things they do NOT want because they come packaged with 40 other things they either want or absolutely need.
You make it sound like there's a lack of options for homeowners when you say this. Where I live (Toronto) that is not the case.
Of course there is no perfect deal, there will always be things that aren't ideal but I don't know anyone (and I'm old enough to know lots of home owners) who has ever bought a house that had some kind of feature or clause they absolutely hated or didn't want.
If it's that bad, you don't buy that house, and you find one that better suits your needs.
Otherwise, you're understanding and accepting the terms, and you're willing to live with them.
I hate the argument that "people" are too stupid/naive/stuck to understand or avoid the terms of an agreement they're entering into.. except for the narrator who sees themselves as the smart person who is yelling about it from the mountaintop.
I’m assuming that the long term contract also carries with it a warranty? So if your furnace fails while in the contract it is repaired/replaced free or at a pro rated price?
If so, I could see people liking it as it serves the same function as an HOA: a hedge against bad things happening.
Water heater died? Plumber comes out, no charge. Neighbor starting a junkyard on his front lawn? HOA sends a letter, no confrontation.
Some people will decline an HOA for the same reasons they decline extended warranties: they’d rather deal with situations themselves, as they arise. Others don’t want to be bothered and let someone else handle it. I think there is space for both.
> I’m assuming that the long term contract also carries with it a warranty?
I believe so. But the price is so unreasonably high that you could replace the furnace literally 3 to 5 times and you would still be ahead compared to renting the furnace. How many people would purchase an extended warranty that is priced at multiples of the price of the object they are buying? More than none, but a very small number. New rentals are signed overwhelmingly by builders and not homeowners.
That's the way warranties work. Warranty providers are not offering them at a loss.
If you buy a home warranty, or an extended warranty for your car, you are (on average) going to be out of pocket more than you would be without it. You are buying it for the peace of mind that comes from not having to deal with an unlikely but major repair expense.
Not at this price. Usually the warranty is a percentage of the price of the goods. So for example, I expect a $1000 gadget to have extended warranty priced at $100 or so. I have never seen the warranty of a $1000 gadget to be priced at $3000 to $5000 dollars. And that is for stuff that break down more frequently, e.g. phones and laptops and cars. The odds of a furnace breaking down are even lower.
I think the “party line” response to this would be that the warranties you get include preventative maintenance as well, making it a different proposition - you’re not just buying a warranty, but a full service plan after all. But I’ve never been convinced by that argument.
I just went through buying a furnace and had a few prospective installers. The first tried to sell the extended coverage: twice annual “checks and maintenance” and a 30% discount on all parts.
The second said he’d let me source the parts myself if I so desired and if I would be responsible for changing the air filter on schedule and hosing down the outside fan every summer I’d be better off putting the annual fee into a sinking fund. Or, I could pay him $200 a year to hold a hose, money he’d happily take. He got the job. ;-)
These are probably just examples but I'm firmly in the no-HOA crowd. If my home owning neighbor with a yard wants to park a truck in their yard I really don't care, and I abhor any organization that punishes someone for that. They could have a perfectly good reason to park it there. I've had former neighbors yell at me for fixing my car in my own driveway which makes no sense whatsoever except perhaps to privileged elitists with no DIY skills.
> The housing market continues to show a preference towards communities with HOAs.
I wouldn't read too much from that. The market preferring something doesn't mean most people dealing with it like it, it means that it makes money for the people with most say in the matter.
In this case, I think the sufficient explanation for the phenomenon is that HOAs are good at protecting property values. In my experience, most of the silly / annoying rules can be explained by either protecting property value, or by most people being too busy to attend meetings, allowing a small group of bored people to take control.
> In this case, I think the sufficient explanation for the phenomenon is that HOAs are good at protecting property values.
Uh yeah, that's their defined purpose that everybody knows about and agrees upon. I've lived in several properties under HOAs, haven't had any trouble, and don't know anyone personally who's had any trouble either.
IMO, HOA problems are of those things that's extremely rare in practice, but makes for outrage-inducing stories on the internet that get upvoted heavily and widely viewed. Since this is well known and plenty of people will do anything for internet upvotes, I'd bet a significant number of the stories are either made up entirely or are highly exaggerated and misleading.
If HOAs were really that bad, you'd see a market for homes advertising the lack of them. We don't though. The better analogy is internet free speech. In theory, everybody likes free speech. But if you create a new forum specifically for the purpose of not censoring anything, it tends to get filled with the worst assholes of the internet. Similarly, you can guess who'd be itching to move in if you advertised your housing development as not having a HOA.
The HOA stereotype definitely is, but all HOAs are not the same. My HOA is generally hands off but you do need to ask permission for structural or cosmetic changes -- the neighborhood doesn't want to look like an amusement park. But, no one is going around measuring the height of your grass or other overly strict things I've read about.
However, I did just get a nasty gram to take down my political "Giant Meteor for 2020 - just end it already" yard sign.
> the neighborhood doesn't want to look like an amusement park.
I do think this is where a lot of the HOA problems come from - if someone wants to put something up on their front yard or lawn, then neighbors can intervene and say you can’t do that there.
Since you bought the property and it’s yours, why do others get to have a say in it? I know I don’t give two hoots about what the neighbor does to their own home.
If you didn't want those strings, then go buy a property somewhere that doesn't have an HOA.
Same with this case, I sympathize with the author and I personally think this is a stupid thing for Apple to do, but the author (hopefully) understood the bargain they were entering into when they chose to enter the walled garden.
> Since you bought the property and it’s yours, why do others get to have a say in it?
Because you signed on a line that said you agree to being governed by the HOA when you bought the house. It’s that simple. The sad reality though is that if you don’t like it, you have to find somewhere else (which doesn’t work well if your whole city is under the HOA)
> I know I don’t give two hoots about what the neighbor does to their own home.
You don't give a damn till you need to sell off your property. Once it is in the market, you don't want your neighbours attitude turning of potential buyers, or worse, bringing down the value of your property. (I hate HOA's too, but a decently run one does help increase property value).
The congressional approval rating has been between 10 and 30% for the last 8 years, and over this same time the re-election rates of incumbent congressional reps is 89% or higher. People are largely happy with their own congress members, and vote to reelect them and their own HOA, and they will choose to purchase homes with an HOA, and not disband them.
How could this analogy work? There's no consequences to having a app with the word 'fuck' in it. Meanwhile throwing big parties obviously does to neighbors. I don't feel a lot of meatspace analogies work to things that are purely digital and can be filtered or ignored, while a houseparty with 100+ people and its noise and drunk drivers obviously cant be.
> There’s no consequences to having a app with the word ‘fuck’ in it
I suspect that Apple has done studies and has a projected “likely lost sales” figure attributable to having an app store overrun with “mature content” apps.
Except in this case there are no “neighbors” to speak of. Every app is kind of like an island in an archipelago and don’t have a means of communicating to each other.
It’s more like the government of the archipelago decided that they don’t like the name of the island as people interested in such an island are promoting narcotics.
I agree. Which is why I use a non walled garden operating system. Maybe the same should apply to these complaints. I don’t get mad at wal-mart because of what they choose to stock on the shelf and not stock.
500k may seem like a lot, but it’s not in the context of the Mac App Store. Apple has sold over 100M Macs in the time this app has been around. Also, Apple’s policies are distinctly not driven by “if enough people are fine with it”.
Apple’s policies are bullshit, don’t get me wrong, but let’s not act like download numbers give the developer any leverage.
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.
> They are saying they will not sell it in their app store under that name.
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.)
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.
>They are also doing everything they can to block people from distributing apps outside of their walled garden.
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.
I must have forgotten it because I can open the Epic store and play Fortnite on my Mac right now without any warnings. I actually just downloaded the installer right from epicgames.com and it installed just fine. Apple doesn't even try to stop me.
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.
Yes, there were lawsuits and the courts forced Apple to stop their ridiculous behavior. That is why you can do this right now. Not because of Apple's goodwill, quite the contrary.
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?
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.
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.
> 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
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.
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.
The difference is that Debian or others still give both the users and the developers a CHOICE to distribute / acquire the app through other means. Apple cripples (and even outright denies this) on some of its platforms.
There is a command line tool called caffeinate that ships with Mac OS. Maybe Apple didn’t like somebody using something so similar their system utility name.
Originally I thought it was the same name, so this seems much less likely now that they're merely similar.
I use it on my work computer and it's not a word I'm comfortable showing to clients. You never know who may have had (or still does have) an addiction, and I also don't want them seeing it and thinking I have an addiction since that could be bad for business.
I prefer to reject the process of turning a technical neutral term into some kind of bad word.
If a thing isn't bad, then it isn't, and if someone is ignorant and makes associations and assumptions that are wrong or unsupported, then I'd rather add my tiny influence against that rather than help it.
Or do you yourself do the same thing to your clients? What features of your clients do you use to prejudge them and make unfounded assumptions about them? Should your clients worry what clothes they wear in case you think it means they are gay, which maybe you associate with having Aids... Personally I woukd think things like that are none of my business but apparently you don't think like that.
Please don't smooth the way for the wrong things. I can't demand, obviously, that's why it's a request with the word please.
It seems to be a small thing but big things are made out of small things, and you and I can only do small things. All we have is the choice of which kinds of small things we do.
Handy, but not exactly easy on the eyes. I usually just us the -t flag to pass it seconds, like 'caffeinate -t 3600' to prevent sleep for the next hour.
I removed Caffeine from the App Store when Apple started complaining that a click on a menu bar icon for an app without a dock icon must always show a menu (offering a Quit option). I wanted it to toggle the active state instead and show the menu on right-click/cmd-click.
Did you just not feel like arguing with the app store review team or was it a clear decision between changing it or leaving the app store? The author of amphetamine told that there was a similar problem but apparently he could settle this.
> Amphetamine updates have been rejected by Apple on numerous occasions. One time, Apple’s App Review Team did not like my “Preview” screen shots. Another time, Apple objected to the default behavior when clicking Amphetamine’s menu bar icon, saying it must open the menu by default and not start a session.
In my opinion they made the right choice here -- that is a much different behaviour than any other kind of menu bar icon has and it would be inconsistent with every other app and the OS itself.
It's a neat idea but that is just not the use case the menu bar was designed around and I don't think it makes sense for individual apps to go against the current in that way
> I removed Caffeine from the App Store when Apple started complaining
Good for you! That is exactly what everyone needs do when Apple starts being pointlessly petty. Yes, operating systems have UI guidelines. But they are guidelines - sometimes a developer may come up with something better, especially for power users, and no such developer should have to waste time trying to communicate and convince some committee of this, and worse, wait for an approval from them to launch the product.
> 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.
Yes. And the solution is:
1. Creating a viable alternative.
2. Promoting it.
Which is the opposite of what TFA is trying to do: They just want Apple to make an exception for them. Not to solve the root problem.
> Which is the opposite of what TFA is trying to do: They just want Apple to make an exception for them. Not to solve the root problem
They name several apps which would seem to violate the same guideline, at worst they're asking for the same exception Apple has already given to others. An argument can be made that they're snitching on the others, but it's also an argument for consistency that one could say is the root problem.
Yeah. Clearly one team at Apple feels (or felt) that the name was no impediment to them marketing it. Like all corporations, Apple is just a congregation of human beings, rather than a synchronized hive mind. But it's problematic if app authors can't trust in consistency as a result.
FWIW, it's a net downside for me that my professional workstation has an app named "Amphetamine", so I'm quietly in favor of a rename. But it's obviously the author's prerogative to choose its branding, so long as it falls within (consistently) applied policies of those who they rely on to distribute it.
How is it a net downside? The entire purpose of the App Store being locked down is that it's reliable. There is no way any HR department will launch an investigation because you downloaded an app called Amphetamine. Worst case scenario they go look it up and realize there's nothing more to the situation.
I'd have to see a documented event of this happening rather than a hypothetical scenario to believe a downside actually exists.
Who is dumb enough to think people get drugs by installing an app called Amphetamine, monitors user software installs anally AND also lets users install their own software locally in the first place?
Most corporate PCs are windows. On a fraction of the macs users are allowed to install their own software, on a tiny fraction of those amphetamine is installed, on a tiny fraction of a fraction of those maybe someone exists who has a problem with HR.
I'm not sure the last subset actually exists in the real world nor that we ought to support censorship to help imaginary people deal with imaginary morons.
This, I think is perhaps the biggest item in the developer's favour. That Apple themselves found the name palatable enough to promote the app on the front page of their App Store with the existing name.
The App Store is already a walled garden, so complaining that it's not the open web is hardly a relevant objection. The maker of “Amphetamine” was gappy enough to get that half-million downloads on the App Store, so now that the other side of the coin rolls around he gets to accept that too.
Funny you mentioning „caffeine“ [1]as this is also an app for macOS which solves the same purpose as the one posted. But this one is not in the App Store. I just had a look and next to amphetamine we have taurine, theine and caffeinated and a few more that use some form of coffee / a substance that keeps one awake. The „Prevent Sleep“ app is the only one which clearly states what it is for :)
[1] https://intelliscapesolutions.com/apps/caffeine
I know a very intelligent software engineer who told me he had never used Exercism (despite him using other similar tools) simply because he’s a practicing Catholic and thought the name to be in poor taste. You definitely alienate people at the fringes by naming things something even slightly risqué.
Even when their AppStore is mandaded to all your hardware by DRM with you not having any choice of opting out? You want all your possible business speech, products and content you consume dictated by a corporate decree with no accountability?
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 abuse.
(By the way, "my shop, my terms" have already faced legal scrutiny, some of which were found to be illegal - popular judgements include that shops cannot refuse to serve people of colour or gays.)
Those “popular judgements” were because the laws on discrimination say so. There’s no law saying a store has to sell what they don’t want to. If Target (for example) decides to stop selling Pampers because they don’t like the name (for whatever reason), that’s their choice.
There are a surprising number of Christians in CS, but they're generally of the more contemplative kind. I definitely remember people being uncomfortable with that but big enough to not make much of a fuss about it.
I'm guessing it's been slowly changed by people big enough to realize the name doesn't matter.
Americans being American. "We love freedom of speech but fuck you if your product name mentions a chemical compound or a word I or someone else might find offending".
I don't see how any of these contradict freedom of speech. We are talking about 1) people being offended by a name; 2) a company banning an app on their own app store.
Whether you find the situation distasteful, it has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Neither the offended people nor Apple is infringing on the developer's freedom speech.
Freedom of speech isn't the same as freedom of distribution.
There are lots of edgy things that you can say somewhere. You just can't say them everywhere.
We can have lots of lively debate about how to draw the boundaries. But we'll get a lot farther if we can move beyond the two-state absolutism of "allowable everywhere" vs. "outright banned with breath-taking severity."
This is still not it. He's not facing a government warrent.
Freedom of speech means the government won't/can't prosecute you for what you say. It doesn't have anything to do with how companies or private citizens respond to your words.
You're (usually) legally allowed to say you'll fuck my mom but I don't have to bring you over for family dinner.
One could contend that apple's refusal to host this app on it's store is in itself free speech.
Either way, the government jasent gotten involved so nothing here treads on free speech issues.
> Freedom of speech means the government won't/can't prosecute you for what you say
The First Amendment says this. Freedom of speech is “a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction” [1]. It is broader than the First Amendment, and gave rise to it, though the First Amendment is its most successful codification in the modern world.
A society that shuns those who say “bad” things, even without state action, may not hold true to the values of freedom of speech.
No, you have the right to hold and express any view you want.
You don't get to choose peoples reaction or the way they view you after you say something. That would be infringing on their right to hold or express opinions about your views.
The complicated part is that freedom of speech is both a legal right in the US and an ethical principle globally, and your legal rights are less broad than the ethical principle. Something that is legal can still be in violation of the ethical principle.
You say "[we] don't get to choose [people's reactions]", but this is not at all relevant. We're not asking whether their actions are legal or whether we can legally dictate what they think, we're asking whether they're acting ethically.
> Saying you violated their terms with impunity for 6 years doesn’t mean they lose the right to correct the mistake.
Well it gives you an argument I think. Along the lines of a trademark infringement -- if you have let people use your trademark name for years without protest, that can work against you if you suddenly start demanding that it be enforced.
Not sure it would hold much weight here, since it's a case of Apple deciding what they want to allow in their own store.
I disagree. First, I recommend sending this to the following people:
- Any congressional representatives that target Apple for antitrust
- Facebook's PR team.
- Various tech new outlets
If anyone is willing to make a big case out of this then you can use that media attention to grow your application's user base. This has potential for easy free advertisement through media controversy.
After you have gotten enough free advertisement, go forward with this recommendation of changing your branding.
Amphetamine is very much a controlled substance in the US. You can receive it legally with a prescription of course but that does not mean it isn't controlled.
Of course it's just a name. There shouldn't be an argument that it's encouraging use
> To add a little detail to what others said, amphetamine and its salts are explicitly a Schedule II controlled substance in the US.
Though, Schedule II means it has accepted medical uses, so it is not illegal. For instance, lots of kids are prescribed amphetamines for ADHD.
The part of the policy that actually references "controlled substances" only forbids apps that facilitate their sale by non-pharmacies.
I think the GGP has a point if you replace "controlled substances" with "illegal drugs." The reviewer obviously seems to think the terms are synonymous (which is false), and banned the app under the clause that forbids "encourag[ing] consumption of ... illegal drugs."
Leaving everything else aside, this reviewer pretty clearly failed to understand and reasonably apply the policy as written. Reference != promotion and "controlled substance" != "illegal drugs" (all illegal drugs are controlled substances, but the reverse is not true).
They don't (the claim is the app promotes drug use, which it doesn't), and it's quite likely that it's a reviewer mistake that will be overturned once the stink on social media gets big enough to reach the right person.
Like the original post says, they are in fact a useful tool to promote wakefulness, and if you have a problem with wakefulness or attentiveness, you can go to a doctor, get diagnosed, and be prescribed with amphetamines perfectly legally if you so wish.
Well - they do actually do that and under certain circumstances, they are used precisely for that. I find the puritanical mindset a little bit of an overreach here.
You can refrence a truth without promoting it. E.g. Darik's boot and nuke wipes everything but you'd be off your rocker to say it's promoting nuclear war as a result.
Not op, but no; the app has nothing to do with drugs.
I don't think we as a society should be this sensitive/prone to suggestion. If anything, I believe the censorship promotes the idea that people have no responsibility to make their own choices, and we must build to the lowest common denominator.
Note, I'm not really making a judgement about whether Apple should be allowed to do this - I think that is harder question.
They are. Militaries around the world agree. So do doctors who prescribe them for narcolepsy and other disorders. I think it is a good name.
The fact remains that in most places amphetamines are an illegal drug when acquired without a prescription.
I think he should just rebrand. A name change is not a big deal, given the app has low name recognition in the first place. News of the rebrand will be the first Google result for people who are unaware of it.
Apple holds all the cards here. There is little to be gained if he wins, and if he loses he will have to rebrand anyway after much wasted effort.
He could literally just call it "benzedrex" instead as that is the name of a nearly identically acting but otc stimulant you can grab off the shelf at any walmart lol...
If that was the case, health classes would censor the names of any recreationally-illegal substance. The fact is that Amphetamines are `a useful tool to preserve wakefulness`. Knowing that fact isn't inherently a promotion for the use of them.
I think the argument, however tenuous, is that naming a utility after a drug generates a positive association for that drug. It’s not even so much that Apple has to believe this as much as there’s an elevated potential for negative PR. This sort of thing is given even more scrutiny with food items:
they named the app after a harmful drug that does the same thing the app purports to do. it is not a stretch at all to view the app as promoting drug use.
Caffeine was the old application that Amphetamine replaced. It was a long-standing utility that went unmaintained after Apple switched to the retina displays.
> My advice is to immediately rebrand as gracefully and effectively as possible and use all that activist energy to effect the transition.
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).
No, because at a retail store the expectation is that if I see a box labeled "amphetamine" it better contain actual amphetamine. Obviously that's not acceptable, so it's not going to happen.
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.
Yes, but it is not the norm. And physical retail stores can justify it to some extent because storage / display space is actually limited and obviously they would like to give the most space to products that sells fast and / or are more profitable. (This is why FMCG - fast moving consumer goods - are so heavily advertised. Brand awareness helps their sales, and thus shops are more ready to stock it.)
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.
Just because something is a popular business practice in the US doesn't make it a norm around the world too. And just because it found acceptance in one geography or some industry doesn't mean we have to accept the same it in another. A physical retail outlet is not the same as an online one, especially one that only sells digital products (software).
I do know about stocking fees and display fees. And also that it is not the norm, even if some would like it to be. (And phyaical retail outlets can justify it to some extent because space is actually limited in many stores and obviously they would prefer to give the most space to products that sells fast and / or are more profitable.)
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.
Of course it is. I'd be interested in hearing your argument as to why it isn't?
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.
Yes this. The hypocrisy of the gatekeepers is infuriating. Let’s not forget that almost all popular games are mass murder simulators. One of the most popular kids games is a dog fighting game.
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.
Drug mafia sounds like something that should fall under this category.. but I don't see how Trivia Crack would unless they are showcasing drugs on their logo like Amphetamine.
I also don't remember plague inc showcasing any substance abuse, but I could be wrong.
The best argument against Apple is the inconsistency in application of rules. If what you say is reasonable why would they also promote iOS apps whose explicit purpose is the simulation of cartel wars or marijuana dispensaries? My hot take is one doesn’t make much money for Apple while the others provide a clear incentive to act willfully ignorant given their in app revenue streams.
I think this is the weakest argument? Selective enforcement of rules is a time-honored tradition and seems to be explicitly reserved as the right of the rules-enforcer everywhere. It might be a good argument in a hypothetical debate about the fairness and compassion displayed by Apple, but I don't think you'd get far with it convincing either Apple itself or even a court if one somehow was interested.
Also known as lying. It is blatantly obvious that Apple selectively enforces their policies. Anyone who has ever published multiple apps on the app store knows this.
Those at the top often allow themselves to believe that their company is virtuous by being disconnected from the day-to-day. I think that Tim Cook genuinely believes Apple acts honorably and is sincere. This decision is still bullshit.
He said companies don’t get special deals, but then I don’t know what else to call the deal they made with Amazon, where Amazon can bypass Apple’s payment system for some users.
You also won't find many products being labeled with things like
"magic", except maybe for some of Apple's input devices, and
drugs called magic mushrooms.
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.
You mean after you spend at least $700 on a mac mini. Install developer tools. Learn enough about version control to clone the source and pay $100 annually.
Can we just admit that most people actually can't reasonably be expected to do so?
No, on retail shelves I expect to see an assault rifle with the logo of an enraged militant heading into battle where he will kill other human beings and/or be killed themselves.
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.
Subscribing to the offended is advocating against yourself. The only reason why you don't generally see that kind of advertising is because it offends people.
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 bought Microsoft Windows. It has no actual glass windows in it. Is it reasonable to demand the OS not be sold so to avoid confusion and false advertising?
This totally misses the main point: Apple could absolutely have brought this up within a reasonable amount of time. The issue here is reliance.
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.
Yes, this is the real issue - when you distribute your app on Apple's App store, you are giving up control on a crucial part of your business and trusting Apple (a third party and a potential competitor) to not screw you in the future.
Apple doesn’t give a scheise about developers anymore. IMHO this is going to devalue the platform in the long term, but they seem to think differently.
It's more due to ignorance though. All other things being equal, many would prefer to buy directly from the creator if they realize that they can save money, and the creator gets more profit. Apple is right now a corrupt middle-man bureaucrat between them, demanding a bribe from both to make a trade, but the consumers just aren't aware of that.
Yes, this is the other crust of the issue that we developers need to understand - We are the ones that ADD VALUE to a platform like ios or macOS or Android. It is incredibly short-sighted to then PAY to develop and distibute apps on it!
I hate to agree with you, because I think I know what the 'right' thing is from my perspective. Sometimes to make a change, you have to fight and, likely, lose. You don't always effect change by winning. That said, I am not sure I would be willing to make that kind of decision.. and thankfully that is not my decision to make here.
I too recommend live to run another day approach ( ala Rincewind ).
..then again, this may be the right time to do stand up to Apple. Current upheaval in tech, clear battle lines being drawn over everything from section 230 to app store could stack up things in your favor..
Yes, you should accept things over which you have no control, and you should speak up against injustice. Acceptance doesn't have to mean you can't advocate for change.
I concur with OP. Rebrand ASAP. Apple is looking for an excuse to shut your app down so that they can replace it with an in-house version. This is on purpose, they want you to feel outraged. If you take the bait and start a legal battle, you’ll play right into their hands. They will drag it out for years or until your money runs out.
Far better to keep the money you have earned, recognizing that even the rebrand won’t save your app in the long run. It’s done.
You can always just disable the screensaver on your Mac if you'd like. Amphetamine really helps when you have MDM installed or something that requires your computer to sleep every so often.
Here’s to the lazy ones, the mundane, the conformers, the rule-followers, the square pegs in the square holes… the ones who don't see things differently — they’re fond of rules… You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them, you can also safely ignore them because they dare not change things… they keep the human race stagnant, and while some may see them as the lazy ones, we see order, because the ones who are lazy enough to know that they can't change the world, are the ones who won't try
When I walk into the latest iteration of the Apple stores, the ones with those giant LED jumbotrons, I wonder whose job it is these days to throw the sledgehammer at the giant propaganda screen.
“He who is not angry, whereas he has cause to be, sins. For unreasonable patience is the hotbed of many vices, it fosters negligence, and incites not only the wicked but the good to do wrong.”
This is one of those assertions that has the unusual property of being true if you believe it, and false if you don't. Like "I think this bank is going to fail!"
Apple doesn't "hold all the cards" unless we believe it is so. The longer that belief is popular we will lose the option to fight when the stakes get higher.
No, they should not do this. They have six years of strong brand value, and they have a fairly solid case. And they have the world (well, part of the world at least) watching. Apple can and does change if you have those things, if you do it right. We did it with iSH (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25028252). If anything, this is their best opportunity to effect change, and I would very much hope they take it while they still have it.
I agree with this response 100%. Don’t use valuable mental calories on this. Just adapt. Use the saved energy on something more deserving of your time.
In this case, the complainer had several important details on their side: Apple had previously featured the app, the rule that they said was violated wasn't violated, and they tolerate other apps which violate those rules. It seems likely Apple realized in this case that it would be easier to keep the app since it's not like the app was ruining their family friendly image (although many people, especially in the US, picture the negative effects of methamphetamine additiction when they hear "amphetamine", amphetamine is actually an approved drug used by many in the US).
Apple has reversed their position after the developer appealed. They did not lose anything or have to rebrand.
Given this outcome and the minor expense in time it took to achieve, do you still stand by your advice that people should immediately support and enable a unilateral decision because there is a power difference between the parties?
How has this updated your beliefs about the likelihood of amenable redress with the App Store appeals process?
Apologies, where I come from this is not a common treatment for ADHD. I’m not a specialist but as a father of two lively boys I did my share of reading about diagnosing and treating ADHD in Europe.
Ritalin is the dominant drug in that regard, and while it is very similar in every respect, it is not amphetamine-the-substance nor, I believe, technically in the class of substances also referred to as amphetamines.
(someone stated that amphetamines are now available in the EU market. But, if so, it's likely that few people will know, mostly because discussions of ADHD have somewhat faded)
I seriously doubt your nerdsniping changes the point of the original poster. Which you could easily figure out if you weren't so eager to jump upon every single minute detail and consequently missed the forest for the trees.
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. Besides, amphetamine is just the name of the compound, it doesn't suggest anything. If you imply that simply knowing that amphetamines can keep you awake is dangerous, then I'd like to point you towards centuries of proof that not telling people about sex totally stops them from having it.
FYI, there is an open-source alternative with the less catchy but less controversial name, KeepingYouAwake. (Note that Amphetamine has more advanced features, if you need them.)
You can also just use the built-in Terminal app and run the built-in executable named “caffeinate”, it’s free and provided by Apple: https://ss64.com/osx/caffeinate.html While the command has a few options, just typing the word at the terminal and hitting enter will stop your Mac from going to sleep, etc. A long time ago I worked for a company that had a terrible policy for inactivity screen lock that kept interfering with my ability to get work done, and the caffeinate command helped me prevent screen lock when I needed it to.
I mean, on this point I'm actually inclined to think Apple's general policy is reasonable, even if it sucks that Apple is only now adding or enforcing this rule.
It doesn't want apps that jokingly call themselves "Crack Cocaine", "Crystal Meth", or "Mango Vape". It doesn't have anything to do with them actually promoting drug use, but it helps normalize illegal drug use in a way, while Apple wants to keep a "family friendly" approach to its App Store.
Honestly, if I were the creator I'd just rebrand it.
I remember coming across the app years ago, it wasn't obvious from the name what it did, and when I finally understood it, it just seemed like the creator was trying a little too hard to be "edgy". And if you want the widest possible usage/distribution of your app, "edgy" is usually not the way to go.
macOS ships with a command line program called "caffeinate" that disables the sleep function of the laptop. With this background knowledge I was immediately able to assume Amphetamine is a more powerful program that provides the same results. With this background in mind I find the name to be clever.
That's funny because Apple maintains Coca, which is the name of the plant source of Cocaine. The Coca plant is controlled/regulated by the DEA exactly like cocaine is. So by following Apple's example in Apple's ecosystem it is okay to name things directly after drugs.
No. Amphetamine is the name of a chemical with both legal medicinal and illegal applications. I might agree with you if the app's name was "Meth" or some other slang term for a stimulant drug associated with illegal use.
The usage here (stay awake with amphetamines) clearly refers to the recreational illegal application of using it to stay up.
Absolutely amphetamines have prescription medicinal applications including for chronic fatigue. Just like cocaine has applications such as a topical anaesthetic.
But it's completely disingenous to suggest that the app is using the name "Amphetamine" as if it were under the context of a doctor's prescription. It's obviously in the recreational context of healthy people staying awake. And exactly the same as with "cocaine", when most people hear "amphetamines" they think of illegal drugs, not prescription ones.
Of course. I just used chronic fatigue as one example, those are others.
Regardless, my point stands: when the average person thinks of using amphetamines to stay awake, they're thinking primarily of the illegal context, not the prescription one.
> "when the average person thinks of using amphetamines to stay awake, they're thinking primarily of the illegal context, not the prescription one."
Be careful when claiming knowledge of what "everybody" or "the average person" is thinking. You expose your own bias. It can come off as a weird self-own, as if you're saying that you use it that way so you can't conceive of innocent uses
I already am careful and I'm not exposing any bias, but thanks for checking.
It comes across as a weird self-own that you assume I can't conceive of anything else. Especially since I already mentioned the medical uses multiple times. It's simply which usage/meaning is more common, not that the other doesn't exist. It's about frequency, not bias.
No need to get prickly. But no need to explain again either. It's more common to you and your social circle, apparently, but [citation needed] for "the average" person.
You're exposing a lot more about yourself and your lifestyle than you realize, evidently
Oh I'm not prickly, ha -- where ever did you get that idea? I'm touched by your concern for me -- it's quite sweet -- but it's really not necessary. And I'm not at all concerned about "exposing" my lifestyle, what a hoot!
Do you have a "citation" for the average person? If not, then I really don't know what you're arguing about.
Sigh, this is disappointing. I’ve been using Amphetamine for years and it’s quite literally one of a handful of utility apps on the App Store that isn’t a scam or neutered by the policies of the store. Apple was right to recognize it it in the past, and they are wrong today in their reinterpretation of the guidelines.
FWIW, I do app review policy for iSH, which went though a similar situation recently (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25028252) where we managed to convince Apple that they had misinterpreted their review guidelines. If you’re looking for help to get Amphetamine approved as it should, feel free to contact me at saagar@saagarjha.com. I’d be really disappointed to see Amphetamine lose its years of brand value over such a petty review decision.
I hope the author see's your comment but he may not even be aware of this post on Hacker News. His twitter is in the original article - it would be worth a quick tweet to him too as I to use and am a fan of Amphetamine and would hate to see it go, or the author have to expend energy fixing something that isn't broken vs. spending his time on work that would bring actual value :/
That's very silly. The times are ready for a new job title: software product namer, to make sure a name won't offend anyone or violate trademarks and store guidelines.
Avoiding offense while choosing product names is already a well developed and ubiquitous task, and has been for a very long time. It's a reasonable thing to want to do. But I understand the point you're trying to make.
This kind of crap has been around long before people started caring about how marginalized people feel. Look no further than obscenity laws which have been in place a lot longer than this wave of empathy.
In some cases, they're selective about which groups will and will not be sheltered from offense. And they may refuse to admit that, let alone engage in a public, civil debate about their choices.
You're assuming that this is actually the reason. It smells to me like the real reason they kicked it off the platform has fuck all to do with the name, but feigning "wokeness" serves as a decent cover for a variety of evils.
Well, this is pretty silly. Surely this won't last. I've only tried apps like Caffeine and Amphetamine a few times, but I never associated it with a bad thing.
Also, why is Apple making a political statement that doctors should not prescribe Retalin or Adderall ?
It doesn't seem like Apple's place to be making judgements on what medicines are good or bad.
Would Apple ban an app called NyQuil that puts your computer to sleep when it gets hot?
This reminds me of all the hand wringing and pearl clutching about SATAN [1], by Farmer and Venema. Corporate types and bible-squeezers had a huge meltdown over the name.
Unfortunately American culture is simply unsuited for free expression unless buttressed by something list the 1st amendment, which of course only applies to Government.
Fundamentally Apple can and will do whatever it wants and there is no point complaining to them. OTOH allowing direct installs and multiple apps stores is a security disaster. But parliaments can pass laws to regulate monopoly conduct, in the same way that essential services are. Privacy, competition policy (including market access), arbitration procedures for small vs large companies, etc are all mature fields of law, and action in any large market would have significant effect on Apple/Google policy.
Lobby your politicians. Support organizations like EFF.
Change the name to "Amph" and change the icon to remove pill. You can't fight Apple, they make and enforce all the rules. If you want to protest Apple, stop developing software for their platforms.
I wonder what's the rationale behind this policy. I can think of three reasons:
1) They are worried of bad PR from a headline being published that goes: "Apple encourages drug abuse with multiple apps such as Amphetamine".
2) They are worried of a lawsuit if it is found some app contributed to the sell of illegal drugs.
3) They are worried of parents complaints being concerned that they've found an app called Amphetamine on their kid's device.
And in some way, I can agree that as a Company, I'd rather not take my chances with any of them. Now, the policy being applied inconsistently is another issue. And ya, I wish the world wasn't so that a company needed to worry about these, but it isn't, so I'm not sure I can blame Apple that much for it. This also seems like a silly cause for them to champion.
I would agree, but I can't because Apple is a monopoly. If monopolies are allowed to exist then they must be required to reflect the principles of the governments in which they operate.
If everyone could see this decision and easily move over their apps to 1 of 20 other iOS app markets then it might be reasonable for Apple to have self-determined restrictions in place.
My manager (who uses Windows as a daily driver) overheard me recommending a colleague to install Amphetamine and gave me a very puzzled look. Another time I had to explain secops people why do I have an executable called "riot" on my machine (part of Apache Jena if you are curious). So I can imagine Apple just got tired replying to complaints (semiautomated?) from IT sec departments that Amphetamine has nothing to do with drugs and decided to force Amphetamine to rebrand instead.
What a dumb application of this rule in this context. I remember a similar app called caffeine (not sure what happened to it).
Amphetamine is great - I use it daily to stop annoying infosec rules from locking my computer after 2min since I’m working from home. It’s my favorite kind of software, focuses on one issue and does it well.
The whole world is starting to cuddle everyone to death. It’s so disgusting to see the walled gardens censoring, boycotting, deciding what is truth, interfering with ones beliefs and trying to modify them. Also everyone feels offended by something thus entitled to tell what I can and cannot say. Grow the hell up! Sticks and stones may break my bones, but facts don’t care about your feelings. Pampering society will lead to a generation of incompetent crybabies just because they can’t handle another view/perspective
The hypocrisy is that Craig Federighi jokes about Marihuana all the time in Apple keynotes, but when a 3rd party developer does the same thing they ban it...
It's similar situation to removal of slave/master terminology from IT. Without context such accusations are pointless. "I don't like the word you use so you are not allowed to use it." We're seeing the same thing. Apple doesn't like you using the word that's also name of a drug, so you're gone. No context needed.
I don’t think Apple has a strong argument, given the feature set of the app, but I also think the name is kind of tacky/in poor taste. I used an identical app for years called Caffeine. Yes, Apple should buzz off, but choose your battles.
I also think the name is kind of tacky/in poor taste.
I agree. When I turned my wife's old MacBook into a media server, I needed an app like this. I chose one that didn't share its name with controlled substance.
Branding 101. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Back in the very early days of the App Store, I got contacted by Apple regarding the submission of my app “!@#?!% Allergies”, as they believed the name may lead users to think their iPhone Springboard app was buggy :(
> Apple became the place that I lost feeling of physical and psychological safety and the terror that it inflicted on me has impacted me on such a core level that the painful memories and flashbacks have replaced my dreams and they will hunt me until I am alive.
I'm sure Apple is a political quagmire, but if you describe your experience working there the same way someone might describe their time at Auschwitz, it's probably you and not them.
I don’t understand the rationale to remove the app. Are they selling drugs through it or committing a crime with prior precedent in a court of law or under legislation passed by an elected committee?
If it’s just the name, how far does this go? Can I not name a band after a drug? Can I no longer write a book about drugs? What about a company? What if I’m a pharma company? Who is deciding these rules and how do we get rid of them?
I don't agree with Apple here but I also don't feel too outraged either, I can see both sides and it's their store.
I actually think Windows/MacOS should build the most commonly used sleep-gating functionality into the OS. (On Windows there's Coffee and Milk, where Coffee helps you keep it awake and Milk helps you figure out why it doesn't sleep. Seems like basic modern OS stuff to me.)
Its not just their store. Its my device and they are not letting me run a program in it by the dumbest reasons. We shouldnt normalize manufacturers censoring software arbitrarily.
If you are not outraged, you aren't putting yourself in the author's shoe - they created an app that has been in the app store for 6 years. They marketed it and got a large number of users. And now suddenly Apple removes it because it doesn't like the name of the app. Do you want Apple to be the arbitrator of silly things like the name of the app or even your company?
This is one more example of a pattern of abuse by the app stores of apple, google, and maybe even microsoft.
Any app store vendor is the alpha and omega on its platform. Any app store has a monopoly on its walled garden. There are some good aspects like user protection against bad apps, but on the whole, is it worth the price.
Main question now is how society should deal with this. Some ideas from the top of my head
* One option is to simply break the monopoly. A platform could be obligated to implement a store API, and the default platform store should use that same API as any other.
* Another option is a separation of duties. Just like lawmaker, judge and police can't be the same entity in a democracy, they could be split up in the app stores.
* Maybe the safety of the user device can be guaranteed independently from the app store. If the OS enforced walls between apps are strong enough that malicious apps can always be removed and no data theft is possible, the damage done by bad app stores can be lowered?
I have used this while using Macs before and it's a pretty good tool. The name also some what makes sense since it's a "stronger" variant of the past tool.
What's really sad is why this kind of feature even needs to be implemented through a third-party application when it should really be handled on the OS side...
If one has ADHD, then an amphetamine, paradoxically, helps you calm down.
It’s a weird thing that a stimulant can help you chill; from this one could conjecture that an amphetamine to keep you awake isn’t being used to treat ADHD.
I am not a medical Doctor; I am not many things.
Although it would appear that A&E and GP Drs around here aren’t up on lis-Dex
Adderall®, Concerta®, Dexedrine®, Focalin®, Metadate®, Methylin®, Ritalin® are all “brand name” amphetamines.
Yup, and they're controlled substances that you can't buy without a prescription and which are only supplied in limited quantity. Your app branding is literally a kind of drug abuse - using a drug to stay awake rather than its medical use to just be normally functional.
This isn't to endorse Apple, which ought to apply its guidelines more consistently instead of ignoring or enforcing them in arbitrary manner, and which should be more transparent with communities of users rather than using its leverage against individual developers with no real process or recourse.
But when you get down to it, you are in violation of the ToS and there isn't a great moral crusade here. Rebrand and be happy.
Considering how hostile Apple seems to be to the creators that make their platform worth using, I'm consistently surprised that people keep developing for it/investing in it. At least Microsoft is apathetic all the way through: don't expect any help, but as far as I know you won't get shot out of the blue. To me, Apple's whole shtick these last few years reads as if they're just saying "We don't want you to develop on our platform." ("Pay us for even the ability to start making anything on our devices. Give us our cut for letting you exist and provide content for our platform. You can't do that anymore; banned. Make this arbitrary change or you're gone in x days...")
It's one reason the Mac App Store is a pale shadow of the iOS app store.
Inconsistency in sand boxing, especially with Apple apps distributed via the app store vs. non-Apple apps.
So much promise utterly wasted. What really is annoying is that it's been bad for so long without any seeming care from Apple in improving things. I'll use the app store for free or small dollar apps, but anything over $20 if I can buy it outside the App store I absolutely do even though it's more of a hassle.
The App Store (i.e. a single gatekeeper with arbitrary policies) is a terrible way to distribute software. Since this is a MacOS app, perhaps the developer should choose to distribute it as a .dmg, free of all the App Store bullshit.
There's a great talk titled "Lessons Learned from the App Store" by Phillip Shoemaker - https://youtu.be/tJeEuxn9mug
One of the main points is that apple has a hierarchy of priorities for their App Store: protect Apple's brand, protect the customer, then make money (timestamp 5:08 in video). Apple probably got some complaints about the name of the program (probably 100 or less) and decided it wasn't worth the $0 it was making to leave it up.
> and decided it wasn't worth the $0 it was making to leave it up.
Then apparently they made a poor decision - the app apparently has been downloaded 500,000 times. That means it adds value to the users who use it, and that means it creates more value for Apple's platform. Apple shouldn't forget that developers add value to their platform, and moreover, with Apple charging them, they are also clients too!
Apple is so freaking random with their complaints. It makes it VERY hard to build a business around. 10 years ago I had a police scanner app called Scanner911. It sold well.. until a competitor innovated around me... by gaming the app store's review system. Complaining to Apple yielded nothing.
Not that I wanted to build a career around police scanner apps, but it was an independent income.
People here defending Apple are conformist fanboys.. the same people that were sitting staring at that video screen in the old 1984 ad.
I want to suggest rebranding as Beige - the most harmless, boring, and forgettable "color" in the universe. But then even that would likely offend someone, somewhere, somehow.
Maybe Apple should change their name? Given what apples did for Adam & Eve?
Yes, words are important. But so is context and intention. If we keep eliminating words - removed from context and intent -then all we'll have left are emojis.
Oh wait...nevermind.
Botton line: Come on Apple, really? Of all the fights to fight in the world, this is a good one? Shame on you.
We really shouldn’t normalize the kind of thought control, censorship, and morality policing that underlies this Apple guideline. We need to break up and heavily regulate any company that is so powerful that there is effectively no choice but to cave to their demands. These companies, like with the Apple-Google App Store duopoly, are powerful enough such that even though they are technically private, their actions are as direct and impactful as the government enforcing such rules.
It’s a great app! I do tend to agree with them, as every time I looked in the corner of my screen, I was reminded of how much harder I could work if only I had some adderall.
This does seem like a weird shift on Apples part. They even featured the app in “app stories” at one point in time.
I’m a user of this app and found it when I couldn’t find caffeine which I used on an older MacBook.
As an aside I’ve noticed that it’s Apples day to feature on the hn front page. Seems to be an unusual influx of bad apple press. I’m curious if it is coordinated? I’ve wondered the same about anti google/Facebook/Amazon as well. They all seem to come in waves.
I've used this application and the one that came before, caffeine, and in my opinion Apple shouldn't remove it. It would've been different if it was rejected as soon as it was submitted to the Apple store... But after 6 years it's very unfair, after it has built a brand identity and a community.
That said there's a command line application that comes with MacOS X called caffeinate that does essentially the same thing.
I agree with the author: if Apple wants to tighten up rules around drugs, they should have a grandfather clause for popular apps with an established brand.
Interesting. It's annoying that the review process is so inconsistent. But although the amphetamine-based drugs listed are legal, it would be illegal to prescribe for the purpose of "staying awake", so the implication of the app's name that an "amphetamine" is a safe and legal means to "stay awake" does probably violate the spirit of the rule.
I remember when app stores started up and everyone said "this is great, you can get verified results, reviews, and they can handle disputes."
However, this is the reality. Apple created a fixed game and you are the victim. Don't play their game, poison their well. (Inform others and your users what goes on in that environment and that they're bad actors/middlemen)
In the U.S., caffeine is not a highly regulated substance. You can buy it without limits in concentrated pill form, or in coffee and cola. By contrast, amphetamine is regulated as a Schedule 2 controlled substance [0], i.e approved for medical use but considered to have "high potential for abuse". Opioids like fentanyl are also in Schedule 2.
It is bad for them to apply such a policy so inconsistently, to the point that it's subjectivity.
It's also bad to name apps after drugs that are widely abused. It's just too extra. Call it something positive and pro-social like "matcha" or "oolong" or maybe "dark roast" or "espresso" or something.
I suggest changing the name to "Speed Apple." That way you can take a slam at Apple, and use an icon of poop, because in some western states "speed apple" is slang for quadruped manure on the road.
See also: "Speed goat" which is another word for "antelope."
I can see how theoretically the app name could cement the idea of amphetamines being a useful tool for promoting wakefulness if you were a young person.
Sensibilities about naming things do change over time - as various sports clubs have found.
I'm sorry for the developer, but I can see why the guidelines might have been triggered.
I wonder if app store moderation is run on a quota system. It would explain why we continuously have stories about app X getting banned under a very loose interpretation of a guideline if moderators are "poor performers" when they don't find offending apps.
There is obviously a range of names of drugs and chemicals from Aspirin to ZyclonB that could be considered harmful and/or offensive. But I personally would not use any of them as a name for a software product, if only to avoid confusion.
Funny how that kind of problem doesn't even exist on Linux.
I really don't understand how people can willingly buy and use Apple products given the kind of paternalistic, I-know-what's-best for-you attitude this abomination of a company has.
Developer probably has a private Github repo for source code and a public repo for things they want publicly accessible.
It's funny that much of the public only associates Github with Open Source even though all their paying customers use it for closed source development...
So OP created a product very similar to Caffeine, with an edgier name and now it's becoming an issue. Where I think you chose the name just to help get into a similar space as Caffeine in the first place.
First comply and change the name to something like 'Amph' also change the icons (you will find something quickly that you can use) then sue them and if you win open the source code.
Why do you care if it is on the app store or not? Just let users download it from your website. In any case people aren't discovering mac apps from the app store in any significant numbers.
I like the concept and promise of App stores, but over time I am less and less convinced there is any company that can competently run one with any sort of consistency.
I'm so happy I've never bought an Apple product in my entire life. With behavior like this, I shall continue to only buy things I can actually control. :)
It's not Apple that's hysterically puritanical, it's the market they operate in.
They don't give two f__ks about being politically correct, they're a corporation, their main concern is profit, and if you're not being hysterically PC in 2021, you're gonna loose money because of the radical minority that's ruining it for everyone.
I feel that Apple goes above and beyond. Like banning the confederate flag from all apps, I don't think people would have boycotted Apple if they hadn't done that. And Tim Cook's personal morals are very well aligned with PC, so I don't think it's just posturing.
Wow, this whole thread has prompted me to get off mobile and onto a keyboard, because I have many thoughts on this matter. I have ADHD, delayed phase sleep disorder, a dual BS in chemistry and psychology, I have studied addiction and drug reform, and even worked on synthesizing phenethylamine derivatives. I have many thoughts.
First, methamphetamine is not amphetamine. Meth belongs to the broad class of molecules properly known as "substituted amphetamines" or "phenethylamines." No one in-the-know refers to meth as "amphetamine" by itself, though some do broadly refer to assorted substituted amphetamines as "amphetamines" but this is pretty sloppy and if you want to refer to the class and "substituted amphetamines" is a mouthful, just use "phenethylamine" (PEA).
The name, of course, one of the most clever elisions in chemistry, Alpha-Methyl-PHenyl-ETthylAMINE, refers to the methyl group alpha to (the 1st substituent on the carbon backbone) the amine. This makes PEAs structural analogs of dopamine (DA, aka 3,4-OH-PEA) and norepinephrine (NE, aka 3,4,β-OH-PEA), and their the ability to modulate DA/NE receptors is what gives PEAs their general stimulating properties.
Meth-amphetamine has a methyl group on the amine. This seemingly small structural change makes a big difference pharmacologically. Methylation of amines makes drugs more fat-soluble, which makes them better at penetrating the blood-brain barrier and cellular membranes, while inhibiting its breakdown and clearance. This makes METH harder hitting, better at receptor binding, faster acting, and with far stronger effects than AMPH. Modelling addiction is tricky, but we can loosely approximate how strongly habit-forming a drug can be by multiplying the blood plasma curve by an exponential decay. The faster and higher a drug peaks, the more likely it will be addicting.
METH's lipophilicity also means it tends to cause DA to leak into places it shouldn't, resulting in unwanted chemical side-reactions which can damage neurons and glia, making it more toxic than AMPH. (this is a huuuge oversimplification; there are reams of studies on the mechanism of METH toxicity, and yes the literature uses METH as the abbreviation, I'm not being dramatic by all-capsing it)
Together, this makes METH much more dangerous than AMPH, and hence why AMPH and prodrugs such as Vyvanse (lysine-dexamphetamine) are commonly prescribed for ADHD, sleep disorders and eating disorders, while METH (under the name Desoxyn) is much more obscure medicinally (but still used! In fact another comment in this post mentions it).
Both are DEA Schedule II. Scheduling has basically no correlation to actual addictive potential or harm in any way. Psilocybin is SchI, has virtually no risk of addiction or overdose, Zolpidem is SchIV but is notoriously prone to abuse, and tobacco isn't even scheduled but is exceptionally addictive, causes easily >$100B in costs in USA alone. Yeah, the DEA schedule is kinda useless IMHO, but I digress.
AMPH can be abused and sold on the street, but that's true of literally any drug that humans find interesting to consume, including weak PEAs like bupropion, and OTC drugs like diphenhydramine and dextromethorphan.
Bottom line is - amphetamine is safe and effective when used as prescribed for improving focus and wakefulness. Lumping it in with METH or other street drugs is chemically imprecise, and does a disservice to those struggling with executive disorders. Apple makes it seem like just the name Amphetamine implies inappropriate drug consumption, which adds to the stigma those who benefit from amphetamine treatment already experience.
Sure, but they're not denying access to competitors. They're setting rules for use of the facility. "You can't promote illicit drug use in our facility" is a reasonable rule.
Whether the name "Amphetamine" does in fact promote illicit drug use may be up for question, of course, but that's got nothing to do with monopoly power.
using random drugs for a product name is totally not gonna result in trouble down the road.
Which reminds me that ppl use random words for all kinds of things so I can't find what I'm looking for because now some animal or item is a software name...
Apple needs to fire the person who made the choice to ban this App. They have no purpose in the company, bring no returns, and cost a pretty penny. They are a rent seeker (apple policy) on top of an otherwise great business.
The best thing to do is to let Apple remove the app. Do not rebrand it. Do not try to restore it. Eventually Apple will realize that their platform is worthless if they have no developers making apps for them.
It's annoying, and unfair, but I'd take advantage of the "publicity" around this name change, and change it to "StimulusCheck" or something trendy, and move on with things.
Well, it's a play on Caffeine.app's name. I'll make an ever better Mac force-wake program called Crack Binge.app, anyone who dislikes this name is a puritan Apple sycophant.
> Argument #1: Amphetamine Does Not Promote the Use of Illegal Drugs or Facilitate the Sale of Controlled Substances
> Amphetamine does not promote the use of illegal drugs. Not only that, Amphetamine does not promote the recreational use of legal/prescribed drugs. In the United States, amphetamine is prescribed by doctors to adults for narcolepsy and to children for ADHD...
> ...Just like amphetamine (the organic compound) can be legally used to keep humans awake and attentive, Amphetamine (the app) can be legally used to keep your Mac awake."
While "amphetamine" isn't itself an "illegal" drug, promoting the use of amphetamines for anything other than the FDA-approved indications (e.g. narcolepsy and ADHD) is something that can approach illegality [0]. For example, Pfizer and many other companies have had to pay billions to settle charges of promoting drugs for non-approved indications [1].
The author doesn't help his case when he asserts, "amphetamine can be legally used to keep humans awake and attentive". Yes, that's an effect of the drug, but it's only official legal uses are for treating narcolepsy and diagnosed ADHD. Adderall's manufacturer would get in big trouble if it started a campaign to convince doctors (who can basically prescribe for any reason they judge necessary) to get patients on Adderall for general boosting of performance and productivity.
Of course, the author (I assume) isn't in the pocket of Big Pharma. it's also not a stretch to see how this falls afoul of Apple' policy against encouraging the illegal use of drugs, in that the application's very name creates an association between "Amphetamine" and "making your computer more productive". Alcohol isn't an illegal drug either, but as the author notes, Apple explicitly bans encouragement of "consumption of...excessive amounts of alcohol" – i.e. a harmful use of an otherwise legal drug.
To use a hypothetical example, if a developer created an app that reduced screen glare and excessive contrast in UI elements, and then called it Fentanyl, I'd imagine Apple would have the same complaints as it does against Amphetamine, even though Fentanyl is a drug legally prescribed for severe chronic pain.
As someone who depends on amphetamines to function daily, it’s disheartening to see their use further stigmatized. For many people like me, amphetamines help them live a normal life. The app isn’t called “meth” or “methamphetamine” and it’s not referring to a street drug.
I’m saddened to see so many equating amphetamines to illicit drugs, when that’s simply not the full story. This perception is exactly what stops people from taking their medication when they should and balking at the idea of a medication being able to help them.
While I wholeheartedly agree with the thrust of your argument (particularly that stigmatization is detrimental)...
> it’s not referring to a street drug.
Amphetamine (and other amphetamines) are certainly available as 'street drugs'. The stigmatization of 'street drugs' (and generally, drug use as part of someone's self-directed diet) is also harmful.
Exactly. If you were to describe objectively to someone the properties of alcohol or tobacco without saying the name, people would be clamoring to crack down on the "epidemic" claiming thousands of lives and costing billions.
Speed can refer to a drug, but it can refer to a lot of other things too; people will think very different things depending on whether they see the word next to a picture of pills or one of a running shoe.
I don't mean to sound pedantic (though I certainly will), but Focalin, Ritalin, etc are formulations of methylphenidate which is absolutely not an amphetamine. It's a DARI, not a VMAT2 inhibitor. They work in very different ways and are not chemically related.
I only bring this up because if you're trying to educate folks on compounds in this sphere, being accurate is a nice thing to do.
I wish this project all the best. It's absolutely silly that the name of a commonly prescribed compound should be so maligned. What if I named an app "Metformin"? Would that be at risk of uh, encouraging type 2 diabetes?
Developing mobile apps sounds painful, imagine building an app and its userbase for many years and some faceless corp destroys all your work on a whim. Maybe web apps arent so bad
I think finding molecular differences of amphetamine is missing the point. There is a lot of knee jerk reactions I see here. This is primarily an image thing for Apple.
Personally, I think this is a bad name for an app of this sorts. Caffeine is good one, amphetamine is borderline.
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
It all depends on how much value the name has as a brand. If there are a ton of positive reviews and mentions of the app using that name, it’s not going to hurt to appeal.
But if almost all of the materials referring to the app by that name are on your own web site, I agree with you, change it and move on. Use those efforts in better places.
Amphetamine isn't exactly an innocent name. Of all the app takedowns that occur, this one seems pretty normal and actionable.
It's important to remember that reviews are superficial, and passing review is not at all the same as being compliant with the terms. Compliance is the burden of the submitter.
Now, that app store monopoly makes terms unfair and arbitrary is another discussion entirely.
There are gambling games in the app store marketed to children. You can sink 10s of thousands of dollars into gatcha games and they make every effort to make it easy and desirable to do so. If Apple wants to be a moral arbiter I'm not sure why it doesn't have a problem with those and even highlights them as "featured" apps from time to time.
That there are other violations slipping through is not valid legal argument.
That the priorities in the terms the developer is subject to does not match yours is not a valid legal argument.
The app store monopoly should fall, but until then, you're subject to the terms unless you get it declared unenforceable by a court, or convince Apple to change them.
I agree with most (actually all) of your conclusions but...
They start with the premise of culpability of a name. Which _is_ the problem in the first place.
That culpability was not demonstrated but was simply declared by remote association. The same arbitrary judgement can be made for an innumerable list of other words without making that judgement neither correct nor just.
Direct association, not remote association. The name is an intentional reference to a hard drug.
The name isn't related to the functionality, but that's not what is claimed. This restriction on drug references is spelled out in the terms, making it valid and non-arbitrary.
That the terms themselves aren't "just" is a different matter altogether, but there is no argument for it but being valid.
First I m just wondering why can't they change the name of their app... And eventually ask for help from Apple to reroute confused customers.
Second apple is not responsible for your brand identity. A lot of people associate their brand with drugs. And it always come with drawbacks.
Should the app store promote drugs? Would you want that on the mac of your children?
Oh come on, you use it as a drug to let the Mac stay awake. Whether or not the guideline makes sense, you are obviously violating it, just change the name.
I don’t use this and don’t care. But I can imagine my kids asking, what are amphetamines, why is it named that way, did you ever try them, what is it like.
Just like you’d say to kids, you don’t ever need to take those pills, maybe you should use your energy to push Apple so that your app isn’t necessary? I certainly try to educate my kids such that they will not be in a position to need those meds.
We like to think we own our hardware and make decisions about how it works and Apple sucks cuz they take away ownership, but cmon like you got to choose sensible defaults for your brain? “What’s in your .brainrc?” Random lines from your parents and friends at school, that’s what
If your kids asked you that, I hope you'd give a reasonable answer about these being prescribed medications for narcolepsy and ADHD, that much improve the quality of life for people afflicted with these conditions. Rather than ignorant shit like "you don't ever need to take those pills".
I genuinely don’t understand the outrage in these HN threads about Apple. This is an application undoubtedly built with Apple hardware, probably using an Apple-developed programming language and an IDE made by Apple, to be used on machines created and manufactured by Apple, and provided on a store that’s setup and run by Apple.
This isn’t even a so-called ‘walled garden’. Let’s take Instagram for instance: built on technologies provided freely by others (HTML, JavaScript, CSS) and exploiting user-created content, I still need to sign-up to a Facebook service to be able to see that freely-provided content.
If these apps were boxes on a Walmart shelf, why would it be seen as some sort of civil-liberty infringement if you got a call someday, to say that Walmart had decided to discontinue selling your product?
Can we stop endlessly puting Apple's various authoritarians missteps under the spotlight? It's been literally decades now, we know they can and will do whatever they want in their walled garden. Stop giving them attention. Complaining clearly does not work, if you want to make a difference, change platforms. Nobody is forcing you to develop for Apple.
Do you similarly think that American newspapers should stop publishing articles about China's various authoritarian missteps?
You could just ignore articles that don't interest you, and you certainly don't need to go to the trouble of commenting on them, although I support your efforts to encourage people to change platform (and reduce their customer base by half).
I'm not equating Apple's policies with China's, I'm just trying to understand if "Complaining clearly does not work" is a good enough justification for preventing people from learning about bad policies.
Perhaps the argument is that people have a duty to learn about genocides going on in the world, whereas there is no moral imperative to learn about bad policies of tech companies, but by that logic nearly every discussion on this site should be removed.
Apple is under heightened antitrust scrutiny IIUC, so it's plausible that past and current discussions were/are actually helpful.
And fwiw, you're welcome to just ignore any threads or stories that you feel are getting repetitive. Many of us have a personal list of such topics, but our lists may not match.
> Can we stop endlessly puting Apple's various authoritarians missteps under the spotlight?
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or if you think the whole 'if you don't like something then shut-up and move' strategy is actually a logical solution.
There's better use of people's outrage than rallying behind a developer giving away their time to Apple in their walled garden. The replies in the HN thread confirm a derivative of my opinion is shared by most.
And in this case, a strategy including 'move' will almost always be superior to one without. Complaining to incumbents does very little.
There are a number of cases where the publicity helped to reverse a not favorable decision. I think this is the same strategy used here and they seemed to have made their homework before going public.
I don't know for how many cases this didn't work but it's clear that it works for _some_. They don't want to make a difference and don't want to change platforms.
For what is worth, I'm glad for this publicity for it's clear it's part of a continuing stream of issues that should steer away any newcomer with open eyes.
I couldn’t have guessed the purpose of the app from this name, and now that I know what it does, I would specifically avoid giving money to it due the name alone.
I’m glad someone made an alternative to Caffeine.app but “they’re both drugs” doesn’t weaken my personal objection to the choice of name. I am glad that Apple is compelling the name to be changed, and I hope the author complies. This is where “universal freedom” clashes directly with “common sense for a department store” for me, and while I understand others aren’t on my side, I prefer department stores to flea markets.
Why should your "personal objection" be a reason for someone else to change? You do you and choose an app based on naming if you want, but don't go pushing your puritan views on everyone else.
My personal objection is shared by others, unpalatable as that may be to some. Thankfully, my celebration of this outcome is wholly irrelevant to Apple's decision-making process, as I neither work for Apple, influence Apple, nor participate in any app store review processes on behalf of Apple, or any other either. So you may take comfort that had I exerted any effort to push my view — which I haven't — it would have meant just as much to the outcome as our discussion here in this thread: Absolutely nothing whatsoever.
Demeaning me with the phrase "pushing your puritan views" is is tasteless and inappropriate, and makes incorrect assumptions not only about the root of my objection but also about the belief systems surrounding it. You are wrong about both.
My issues with it stem from something unpublished in the late 90s, which is not something 'dismissable' that you can simply set aside using the negation-by-framing of 'outrage culture', so I can't offer any reply to your question. Please accept my apologies for how far off the mark my reasons are from your assumptions; perhaps another time we'll be better aligned.
On the contrary, intentionally obtuse and unsubstantive references to some unpublished something-or-other, and unspecified personal objections which are claimed to be 'common sense', are pretty vapid and dismissable.
I'm not here to help you determine whether you should care or not. That's entirely up to you. For some unknown reason you seem to care, and I certainly can't figure out why from the replies so far.
As best as I can guess from the evidence available, you're looking for some vector to "No, you're wrong!" disprove some aspect of my personal view of this. This will, of course, go nowhere. I didn't submit my personal view as some sort of entry in a debate, and I'm making no effort to persuade anyone to my view.
If you can't find a way to derive value or relevance from my viewpoint, other than trying to disprove it or debate it, then you'll just have to move on. I'm not going to try to pressure you, persuade you, influence you, argue with you, or otherwise make any effort to interfere with your freedoms of thought and choice. That would be inappropriate for an unsubstantiated personal view such as the one I have provided.
>I'm not here to help you determine whether you should care or not.
Other than attention seeking what was the point of your original post? It certainly wasn't for dialog since you can't have a dialog unless you are willing to put all the points of discussion on the table.
People are rightly puzzled by your posting because this site is about dialog - not one direction orations. That you are attempting to act "above the fray" is even more amazing.
I can think of several interesting and relevant dialogues that could occur, but I also predicted that a viewpoint on this topic not couched in SSC-compatible rationality terms would be rejected and attacked by other HN commenters. Having confirmed that prediction, I’m content not to share any further details about my biasing experiences so as not to offend further, and avoid being emotionally vulnerable to y’all in the process. Or, restated, I was able to verify that the non-logical nature of my experiences and viewpoint remains intolerable within HN’s limits as a forum. I will continue to keep this in mind going forward as I have previously but it’s necessary to recheck assumptions now and then and this served that purpose acceptably.
I think it’s pretty clear that what was being discussed was a freedom of expression issue (as a value not a law). Doesn’t matter now though cause Apple backed down and the dev noted this in his response: “We may not all agree, but I am happy we all still have the freedom to express ourselves today”
This is pure censorship and nothing but a ridiculous, culturally damaging move from Apple. Forcing developers to pick from particular, puritan subset of the human language and banning apps relating to whole segments of the human experience will do nothing but hamper creativity and expression.
It is also extremely hypocritical, Apple distributes and profits from existing works of art that depict and describe drug use, among other topics, through Apple TV, iTunes, and Apple Music. Apple has no concerns with profiting from art after someone else approved it whether some other movie producer or record label. As long as some other large institution vouches for it then Apple will look the other way. But if every institution operated like Apple, most of the best works of literature, music, and film would never have been approved.
Honestly, I can not fathom why so much open source and free content is produced for Apple's ecosystem. Everything from the desktop MacOS operating system to Apple's app store policies is counterproductive for developers and anyone who disagrees with Apple's rules. The opportunity of the App store makes sense for commercial and profit driven apps but there is no reason to give charity to the most valued company on the planet.
Finally, I really doubt there is any legal ramification for Apple here. Apple can ban any app they want for any reason which is fine. I just think anyone starting to get into developing should consider anything but app development for this reason. If the product has to be an 'app' then try to make it a web app. Anything besides putting your life in Apple's hands.
Ketamine for treatment resistant depression. We've got to kick the mind expansion folks out though. They are going to ruin everything like Timothy Leary ruined LSD.
In the context of illegal/recreational usage, not really. Chemically they are similar, and affect the body in pretty much an identical way. Methamphetamine metabolizes to amphetamine. Methamphetamine has more potent effects for the same dose. And of course street meth is a crap-shoot.
Yes, really. That methyl group makes a big difference. It increases potency, toxicity, absorption rate and overall addictiveness, hence why amph is commonly prescribed, while meth (desoxyn) is reserved for severe narcolepsy.
You pointing out semantics makes zero difference to how I feel about meth/amphetamines and how regardless of semantics these are insensitive product names.
When I hear “Amphetamine” I instantly think if they people I know who’s lives have been destroyed, but you feel I’m mistaken and you’ve got a good argument against my line of thinking.
Were you one of those German soldiers issued Meth during WW2 to help them fight longer and with less human emotion? Cause that’s all I think about when you talk about meth destroying lives.
Looks like it's you that has the meth obsession. Shouldn't you be ashamed with yourself for having used the word? What about all the people whose children's lives have been destroyed by meth? Shouldn't you delete your comment?
Also can you please link me to a study that shows a causal link between names of apps, and an increase in usage in that drug the app is named after?
And then one that shows an increase in usage in a different drug (because again, amphetamine is not meth)?
I'd really, really like to read that study.
Presumably you want to ban WINE too, because of all the people who know someone who was an alcoholic? Have you written to the WINE maintainers telling them how evil they are?
This is simply technically incorrect as many people are pointing out to you. There is a named molecule called "amphetamine" short for alpha-methylphenethylamine, it has a unique IUPAC name ((RS)-1-phenylpropan-2-amine).
Methamphetamine is a derivative in the class of amphetamines (amphetamines being the family that was originally established by amphetamine). I know that's confusing. But, it has its own chemical structure, N-methylamphetamine, which is chemically distinct (yet extremely similar).
If your point is 'meth is an amphetamine', that's fine but it doesn't strengthen your arguments.
My only argument is that it’s reasonable for the GP to say that meth is amphetamine, even if it’s grammatically more correct to say an amphetamine.
It’s basically bullshit to dismiss what they were saying on the basis of this pedantry.
Amphetamine is a structural class.
It’s also clearly true that people not versed in chemistry associate meth with amphetamine.
What’s ‘technically’ correct to a chemist really isn’t relevant to this debate.
We wouldn’t generally argue that it’s incorrect to say that champagne is wine, even though it’s more technically accurate to say that champagne is a wine.
In the case of amphetamine, we feel the need to make the distinction more strongly because the word has two meanings.
This is only true for those of use who are aware of the presence of both meanings.
Those who think of amphetamine as a class and don’t distinguish it from the substance are not wrong. They are just less precise.
It's not a problem with grammar when the "incorrect" grammar changes the whole meaning of something. No one would be jumping on the comment if it had said, "meth is a amphetamine," which has the same meaning despite the incorrect grammar. Removing the "an" completely changes the meaning.
The relevancy to the debate is established by the meaning of the word. Which is a technical issue.
Leaving the definition of a precise term to the whims of layman results in that we can't any longer say if we are talking about the same things.
The end result is that the merge of the two ends up in the dictionary. Perhaps it's time to update the definitions but I doubt that 'amphetamine' will be defined as slang for 'meth' when in fact 'meth' is slang or short for 'methamphetamine'.
Not really, it's pretty confusing and when I worked at a medicinal chemist working on substituted phenethylamines, no one referred to molecules aside from amphetamine proper as "amphetamine".
You are just displaying your ignorance here. Amphetamines are used in medications prescribed for narcolepsy (i.e. unwanted/inappropriate sleepiness), ADHD and obesity.
If you look at this and think of street meth, that's your own problem.
Regarding your comments in this thread (the worst of them are currently "dead") and in case you decide to keep posting on HN, you should take a look at the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The guidelines seem very reasonable and beneficial for the discussions, here are some excerpts:
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
BTW, I don't claim to follow the guidelines perfectly all the time, the reason I'm writing this comment is basically because I would have preferred if you managed to get your point across better.
Well-written argument for the app reviewers to get bent, especially the highlighted examples of other apps that show the rule is clearly applied inconsistently.
Apple's App Store moderation is embarrassing. They routinely fail to catch harmful junk—I've shut down a few top-grossing bogus antivirus apps for Mac, and the publisher of Untitled Goose Game routinely posts screenshots of clones that are trying to make money off confused users.
They've banned apps like Phone Story and a drone strike tracker for being "objectionable and crude," yet they don't apply any content moderation to the Book Store or to Music or TV (or to Safari for that matter). They've yet to provide a cogent justification for why they're inconsistent on this.
I don't necessarily agree that TV/Music/books need more moderation in terms of censorship (and they do have plenty of that), but more curation. Apple TV is a good example of that, it's highly curated.
Books are really bad though. Amazon is no better, neither have any modicum of curation or taste when it comes to their bestsellers lists. The New York Times doesn't put salacious romance novels at the top no matter how many copies sell, yet Amazon and Apple Books would lead you to believe there's nothing else being published.
The same goes for the App Store. It doesn't need moderation by way of censorship, it just needs tasteful, manual curation.
I mean the opposite—not that they should censor/moderate their other stores, but why are they hypocritical (edit: or inconsistent, if you prefer) in saying that certain content is harmful when consumed as an app, but not as a book or movie that they are happy to sell to you?
That's not hypocritical; it's surprising you can't see that.
An app is software that can be harmful to your device. Books and movies are not software and can't affect your device in any way.
Therefore, there is a very obvious justification for disallowing some apps; that doesn't apply for books or movies.
It's also not "hypocritical" for Apple to choose to have a curated App Store (which is feasible and realistic) but choose not to actively censor books (which isn't really feasible).
> An app is software that can be harmful to your device.
I'm only discussing moderation for content, rather than moderation for security, privacy, stability, etc.
> actively censor books (which isn't really feasible)
I don't think it's infeasible. I just searched for a piece of literature today on Apple's Book Store and instead found a book with a pretty raunchy title. Could they not at least moderate that?
Keep in mind they make it seem "feasible and realistic" that they can analyze apps to determine if they "can be harmful to your device," but anyone familiar with static analysis would know there are serious limitations to how much you can deduce about the behavior of an arbitrary binary.
See, for instance: https://www.reuters.com/article/apple-security-idUSN1E7A71ZS...
I think the simplest explanation is that they don't have automated review processes for media like they do for software and Apple isn't a single person making decisions about what they sell on every app all the time.
That said, TV and movies are far more controlled than the App Store.
What's wrong with romance novels?
Nothing! Just that they're over represented in listings and publishers/authors will game their way to the top of search and best seller results on book apps. It makes it more difficult to find content I would like to read.
When apple bans an app, it ceases to exist on ios, effectively. Books, Music, and TV can be accessed through non-Apple controlled channels.
What are some TV content that's similar to these banned apps?
I think this is helping to make the case that they could be consistent in applying the guidelines to books/music/TV. "We're trying to be family-friendly, so we're not interested in selling any content that references drug use, but you're more than welcome to get it elsewhere." But they aren't; they only censor such content on the App Store.
Both Drone+ and Phone Story could have been done as web apps (which iOS supported before native apps), but of course there are many APIs that you cannot access from WebKit.
Banning books is widely considered to be a bad thing.
And it is thus important to recognize that our cultural perception of book banning, book burning, etc as a bad thing isn't something intrinsic to humans, and its not something we got for free. It took years of effort from major authors and members of the literary community to shift that perception. And we need to fight that fight again for applications, and especially for platforms which give their users and developers no other recourse, on behalf of the vast majority of users who don't have the knowledge or context to understand why it matters.
Apple's morality is very hit and miss at times. However it really comes down to squeaky wheel advocates get a lot of traction and Apple responds by going after the targets. Its a worse form of moral enforcement because its a completely moving target.
People, especially tech oriented folks, always seem to decry the threat of religious persecution by politicians but failed to recognize that enforcement of morals by any group can have very dangerous side effects. We see statements to that effect here all the time, people judged for lifestyle choices that are not in favor by one group or another. Morals become weaponized as they can be undefinable immeasurable standard applied to those who are no longer in favor by action, deed, or thought.
It seems like they just act when their PR team feels worried.
When an app that simply describes how a product is made is "objectionable and crude" it says a lot about the product.
They're literally censoring JWZ's XScreensaver for iOS because they're worried about the political thoughts people might have watching one of the hacks.
The iOS App Store has got to go.
I thought I should look at the App Store and see what this app is doing in comparison to similar apps.
The logo is basically a big pill and the tagline "Powerful keep-awake utility" which is clearly alluding to the drug. https://imgur.com/a/RJXHaBa
This was consistent with the feedback the author received: "[the] app appears to promote inappropriate use of controlled substances. Specifically, your app name and icon include references to controlled substances, pills"
Almost all of the other top apps in the app store in the same category use some reference to caffeine either in the name or tagline or description (e.g. "Jolt of Caffeine" or "Owly" which has a logo of an owl in a cup of coffee) https://imgur.com/a/yySBqEL
There's one other, much less popular app called "Coca" which appears to reference cocaine, but doesn't also have a drug-referencing icon or tagline, and which only has 15 reviews. By comparison, Amphetamine seems to be the most popular result, at least for the search term "awake", with 1.37K reviews
The guideline in question doesn't seem to consider excessive use of caffeine as problematic to encourage. "1.4.3 Apps that encourage consumption of tobacco and vape products, illegal drugs, or excessive amounts of alcohol are not permitted on the App Store. Apps that encourage minors to consume any of these substances will be rejected. Facilitating the sale of marijuana, tobacco, or controlled substances (except for licensed pharmacies) isn’t allowed."
Overall, Amphetamine did seem to be pushing the drug-use angle much harder than other apps in the category based on the logo, tagline and title, especially if you consider caffeine abuse not problematic.
Added: I don't have a strong opinion on this one either way, other than edgy naming has pros and cons. Word of mouth is easier, but sometimes a problem like this happens.
"1.4.3 Apps that encourage consumption of tobacco and vape products, illegal drugs, or excessive amounts of alcohol are not permitted on the App Store. Apps that encourage minors to consume any of these substances will be rejected. Facilitating the sale of marijuana, tobacco, or controlled substances (except for licensed pharmacies) isn’t allowed."
Taking this literally, is an amphetamine an illegal drug? It’s a class of Schedule II drugs that are legal in all 50 states.
It's not illegal, it is perfectly legal, but like driving a car you need to go through a process for it that not everyone can clear.
For example, if you have issues staying awake from narcolepsy it's possible to legally obtain amphetamines, and our society generally accepts this to be a good thing.
Opioids are often prescribed for good reason as well but there's still an opioid epidemic and referencing them in your app's name or icon probably isn't a good thing to do. Some amphetamines are schedule 2 drugs in the US so possession is illegal in most circumstances.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act#cite...
Most amphetamines except for methamphetamine are generally possessed legally. Surprisingly, most of the illegal market for non-meth amphetamine is misdirected legal pills.
They're also quite different from opiods because unlike them, they aren't inherently addictive if prescribed properly. For example, prescribed for ADHD, all cause addiction rates do not increase from amphetamine use. In general, it's about as addictive as alcohol, and that's perfectly acceptable as the name for software such as WINE.
One way it's different from driving a car is that you can own a car without having a license -- car possession is not regulated -- whereas the possession of controlled substances is what's regulated.
Another side of this: consumption is not regulated. So you can consume, but not possess.
It's a "controlled substance", which means it is illegal under many circumstances. Most illegal drugs are actually illegal in that way.
Even for legal drugs most (maybe all?) countries have rules about how you can market or promote them. The classic example would be things like cigarette and alcohol marketing needing to include health warnings.
Since the App store is global, it makes sense to just not allow anything that could run afoul of those rules.
Considering the context can be helpful. Apple has their caffeinate utility, seems to me amphetamine is an appropriate name for a more powerful “stimulant” utility, given the naming convention Apple themselves have laid out.
What drug-use angle are they pushing? The pill logo is actually pretty typical of generic 15mg amphetamine/dexamphetamine salts, a common ADHD prescription, and nothing about the tagline strikes me as drug-adjacent. "Powerful keep-awake utility"? It does what it says on the tin.
You seem to be trying to say that each element in itself doesn't invoke the illegal drug use metaphor. Even if that were the case, my argument is that the three pieces bolster work together.
Just like if I named a game "Alcohol" and the logo was a glass with some liquid in it, and the tagline was "Have a good time". Individually none of those would necessarily be promoting drinking alcohol. After all, alcohol has uses for cleaning, and the glass is just a glass, and "Drink in the fun" is just describing what it's like playing the game. But if you put them together, they unequivocally do.
As for there being legitimate uses of amphetamines, I'm not saying there aren't (I'm well aware of these uses, personally). That doesn't mean the off-label uses are legal. AFAIK, at least in the US, using amphetamines solely to "keep awake" is an illegal usage, and the tagline is referring specifically to that.
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.
What changed? Apple's policies
Companies change policies all the time. I get dozens of terms of service revision alerts in my e-mail each year.
Same goes for government policies, and even personal policies. You wouldn't make decisions today based solely on things you thought ten years ago.
Life changes. Policies change. Things change.
Doesn't make it right. I shouldn't be shocked to find some contrarian/nihilist defending EULAs and corporate bullshit on HN, but here we are.
"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.
Apple approved of the app. Hence the name was approved. Not sure what we mean by "getting away" here
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.
Apple wrote a story about the App. They approved it and approved of it.
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.
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).
You want to talk about a nonsensical argument, take a look at the comparison you just made.
In the first situation, you have no way of knowing whether the cop even saw you. Or if they were on duty. Or if they were previously occupied responding to some other call.
In the second, the app was explicitly submitted for review and approved by Apple. Even more egregious, the app was explicitly mentioned, by name, by Apple.
Next time, I recommend you speed up and catch the cop to make sure they know you were speeding and see how things play out.
Let me be more explicit for you, then: I speed past a cop who is pointing his radar gun at me, staring at me, but for some reason he doesn't decide to pursue me (an experience many of us have actually had).
Maybe it's an off day for him and he just doesn't care. Maybe he was confused about the speed limit on that stretch. Maybe he is waiting for a bigger fish. Maybe he likes my car (or skin) color and decided to look the other way. Regardless, I got away with speeding.
If I then at some future date pointed to that as legalizing my speeding for all time, that would be ignorant nonsense. Yet we see this exactly this sort of childish argument in all realms: Some guy deducts something unlawful for years and then one day the tax man says "Uh no...that isn't allowed", and they point to their prior years as if that makes it suddenly lawful. That getting away with it before grandfathers it in or something.
Some random Apple employee writing a story linked it (or a tax employee accepting a tax return, or a cop giving a pass to speeding), therefore it is officially sanctioned for all time. Give me a break. That isn't how any of this works.
But it makes for a lot of crybaby stories.
If (a) there is no definite speed limit, just an imprecise policy statement (like "don't drive too fast") and (b) a person drives by the same cops for years at the same speed and gets clocked and doesn't get ticketed, and then (c) is one day pulled over and told that they're driving imprudently, then they indeed have a basis for complaint. That is exactly how this works. The interplay between vague policies and regular practice is how people gain clarity in the absence of a bright line rule -- playing ball.
An app named "amphetamine" (a controlled substance in most countries), using a pill as its icon, with narrative like the "most awesome keep-awake".
Yeah, there isn't a lot of ambiguity here. This was absolutely getting away with it.
A lot of noise and bluster in here, but I'd peg the probability that Apple stays firm at 100%.
The issue with your analysis is the long standing approval and acquiescence on Apple's part. The app itself, and each update, only ever went out with Apple's explicit acknowledgment, review and consent.
But there already is a bright line rule here, it has just not been diligently enforced up to now. The basic argument is that the Amphetamine app has been able to slide for so long that the ToS provision it violates should be treated as a dead letter, or as if some statute of limitations had expired; the Amphetamine brand has existed so long (and under such favorable conditions) in the app store that the developer now has an economic interest in the brand, gained through a reliance on Apple's non-enforcement of this ToS provision.
The developer could try suing Apple on the basis of laches, the legal doctrine whereby if one party has 'slept on their rights' so long that the situation changed, they can't suddenly decide to enforce a term later. But there's no hard and fast rule about this, and since it would tie Apple's hands they'd probably fight it tooth and nail, throwing enough legal resources at it to wear out any opposition.
The only bright line rule in the provision is that an app should not facilitate the trade in controlled substances, and it doesn't.
FTA:
Looks like you forgot some other stuff.
No, it looks like you don't understand what "bright line rule" means.
I understand it just fine. You are just trying to gin up a controversy where none exists.
Down vote away, my challenge still stands for you to catch up to the cop or to pull over and ask "Hey I was just going x over the limit, do you want to give me a ticket?" :P
All jokes aside, I feel that this is a poor analogy that really misses the key issues (in my mind).
A developer creates an app and then submits an app for review. The app is approved and the app starts to build an organic following. At some later date, and without any explicit changes to the app or to the terms, Apple decides that the app is in violation of the terms for information that was available upon review. The developer and app are unfortunately the ones to pay the cost, as the organic growth is deterred. Will the new app be able to recapture the same market share? Hard to say. Regardless of Apple's action in this case, I think it would be in the company's best interest to consider the developer's experience when proceeding with issues like this.
Are you confused into thinking I downvoted you? I hardly have the karma to, nor would I, however misplaced your comment is.
I, on the other hand, have taken (thus far) about 15 downvotes. And I regret none of them given that I'm absolutely right, and this is yet another stupid torch mob about nonsense.
The guy is going to end up changing the name (and icon) of his project. Life moves on. Story at 11.
This is not "getting away with it":
>"When you leave your Mac idle, it smartly goes to sleep to conserve power and reduce wear and tear. But this can also stop a big download short or prevent a lengthy compile or render from finishing. Instead of having to periodically wiggle the pointer to keep your Mac awake, launch Amphetamine and rest assured your Mac won’t sleep until you want it to. Amphetamine sits unobtrusively in the menu bar until you Control-click it (or press Command-I) to kick it into gear. That’s it. Your Mac will stay awake until you end the session."
https://apps.apple.com/us/story/id1470456860
The app was _featured_ in the App Store. They didn’t get away with anything.
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.
I just did some research and it appears that amphetamine used to have a coffee cup logo.
Amphetamine rebranded to showcase it as a pill.
You might also want to check if logo updates are reviewed by Apple.
https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/61753
I don't have a dog in the fight since I'm no longer a Mac user and, when I was, I didn't use the app.
But, when I read the name, it didn't register as offensive to me. Amphetamines are a class of drugs and there are both legal and illegal ones...it doesn't immediately equate in my mind to crystal meth. But it does immediately equate to "keeps you awake", which seems appropriate.
It also seems a bit unfair after 6 years and 500k downloads. Had Apple made an issue of it originally, the author might have built all the goodwill and ratings with some other, more acceptable name.
The internet is a pretty big place to have to launch a product. Picking a name that suggests a purpose seems like a big win to me and coming up with a string of words that won't offend someone is a pretty big challenge these days.
Lawyers will be lawyers. I assume this request from Apple’s side originates from on of the legal teams, who are paid to pre-emotive ensure Apple won’t be sued.
I have a story that makes me relate from Microsoft/Skype. A few months after Microsoft acquired Skype, a JIRA ticket was opened by one of the compliance teams at Microsoft with a simple request. Remove the mooning emoji from Skype [1], as it could be considered offensive in some countries and thus Microsoft could be at risk of being sued.
All of Skype erupted. The mooning icon was a symbol of playful cheekiness at Skype and has always been part of the app, and Skype never got sued for over 10 years. There were about 1,200 Skype engineers at the time and that ticket had more than 500 comments from engineers protesting this change. Some made good arguments. Some voiced frustration. Others called that this is a step towards censoring.
It didn’t matter. The icon was removed, the ticket closed.
In a similar vain, I’ll assume that not everyone at Apple will agree with this “violation”. But it won’t matter, as long as the legal teams says it’s a risk to have apps with such names and icons in Apple’s store.
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=mooning+skype
This is a failure of management, as is your skype example.
Balancing the risk of litigation against risk to the product is management's job. In both of these cases the risk is somewhere between minimal and non-existent.
Big companies tend to have bad management. There are entire libraries of books analyzing why this is the case but the short story is "risk aversion." Employees are incentivized to save their own skin and avoid conflict at work over improving the product.
Sometimes public outcry can create a new risk and change the direction of management.
Such nonsense, balancing risk of litigation against the risk to the product isn't management's job. Companies have whole departments for this, called risk management with people specialized on the matter.
This is not done by some random manager.
Departments specializing in risk related to mooning emoji? I think not. Your username is apropos.
Repetitive rule based risk assessments, such as made by lenders, are often assigned to specialized departments. This isn't at all the same as unique product design choices which are nearly always decided by the individual product leaders. Legal might rope in higher levels of leadership but never a "risk management team" for something like an offensive icon in an app.
By this logic 1000s of Apps should be removed. Does Fruit Ninja glorify violence? It sounds like someone is trying to justify their job, can’t go after apps that impact Apple’s bottom line so chase apps like this.
Huge fan of Amphetamine(the app) but its Apple’s walled garden. This nonsense is a consequence.
Unrralistic violence to vegetation is generally considered less abrasive than realistic violence to animals.
And then there is realistic violence to humans but ain't nobody gonna ban popular FPSes :-)
Apple banned Fortnite.
That's true, but it had nothing to do with violence.
Not because of violence btw.
You mean fearless bullet sponges that leak red liquid after health bar exhaustion and fall without screaming in pain, or for their lost friends, or without begging you to spare them with horrified eyes? It's less realistic than in hollywood movies. [Don't] watch real footage to compare. Realistic-enough violence games usually can't even make it to the market, except few nsfl/ryona self-publishing niches. Would you ever like to promote one to AAA-grade, honestly?
Might as well call it Poison Pill. What a waste of energy on Apple's part and a perfect grounds for a lawsuit. Apple approved this app with no problems and all of a sudden there is a problem where nothing has changed. Take them to court and dispute it. I assure you they will not be able to prove that this app violates the contract that was agreed to.
What I see here as complacency on peoples' part here is ridiculous. Companies and people never stop until they are tested. Apple would have never made a small business contract for the app store had it not been for Epic's lawsuit.
There even a comment below where Apple had no issues featuring the app: https://apps.apple.com/us/story/id1470456860
This is winnable in court. Settle for Apple paying for the cost of re-brand and lawyers if they do not want to continue the dispute in court.
It is almost a certainty that the Apple's ToS mandates arbitration instead of a real court and definitely allows them to remove an app at any time for any reason. There is no reason for Apple to not CTA in their ToS since developers have no where else to go.
What exactly is the dev supposed to sue for..?
Apple has full control of their platform and can make any arbitrary calls. If they wanted to censor all pg-13 material tomorrow, they could (though they would face consumer backlash).
One recent exception might be anti-competitive behaviors, but I don't think that applies here.
I think it's just hard learning that when you build your business entirely on a platform or via another business, you are at the mercy of their whims unless you have the resources to extract yourself.
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.
Unfortunately I concur, if this is your main thing. If you can outsource it: let the lawyers duke it out. If this feels personal: follow mmaunder’s advice. There are no winners in that scenario so just take back control.
I like “Up All Night” as a new name. Icon image could be people partying in their pajamas.
While taking amphetamines.
I wonder if that phrase is still protected by the USA network, for those of you old enough to remember when regular ol’ cable would show topless women. Now you can’t name an app Amphetamine. It is interesting to watch the pendulum swing.
Insomnia might already be another app but seems appropriate name.
No, how will this ever fix a corrupt system if you play by their rules?
This is why it keeps getting worse and worse. People just comply!
They’re a $2 trillion dollar company, unless you have an incredibly strong case (this isn’t one) then you will lose a war of attrition every time... even sometimes if you do have a strong case. Choose your battles wisely, live to fight another day, etc...
Pound for pound you’d likely be better off putting your energy into policy. The scale is still tilted there, but there is some traction behind fairer app marketplaces.
You do this by leaving the platform. There are plenty of alternatives for Apple's products so those who get tired of the ever-increasing censorship inside the walled garden are better off outside of its walls. Eventually the Apple world will become something akin to Disneyland, nothing but "wholesome" infotainment without anything that could give offence.
Do you really believe the app developers should close their doors and stop making the app rather than change their name, all as part of an ideological fight? I just want to make sure that is really your good faith argument.
Yes, I really do believe there is no fighting a $2 billion (and counting) behemoth, other than by shunning it. If enough developers and users - in any order - leave their platform they will reconsider their stance. That is, after all, what it means to have (at least the semblance of) a free market where people make choices based on things like this. The same goes for the other digital empires, whether those be Facebook, Twitter, Google or any of the others. Absent regulation - and is regulation really where we want to go? - I do not see any other way than to "choose with (my) wallet".
This is also why I do not use any of these platforms, instead having spent the time to rig up my own alternatives: Google-free AOSP-derived Android on mobiles and tablets, Linux on laptops and servers, Searx for search, Nextcloud for "cloudy things", NC Talk and Jitsi Meet for videoconferencing, Exim and Dovecot for mail, Peertube for video, Airsonic and MPD for media streaming, etc. I've been doing this since the late 90's of the last century (minus the mobile stuff since that simply did not exist back then...) so I can state with certainty that this is not just hollow rhetoric, it is a viable alternative to submitting to the whims of companies like Apple (et al).
I appreciate that this is your genuine belief. For the record, I upvoted your response.
Not every fight is a 2-trillion dollar fight. If you say decide to commit some fraudulent chargeback against an Apple purchase they are unlikely to pursue it, for example, even though they are a 2-trillion dollar company that could crush you. Spending $5000 of lawyer time to recover $50 may not be worth their time and they know it.
You change it by going for the weakest point in a peaceful way under the radar.
I believe it's Bitcoin, which is a silent, non-violent libertarian protest against the whole central banking system that produces huge powers, but I know that I am in the minority.
Well, I can’t help questioning the “non-violent” part: it takes incredible amounts of energy to maintain that is quite literally taken away from other - possibly more helpful at social scale - purposes.
not to mention the environmental impact
Yet another reason to implement a Carbon Tax & Dividend [0] ASAP. There's certainly an argument that the intentional waste of Proof of Work is more efficient than the overhead of existing banks; but I suspect the whole crypto world would migrate to Proof of Stake if forced to pay for their externalities. As is it, they simply borrow against the planetary credit card (probably at a rate of ~100x interest), sticking future generations with the bill for their "innovation".
[0] https://clcouncil.org/economists-statement/
Actually not at all: the elegant design of the difficulty adjustment means that even if the price of electricity went up or down by 10x, the rate of new Bitcoin issuance would change only temporarily.
I haven't met any Bitcoiner who wouldn't want CO2 emissions to be heavily taxed.
The problem with proof of stake that it decreases the security of the system. There are many ways to trade security of Bitcoin for convenience and extra features (Ethereum is a great example), but so far it seems that the market chooses security.
I think we use a different definition of violence.
Yeah, you use the one that fits your narrative, and it works wonders until you try to pass it off to people who haven't latched onto that narrative, and then you come to a crossroads, do you summarily discount their perspective and go on your merry way unfazed and unchanged, or do you reconcile this new perspective and potentially confront issues with your narrative.
I don't know you but based on that facile response, I'm guessing you're more down for the former - considering the deleterious externalities of bitcoin mining at scale are pretty well known.
Uhhh I'm not particularly a fan of Bitcoin, but implying that this is anything like violence is absurd. I gotta go against the trend of anything you don't like that could conceivably lead to somebody being harmed somehow is the same thing as actual violence.
It's not really that absurd, it's just not the most conventional definition. But I've heard it used that way before, especially in the context of philosophy
It's absurd in the sense that, if you accept that definition, then anything at all - taking any action or even taking no action at all - could be called violent, which makes the word meaningless. It points to an Orwellian level of thought control. If anything at all can be called violent by any level of tortured logic, then it's very good to be the person who decrees what actions will be considered to be violent and what will not.
Well, no. This reaction is what people refer to when they say "loss of privilege" causes reactionary behavior.
If you think of it, even when you're not at the top of the food chain in your social order, being part of a dominant group makes your actions still causal to some sort of undesired or painful (and therefore violent) consequence to a member of the out-group. Nobody gets to decide what's good or bad, you just need to follow the chain of opportunity cost, determine who foots the bill and who reaps the interest.
It's indeed pretty hard to swallow...
I don't know, I think it's less absurd than your usage of the words "orwellian thought control" in the context of a different opinion on the definition of a word.
If I'm standing right next to the fuse box, and I see someone in the process of being electrocuted, isn't it violent to not flip the switch to save the person?
I'm pro-crypto, but so long as Apple maintains absolute hegemony over their ecosystem (backed in part by an artificial state monopoly on ideas!), even the rosiest scenario for Bitcoin doesn't change the power dynamic. Apple could literally add support for buying apps with BTC tomorrow, yet still disallow sideloading or competing stores, while kicking out apps they don't like on a whim.
This situation would not be solved by a change of payment mechanism, currency choice, monetary policy, or anything like that. It's not what makes Apple a large powerful corporation. The entire world could switch to bitcoin, but if millions of people still buy iPhones, Apple will still have power over what is done on those phones.
you don't fix anything if you don't pick your battles. it has to be worth it, otherwise you will expend all your energy on doomed causes that ultimately don't even matter all that much
Agreed. I've found that there's a meta-skill in life: accepting that one can't right every injustice, and to not let that fact prevent you from being happy.
Sure, but that also doesn't mean you should stop voicing your concerns publicly at injustice. Being angry at some injustice doesn't automatically make you unhappy too, if the anger is used constructively and positively. You can voice your concern and be practical too.
The article is actually quite well written and even highlights, with examples, how Apple applies such naming rules arbitrarily.
I've said this before - all developers who distribute their apps through the macOS / ios app store should feel like a JACKASS for not only giving Apple control over distribution, but also paying them for the same. YOU DEVELOPERS ARE THE ONE WHO CREATE MORE VALUE FOR THESE APPLE PLATFORMS - why in the hell do you think it is some kind of "privilege" to PAY them for it??
With its exclusive app store, Apple acts like a CORRUPT bureaucrat who unnecessarily imposes himself in the middle of you and your clients, demanding a bribe from both to connect you and them. Thus, increasing costs for your clients, and reducing your profits!
Especially on the macOS, which Apple is desperately trying to turn into a closed platform like ios, developers are being incredibly SHORT-SIGHTED by distributing apps on its app store and adding more value to something that will end up hurting them when everyone's choice is ultimately limited to it.
> Being angry at some injustice doesn't automatically make you unhappy too
I guess I was assuming that anger and happiness are somewhat mutually exclusive.
Learning not to be offended is a great skill to learn.
It applies to both sides here: Apple could continue to choose not to be offended after 6 years. The developer could choose not to be offended at Apple’s decision and rebrand.
Having said that, this is censorship any way you look at it. Whether it’s “valid” censorship depends on your point of view.
It is indeed tricky with anger as it is easy to be consumed and overwhelmed by it.
A great way to justify not doing anything.
> A great way to justify not doing anything.
People are good at rationalizing. I'm sure my earlier comment, and many others, would be sufficient justification for someone inclined to do nothing.
Yeah, I’m sure this rule is applied inconsistently but that doesn’t mean you don’t have to pay your speeding ticket just because everyone speeds.
This app associates itself with the recreational use of amphetamines in much the same vein as candy cigarettes. Is the rule kinda stupid? Yep. Is it ultimately a cultural thing? Yep. But it’s Apple’s sandbox and you’re playing in it.
There’s always going to be issues of where to draw the line. “Columbine. A bulk process killer.” is obviously over it but amphetamines could go either way. Just rebrand to something else and get back to actually making useful stuff.
Yeah, the real lesson here is stop giving Apple et al control. You play on their ground, they own you. It's getting really hard to do these days, sadly.
Rename it to "AppToKeepMacAwake" heh
MacQuake.
But the controversy is giving them media attention.
That advice is better for the individual, but these constant complaints that reach social platforms do eventually add up and cause change. The author doesn't have as much to lose here as if he were running a business. Choosing to die on this hill is respectable.
> They kind of have a point
How is just using the word or a charicature of it encouraging drug use? This puritanism is a mind disease.
Puritanism? These are Macs, this is a classy place, we take our drugs to the bathroom thank you very much. Amphetamine.app is so gauche!
Agreed.
Learning not to be offended by things is a skill that is worth learning.
It is also the road the tolerance.
Literalism - if we follow Apple's logic then they're not giving us an apple when buying their products.
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.
[Sorry, I'm a bit hyped up at the moment]
This is all ridiculous and I don't like where we're headed as a society.
I don’t buy your claim that there’s a double standard here. “Beer bong” would be another bad name for this app that I wouldn’t blame Apple for restricting. This isn’t about the arguably mixed up public policies that treat certain drugs as more dangerous than other drugs.
Anything that could have offensive connotations could also be trivialized as "just a [noun]". That doesn't make it any more or less likely to be taken badly by the intended customer base
I’m very glad you brought up weed actually. See I have no problem with weed and like to smoke a joint every now and then. However what I don’t want is to have to buy weed called dumb things like “bro down”, “the obliterator”, and “brain destroyer”. I’d much rather you just named something not so click baity.
Sure it’s just a chemical. Everything is just chemicals but I don’t need “meth” for my computer. Same reason our kids don’t need toys advertised as “crack for your baby”.
Agin not offended its just not a good name. Even if let’s say you build an app that’s hooks into some other program and you sell said app for two dollars, you may think it’s hilarious to call it “two dollar hooker”, hell I myself might even chuckle. But only once, then I’ll just get annoyed every time I see “two dollar hooker” in startup, “two dollar hooker has crashed” etc.
I also would not buy your product if it were called alcohol poisoning. I love alcohol. I’m drinking a beer right now (happy New Years everyone). But naming a computer program after it sounds like an odd thing to do. And more to your point would also be a violation of the same rule Apple is using in this case.
The application keeps one's Mac from going to sleep. Its name is basically a direct analogy, and doesn't imply any wrongdoing or illegality, as far as I can see.
> I also would not buy your product if it were called alcohol poisoning. I love alcohol. I’m drinking a beer right now (happy New Years everyone). But naming a computer program after it sounds like an odd thing to do. And more to your point would also be a violation of the same rule Apple is using in this case.
What about an application that assists in force-quitting other programs? One might call that "Scotch", since that's what it does ("It 'scotches' other processes, you see..."), and the application might have a cutesy whiskey glass as its icon. Would that run afoul of your sensibilities?
I don't think it implies wrongdoing, just sounds like a silly joke.
Scotch vs scotch whiskey is more of a word play joke as well than a direct analogy. But I see your point and your totally right that one sounds less bad to me. I'm only stating that as a matter of taste I do not like this particular apps name.
And since it's apple's store they have the right to not like it either. I just don't think this is a profound "free speech argument" like some do in these comments.
Personally I think it's really odd that someone would need an app to keep their computer from sleeping. This says far more about macs than the arbitrary naming policy.
Haha. It's just a convenience, not a need. There's nothing stopping you from going to screensaver settings and energy settings, manually setting it to "never", then going back after you've completed the download, screenshare, or whatever, and changing your settings back. Alternatively, you could use Apple's built-in CLI tool, `caffeinate`, as others have mentioned.
Alcohol 120% has entered the chat. /s
I can see why Apple chooses the family friendly route and rebranding probably is the best option in this case as fighting it would most likely be futile.
I don't think they went overboard with the name in general tho. It makes sense for the app as much as the other coffee/coca branded ones do.
They explicitly chose "amphetamine" over "meth" which is a medical term and has valid uses.
Amphetamine sounds clinical to me, I used to take prescribed, 24 million people in the US, including me in the past, are prescribed amphetamines.
I generally dont like obnoxious marketing either, but unless it is inappropriate for the setting i dont think it should be banned, and this is far more tame than other apps on the app store
> For God's sake, is this where we're headed? Just ban anything that sounds offensive?
Headed?
It doesn’t sound offensive, just stupid and provoking. Along the lines of Condom Antimalware Suit or Holocosta Firewall. Condoms are great for protecting you and holocaust just means “burn all” - had nothing to do with burning people. It only burns network packets, look at the context, it’s fire wall! No need to come the raw prawn here, simply rename it.
> Amphetamine is a chemical. What is wrong with that?
This disingenuous take on the term does not help your case nor reflects positively on your reputation as a honest person. Amphetamines have a long reputation as recreational and illicit drugs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphetamine
Amphetamines, much like cocaine and heroin, are not a mere chemical, nor do they convey a mental image of chemists doing science in a lab to the public. And please don't try to pass everyone as a bunch of stupid idiots by claiming that an app designed to keep a device awake is named after a mere chemical, with a long track record of being used as an euphoriant, without any popular connotation with drug abuse.
There are lots of software that I won’t touch simply because if I ever had to explain the name, I would immediately be put on the defensive, regardless of how useful they may be. It’s a conversation that would waste my time.
Similarly, I would avoid naming something potentially weird or offensively for much the same reason, no matter how appropriate or funny it might seem at the time.
While rebranding might be a pain, I suggest just doing it. This not a free speech hill worth dying on, in my opinion.
I'd set up a mastadoon server but I don't want to tell my friends to check out my toots.
Hehe your fucking five, but then it just gets annoying.
To most of the world, that word does not mean farts. That is only the case where you happen to live.
To most people, it refers in this context to the noise an elephant makes.
> 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.
In my mind maybe this is something like an HOA. Sure, your friends might love your house parties, but your neighbors have to deal with the consequences
Aren't HOAs widely hated?
As are dentist visits and prostate exams - but even those things ultimately add value. HOA’s arguably do so as well even if they’re often hated.
But do most people consider them as such, i.e. painful but necessary/beneficial? My understanding was that they are widely regarded as parasitic organizations full of busybodies who are there to advance their personal agenda and to feel a sense of power over people at the expense of all the reasonable people who just want to live their lives; they are considered the polar opposite of live and let live.
I personally have never dealt with an HOA, so my understanding of their popularity is shaped solely by what I have read online. I must say your comment is the only one I have ever seen that has put them in a positive light.
HOA does have what feel like arbitrary busybody restrictions, but they are also the authority that makes people remove the broken washing machine from their front yard and they are the only recourse in my region (when I lived briefly in a suburban house) for someone who refuses to do anything about their dog that barks 24/7 or flings trash into your neighboring yard. HOA fixed it for me on both occasions. The police certainly don’t care.
So people aren’t going to like the HOA. But they also offer essential recourse and order.
Most people I know who have been pro-HOA are the ones who have a say in it and are on the board, or have strong opinions on how their neighbors should outfit their own house.
The ones that hates the HOA are the ones that have paid a ton of money (I’m in the Bay Area) and can’t do as they please. Who wants to pay close to a million and have others chime in and start giving you directions on what to do to your own property.
I rent, but the principe of the HOA is a big enough leech in my mind that I’d hold out for a single home, whenever that is (if at all).
I grew up in a large neighborhood with an HOA. There were a few times where my family butted heads with the HOA (replacing fences with a non-standard style, a play swing/slide thing being a bit tall) but for the most part the HOA was nice. They managed a park and pool for the neighborhood's exclusive use. They decorated the entrance signs to the neighborhood for the holidays. They put on some holiday events like an easter egg hunt/picnic, a fourth of july bike parade, Christmas light judging/awards. People didn't have tons of clutter in their front yards, the streets weren't super crowded with cars.
No. Certain internet communities have a culture of dunking on them, but they do not represent any kind of real majority. The housing market continues to show a preference towards communities with HOAs.
> The housing market continues to show a preference towards communities with HOAs.
Is it the housing market as homeowners who favours HOAs, or is it the builders who favour them? Are HOAs opted in by homeowners in existing communities because of their benefits, or do builders create them force them upon new communities because it benefits them somehow?
I am asking because while I do not have any knowledge of HOAs, I have been following the saga of rental water heaters/furnaces/ACs in Ontario for a while. Long story short, construction companies sign a long-term contract with an appliance company instead of buying and installing necessary appliances like furnaces for new houses. They get a nice kickback for this. If you want to buy a new house, odds are you will be bound by a long-term contact. If you want to terminate it early, you end up paying 30k for an appliance that is worth 10k new and installed. If you keep your contact, you will pay the same over many years.
It is a deal that is very much to the benefits of the builder and very much against the interest of the homeowners. But they have been exploding in popularity. There are relatively more and more homes with rented water heaters and fewer and fewer homes with owned water heaters every year. It would still be wrong to conclude that "water heater rental is beneficial. See, the market has spoken."
This feels like a case where the market will dictate what works and what doesn't.
It sounds shitty/shady to you (or at least that's how you're framing it here - apologies if I misunderstood) but if people are still buying those homes, then they must think it's an acceptable contract to enter into.
The fact that people grudgingly sign a contract does not mean all the terms of the contract are fair. People sign away their right to sue or join a class action lawsuit as a prerequisite to buying goods or services from companies all the time, but I still believe it is unfair. People grudgingly sign work contracts with strong non-compete, non-disclosure, and IP assignment clauses, but I think those clauses are unfair.
It sounds like exactly the opposite, where the market created or allowed a situation where the majority of people get something they don't want at all.
It's ridiculous to even try to say that a home owner will not weigh 50 different factors, and have to tolerate 10 things they do NOT want because they come packaged with 40 other things they either want or absolutely need.
Why does anyone even try to pretend like they don't recognize this unless they are themselves one of the few people actually benefitting from one of these consumer-hostile deals?
> It's ridiculous to even try to say that a home owner will not weigh 50 different factors, and have to tolerate 10 things they do NOT want because they come packaged with 40 other things they either want or absolutely need.
You make it sound like there's a lack of options for homeowners when you say this. Where I live (Toronto) that is not the case.
Of course there is no perfect deal, there will always be things that aren't ideal but I don't know anyone (and I'm old enough to know lots of home owners) who has ever bought a house that had some kind of feature or clause they absolutely hated or didn't want.
If it's that bad, you don't buy that house, and you find one that better suits your needs.
Otherwise, you're understanding and accepting the terms, and you're willing to live with them.
I hate the argument that "people" are too stupid/naive/stuck to understand or avoid the terms of an agreement they're entering into.. except for the narrator who sees themselves as the smart person who is yelling about it from the mountaintop.
I’m assuming that the long term contract also carries with it a warranty? So if your furnace fails while in the contract it is repaired/replaced free or at a pro rated price?
If so, I could see people liking it as it serves the same function as an HOA: a hedge against bad things happening.
Water heater died? Plumber comes out, no charge. Neighbor starting a junkyard on his front lawn? HOA sends a letter, no confrontation.
Some people will decline an HOA for the same reasons they decline extended warranties: they’d rather deal with situations themselves, as they arise. Others don’t want to be bothered and let someone else handle it. I think there is space for both.
> I’m assuming that the long term contract also carries with it a warranty?
I believe so. But the price is so unreasonably high that you could replace the furnace literally 3 to 5 times and you would still be ahead compared to renting the furnace. How many people would purchase an extended warranty that is priced at multiples of the price of the object they are buying? More than none, but a very small number. New rentals are signed overwhelmingly by builders and not homeowners.
That's the way warranties work. Warranty providers are not offering them at a loss.
If you buy a home warranty, or an extended warranty for your car, you are (on average) going to be out of pocket more than you would be without it. You are buying it for the peace of mind that comes from not having to deal with an unlikely but major repair expense.
> That's the way warranties work
Not at this price. Usually the warranty is a percentage of the price of the goods. So for example, I expect a $1000 gadget to have extended warranty priced at $100 or so. I have never seen the warranty of a $1000 gadget to be priced at $3000 to $5000 dollars. And that is for stuff that break down more frequently, e.g. phones and laptops and cars. The odds of a furnace breaking down are even lower.
I think the “party line” response to this would be that the warranties you get include preventative maintenance as well, making it a different proposition - you’re not just buying a warranty, but a full service plan after all. But I’ve never been convinced by that argument.
I just went through buying a furnace and had a few prospective installers. The first tried to sell the extended coverage: twice annual “checks and maintenance” and a 30% discount on all parts.
The second said he’d let me source the parts myself if I so desired and if I would be responsible for changing the air filter on schedule and hosing down the outside fan every summer I’d be better off putting the annual fee into a sinking fund. Or, I could pay him $200 a year to hold a hose, money he’d happily take. He got the job. ;-)
The question is, are people buying these products for that peace of mind, or are they buying it because they are not a savvy consumer?
Or worse, because they are over leveraged and unable to fund a replacement without an installment plan – so they have no better option?
I’m not sure. I can see a consumer protection argument to be made.
HOA for thee, not for me. That's my take.
If I want to practice drums in my garage the neighbors can go pound sand.
But when a neighbor decides to park their truck in their yard I'm all for HOAs.
These are probably just examples but I'm firmly in the no-HOA crowd. If my home owning neighbor with a yard wants to park a truck in their yard I really don't care, and I abhor any organization that punishes someone for that. They could have a perfectly good reason to park it there. I've had former neighbors yell at me for fixing my car in my own driveway which makes no sense whatsoever except perhaps to privileged elitists with no DIY skills.
I think I'm with you as well.
> The housing market continues to show a preference towards communities with HOAs.
I wouldn't read too much from that. The market preferring something doesn't mean most people dealing with it like it, it means that it makes money for the people with most say in the matter.
In this case, I think the sufficient explanation for the phenomenon is that HOAs are good at protecting property values. In my experience, most of the silly / annoying rules can be explained by either protecting property value, or by most people being too busy to attend meetings, allowing a small group of bored people to take control.
> In this case, I think the sufficient explanation for the phenomenon is that HOAs are good at protecting property values.
Uh yeah, that's their defined purpose that everybody knows about and agrees upon. I've lived in several properties under HOAs, haven't had any trouble, and don't know anyone personally who's had any trouble either.
IMO, HOA problems are of those things that's extremely rare in practice, but makes for outrage-inducing stories on the internet that get upvoted heavily and widely viewed. Since this is well known and plenty of people will do anything for internet upvotes, I'd bet a significant number of the stories are either made up entirely or are highly exaggerated and misleading.
If HOAs were really that bad, you'd see a market for homes advertising the lack of them. We don't though. The better analogy is internet free speech. In theory, everybody likes free speech. But if you create a new forum specifically for the purpose of not censoring anything, it tends to get filled with the worst assholes of the internet. Similarly, you can guess who'd be itching to move in if you advertised your housing development as not having a HOA.
The HOA stereotype definitely is, but all HOAs are not the same. My HOA is generally hands off but you do need to ask permission for structural or cosmetic changes -- the neighborhood doesn't want to look like an amusement park. But, no one is going around measuring the height of your grass or other overly strict things I've read about.
However, I did just get a nasty gram to take down my political "Giant Meteor for 2020 - just end it already" yard sign.
> the neighborhood doesn't want to look like an amusement park.
I do think this is where a lot of the HOA problems come from - if someone wants to put something up on their front yard or lawn, then neighbors can intervene and say you can’t do that there.
Since you bought the property and it’s yours, why do others get to have a say in it? I know I don’t give two hoots about what the neighbor does to their own home.
Buying the property came with the HOA strings.
If you didn't want those strings, then go buy a property somewhere that doesn't have an HOA.
Same with this case, I sympathize with the author and I personally think this is a stupid thing for Apple to do, but the author (hopefully) understood the bargain they were entering into when they chose to enter the walled garden.
> If you didn't want those strings, then go buy a property somewhere that doesn't have an HOA.
The HOA is becoming more and more like your American ISP. When more and more properties demand an HOA, there’s only so many choices for you.
Though I don’t like the answer of “go do it somewhere else” because the real problem is not analyzed and/or solved, I do agree on the Apple front.
> Since you bought the property and it’s yours, why do others get to have a say in it?
Because you signed on a line that said you agree to being governed by the HOA when you bought the house. It’s that simple. The sad reality though is that if you don’t like it, you have to find somewhere else (which doesn’t work well if your whole city is under the HOA)
> I know I don’t give two hoots about what the neighbor does to their own home.
You don't give a damn till you need to sell off your property. Once it is in the market, you don't want your neighbours attitude turning of potential buyers, or worse, bringing down the value of your property. (I hate HOA's too, but a decently run one does help increase property value).
The congressional approval rating has been between 10 and 30% for the last 8 years, and over this same time the re-election rates of incumbent congressional reps is 89% or higher. People are largely happy with their own congress members, and vote to reelect them and their own HOA, and they will choose to purchase homes with an HOA, and not disband them.
No, everyone thinks they could do a better job but no one actually wants those jobs.
How could this analogy work? There's no consequences to having a app with the word 'fuck' in it. Meanwhile throwing big parties obviously does to neighbors. I don't feel a lot of meatspace analogies work to things that are purely digital and can be filtered or ignored, while a houseparty with 100+ people and its noise and drunk drivers obviously cant be.
> There’s no consequences to having a app with the word ‘fuck’ in it
I suspect that Apple has done studies and has a projected “likely lost sales” figure attributable to having an app store overrun with “mature content” apps.
(Edited: tried to clean up a clunky sentence :))
Except in this case there are no “neighbors” to speak of. Every app is kind of like an island in an archipelago and don’t have a means of communicating to each other.
It’s more like the government of the archipelago decided that they don’t like the name of the island as people interested in such an island are promoting narcotics.
I agree. Which is why I use a non walled garden operating system. Maybe the same should apply to these complaints. I don’t get mad at wal-mart because of what they choose to stock on the shelf and not stock.
500k may seem like a lot, but it’s not in the context of the Mac App Store. Apple has sold over 100M Macs in the time this app has been around. Also, Apple’s policies are distinctly not driven by “if enough people are fine with it”.
Apple’s policies are bullshit, don’t get me wrong, but let’s not act like download numbers give the developer any leverage.
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.
But do you believe Apple should be the ultimate arbitrator of such silly things like the name of an app you create?
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.
> They are saying they will not sell it in their app store under that name.
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.)
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.
>They are also doing everything they can to block people from distributing apps outside of their walled garden.
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 already forgot about the Epic games debacle where Apple did exactly that?
I must have forgotten it because I can open the Epic store and play Fortnite on my Mac right now without any warnings. I actually just downloaded the installer right from epicgames.com and it installed just fine. Apple doesn't even try to stop me.
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.
Yes, there were lawsuits and the courts forced Apple to stop their ridiculous behavior. That is why you can do this right now. Not because of Apple's goodwill, quite the contrary.
The lawsuits were for iOS not MacOS.
Apple's developer program is the same for both.
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?
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.
>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...
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
That just says signed apps and kernel extensions must be notarized. Unsigned apps still work.
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.
I'm going to say yes.
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.
The difference is that Debian or others still give both the users and the developers a CHOICE to distribute / acquire the app through other means. Apple cripples (and even outright denies this) on some of its platforms.
(edited due to inaccuracy)
There is a command line tool called caffeinate that ships with Mac OS. Maybe Apple didn’t like somebody using something so similar their system utility name.
Originally I thought it was the same name, so this seems much less likely now that they're merely similar.
No, that's called caffeinate.
Ooops, edited my original comment. Blame tab completion for never making me type the end of the name! Thanks for the correction.
You can still get caffeine directly from the developer's website: https://intelliscapesolutions.com/apps/caffeine
Why aren’t you okay with Amphetamine?
I use it on my work computer and it's not a word I'm comfortable showing to clients. You never know who may have had (or still does have) an addiction, and I also don't want them seeing it and thinking I have an addiction since that could be bad for business.
That's surprisingly reasonable. Thanks for the thoughtful answer.
I prefer to reject the process of turning a technical neutral term into some kind of bad word.
If a thing isn't bad, then it isn't, and if someone is ignorant and makes associations and assumptions that are wrong or unsupported, then I'd rather add my tiny influence against that rather than help it.
Or do you yourself do the same thing to your clients? What features of your clients do you use to prejudge them and make unfounded assumptions about them? Should your clients worry what clothes they wear in case you think it means they are gay, which maybe you associate with having Aids... Personally I woukd think things like that are none of my business but apparently you don't think like that.
Please don't smooth the way for the wrong things. I can't demand, obviously, that's why it's a request with the word please.
It seems to be a small thing but big things are made out of small things, and you and I can only do small things. All we have is the choice of which kinds of small things we do.
The caffeinate command is built into macos.
Edit: This keeps the computer awake until 6 PM each day.
That command makes me really glad Amphetamine exists.
Handy, but not exactly easy on the eyes. I usually just us the -t flag to pass it seconds, like 'caffeinate -t 3600' to prevent sleep for the next hour.
Better app that's open source: https://keepingyouawake.app/
Amphetamine does a lot more, so it's not a 1:1 replacement, but I prefer KeepingYouAwake, too.
[Caffeine's original developer here]
I removed Caffeine from the App Store when Apple started complaining that a click on a menu bar icon for an app without a dock icon must always show a menu (offering a Quit option). I wanted it to toggle the active state instead and show the menu on right-click/cmd-click.
Did you just not feel like arguing with the app store review team or was it a clear decision between changing it or leaving the app store? The author of amphetamine told that there was a similar problem but apparently he could settle this.
> Amphetamine updates have been rejected by Apple on numerous occasions. One time, Apple’s App Review Team did not like my “Preview” screen shots. Another time, Apple objected to the default behavior when clicking Amphetamine’s menu bar icon, saying it must open the menu by default and not start a session.
Amphetamine changed the default.
In my opinion they made the right choice here -- that is a much different behaviour than any other kind of menu bar icon has and it would be inconsistent with every other app and the OS itself.
It's a neat idea but that is just not the use case the menu bar was designed around and I don't think it makes sense for individual apps to go against the current in that way
> I removed Caffeine from the App Store when Apple started complaining
Good for you! That is exactly what everyone needs do when Apple starts being pointlessly petty. Yes, operating systems have UI guidelines. But they are guidelines - sometimes a developer may come up with something better, especially for power users, and no such developer should have to waste time trying to communicate and convince some committee of this, and worse, wait for an approval from them to launch the product.
This behavior design choice is exactly why I use caffeine :)
> 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.
Yes. And the solution is:
1. Creating a viable alternative.
2. Promoting it.
Which is the opposite of what TFA is trying to do: They just want Apple to make an exception for them. Not to solve the root problem.
> Which is the opposite of what TFA is trying to do: They just want Apple to make an exception for them. Not to solve the root problem
They name several apps which would seem to violate the same guideline, at worst they're asking for the same exception Apple has already given to others. An argument can be made that they're snitching on the others, but it's also an argument for consistency that one could say is the root problem.
It is less that the rules are vague than that the rules are whatever Apple says they are today, for you.
Apple was promoting Amphetamine not that long ago:
https://apps.apple.com/us/story/id1470456860
Yeah. Clearly one team at Apple feels (or felt) that the name was no impediment to them marketing it. Like all corporations, Apple is just a congregation of human beings, rather than a synchronized hive mind. But it's problematic if app authors can't trust in consistency as a result.
FWIW, it's a net downside for me that my professional workstation has an app named "Amphetamine", so I'm quietly in favor of a rename. But it's obviously the author's prerogative to choose its branding, so long as it falls within (consistently) applied policies of those who they rely on to distribute it.
How is it a net downside? The entire purpose of the App Store being locked down is that it's reliable. There is no way any HR department will launch an investigation because you downloaded an app called Amphetamine. Worst case scenario they go look it up and realize there's nothing more to the situation.
I'd have to see a documented event of this happening rather than a hypothetical scenario to believe a downside actually exists.
Just because your HR would be ok with it doesn’t mean all would be
Just because you imagine it's a problem doesn't mean it is.
Like they said, doc or it didn't happen.
Who is dumb enough to think people get drugs by installing an app called Amphetamine, monitors user software installs anally AND also lets users install their own software locally in the first place?
Most corporate PCs are windows. On a fraction of the macs users are allowed to install their own software, on a tiny fraction of those amphetamine is installed, on a tiny fraction of a fraction of those maybe someone exists who has a problem with HR.
I'm not sure the last subset actually exists in the real world nor that we ought to support censorship to help imaginary people deal with imaginary morons.
This, I think is perhaps the biggest item in the developer's favour. That Apple themselves found the name palatable enough to promote the app on the front page of their App Store with the existing name.
The App Store is already a walled garden, so complaining that it's not the open web is hardly a relevant objection. The maker of “Amphetamine” was gappy enough to get that half-million downloads on the App Store, so now that the other side of the coin rolls around he gets to accept that too.
What if it was "caffeine"?
A stimulant drug, just happens to be legal.
Or Coca? A plant that release a stimulant when chewed.
Now if the app was called "Sweet Meth", you'd have a better parallel with "fuck sleep", but it's not.
There's an app called Caffeine that does the same thing. It's what I use.
Next on the chopping block.
Doubt it, seeing as how caffeine isn't a controlled substance.
Apple’s own command line tool which does the same is called caffeinate.
Funny you mentioning „caffeine“ [1]as this is also an app for macOS which solves the same purpose as the one posted. But this one is not in the App Store. I just had a look and next to amphetamine we have taurine, theine and caffeinated and a few more that use some form of coffee / a substance that keeps one awake. The „Prevent Sleep“ app is the only one which clearly states what it is for :) [1] https://intelliscapesolutions.com/apps/caffeine
I know a very intelligent software engineer who told me he had never used Exercism (despite him using other similar tools) simply because he’s a practicing Catholic and thought the name to be in poor taste. You definitely alienate people at the fringes by naming things something even slightly risqué.
And do you really want Apple to be the arbitrator of such silly things?
For their own app store, of course.
Even when their AppStore is mandaded to all your hardware by DRM with you not having any choice of opting out? You want all your possible business speech, products and content you consume dictated by a corporate decree with no accountability?
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 abuse.
(By the way, "my shop, my terms" have already faced legal scrutiny, some of which were found to be illegal - popular judgements include that shops cannot refuse to serve people of colour or gays.)
Those “popular judgements” were because the laws on discrimination say so. There’s no law saying a store has to sell what they don’t want to. If Target (for example) decides to stop selling Pampers because they don’t like the name (for whatever reason), that’s their choice.
You could argue that this is also why we now have system services instead of daemons.
There are a surprising number of Christians in CS, but they're generally of the more contemplative kind. I definitely remember people being uncomfortable with that but big enough to not make much of a fuss about it.
I'm guessing it's been slowly changed by people big enough to realize the name doesn't matter.
/Library/LaunchDaemons disagrees ;)
Twenty-something years ago, I've seen some Christians legit freaking out on Netscape's Book of Mozilla[1] easter egg.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Mozilla
Americans being American. "We love freedom of speech but fuck you if your product name mentions a chemical compound or a word I or someone else might find offending".
I don't see how any of these contradict freedom of speech. We are talking about 1) people being offended by a name; 2) a company banning an app on their own app store.
Whether you find the situation distasteful, it has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Neither the offended people nor Apple is infringing on the developer's freedom speech.
Freedom of speech isn't the same as freedom of distribution. There are lots of edgy things that you can say somewhere. You just can't say them everywhere.
We can have lots of lively debate about how to draw the boundaries. But we'll get a lot farther if we can move beyond the two-state absolutism of "allowable everywhere" vs. "outright banned with breath-taking severity."
This is still not it. He's not facing a government warrent.
Freedom of speech means the government won't/can't prosecute you for what you say. It doesn't have anything to do with how companies or private citizens respond to your words.
You're (usually) legally allowed to say you'll fuck my mom but I don't have to bring you over for family dinner.
One could contend that apple's refusal to host this app on it's store is in itself free speech.
Either way, the government jasent gotten involved so nothing here treads on free speech issues.
> Freedom of speech means the government won't/can't prosecute you for what you say
The First Amendment says this. Freedom of speech is “a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction” [1]. It is broader than the First Amendment, and gave rise to it, though the First Amendment is its most successful codification in the modern world.
A society that shuns those who say “bad” things, even without state action, may not hold true to the values of freedom of speech.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
No, you have the right to hold and express any view you want.
You don't get to choose peoples reaction or the way they view you after you say something. That would be infringing on their right to hold or express opinions about your views.
What's complicated about that?
The complicated part is that freedom of speech is both a legal right in the US and an ethical principle globally, and your legal rights are less broad than the ethical principle. Something that is legal can still be in violation of the ethical principle.
You say "[we] don't get to choose [people's reactions]", but this is not at all relevant. We're not asking whether their actions are legal or whether we can legally dictate what they think, we're asking whether they're acting ethically.
That is the First Amendment, not freedom of speech.
One is law, the other is a principle.
> Saying you violated their terms with impunity for 6 years doesn’t mean they lose the right to correct the mistake.
Well it gives you an argument I think. Along the lines of a trademark infringement -- if you have let people use your trademark name for years without protest, that can work against you if you suddenly start demanding that it be enforced.
Not sure it would hold much weight here, since it's a case of Apple deciding what they want to allow in their own store.
Amphetamine is a drug to keep one awake. So the name is appropriate.
This just detracts us from the actual discussion - do you think Apple should be the ultimate arbitrator to decide what you name your app?
This whole thing is why I'm so glad someone finally sued Apple over their control of the app store, it's just more fuel for the fire.
I disagree. First, I recommend sending this to the following people: - Any congressional representatives that target Apple for antitrust - Facebook's PR team. - Various tech new outlets
If anyone is willing to make a big case out of this then you can use that media attention to grow your application's user base. This has potential for easy free advertisement through media controversy.
After you have gotten enough free advertisement, go forward with this recommendation of changing your branding.
Epic's PR team too.
They don't have a point based on the wording of their own rule, because amphetamines are not a class of controlled substances.
They don't have a point based on basic common sense either, because this application isn't telling people to use amphetamines. It's a metaphor.
> amphetamines are not a class of controlled substances
My pharmacist would disagree with that statement.
Amphetamine is very much a controlled substance in the US. You can receive it legally with a prescription of course but that does not mean it isn't controlled.
Of course it's just a name. There shouldn't be an argument that it's encouraging use
To add a little detail to what others said, amphetamine and its salts are explicitly a Schedule II controlled substance in the US.
https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/cfr/1308/1308_12.ht...
> To add a little detail to what others said, amphetamine and its salts are explicitly a Schedule II controlled substance in the US.
Though, Schedule II means it has accepted medical uses, so it is not illegal. For instance, lots of kids are prescribed amphetamines for ADHD.
The part of the policy that actually references "controlled substances" only forbids apps that facilitate their sale by non-pharmacies.
I think the GGP has a point if you replace "controlled substances" with "illegal drugs." The reviewer obviously seems to think the terms are synonymous (which is false), and banned the app under the clause that forbids "encourag[ing] consumption of ... illegal drugs."
Leaving everything else aside, this reviewer pretty clearly failed to understand and reasonably apply the policy as written. Reference != promotion and "controlled substance" != "illegal drugs" (all illegal drugs are controlled substances, but the reverse is not true).
> They kind of have a point
They don't (the claim is the app promotes drug use, which it doesn't), and it's quite likely that it's a reviewer mistake that will be overturned once the stink on social media gets big enough to reach the right person.
> the claim is the app promotes drug use, which it doesn't
You don't think it could reinforce the idea that Amphetamines could be a useful tool to preserve wakefulness?
Like the original post says, they are in fact a useful tool to promote wakefulness, and if you have a problem with wakefulness or attentiveness, you can go to a doctor, get diagnosed, and be prescribed with amphetamines perfectly legally if you so wish.
Well - they do actually do that and under certain circumstances, they are used precisely for that. I find the puritanical mindset a little bit of an overreach here.
You can refrence a truth without promoting it. E.g. Darik's boot and nuke wipes everything but you'd be off your rocker to say it's promoting nuclear war as a result.
Not op, but no; the app has nothing to do with drugs.
I don't think we as a society should be this sensitive/prone to suggestion. If anything, I believe the censorship promotes the idea that people have no responsibility to make their own choices, and we must build to the lowest common denominator.
Note, I'm not really making a judgement about whether Apple should be allowed to do this - I think that is harder question.
It’s named after a drug that inhibits sleep, and it inhibits sleep. The connection is pretty clear...
They are. Militaries around the world agree. So do doctors who prescribe them for narcolepsy and other disorders. I think it is a good name.
The fact remains that in most places amphetamines are an illegal drug when acquired without a prescription.
I think he should just rebrand. A name change is not a big deal, given the app has low name recognition in the first place. News of the rebrand will be the first Google result for people who are unaware of it.
Apple holds all the cards here. There is little to be gained if he wins, and if he loses he will have to rebrand anyway after much wasted effort.
I’m told the military has switched to modafinil. No amphetamines anymore.
He could literally just call it "benzedrex" instead as that is the name of a nearly identically acting but otc stimulant you can grab off the shelf at any walmart lol...
If that was the case, health classes would censor the names of any recreationally-illegal substance. The fact is that Amphetamines are `a useful tool to preserve wakefulness`. Knowing that fact isn't inherently a promotion for the use of them.
That is not an idea though. It is a fact.
Why try to hide a fact?
I think the argument, however tenuous, is that naming a utility after a drug generates a positive association for that drug. It’s not even so much that Apple has to believe this as much as there’s an elevated potential for negative PR. This sort of thing is given even more scrutiny with food items:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine_(drink)
https://m.riverfronttimes.com/foodblog/2010/01/20/the-beerte...
They don't (the claim is the app promotes drug use, which it doesn't)
It certainly references it. Definitions are fuzzy, and very much in the eye of the beholder.
they named the app after a harmful drug that does the same thing the app purports to do. it is not a stretch at all to view the app as promoting drug use.
Exactly. I use something identical called "caffeine". Just rebrand to Jolt and be done with it.
Caffeine would be an easy answer to the rebranding question
I just did a search and found multiple apps with that name already.
There is already an app called "Caffeine" that serves the same purpose.
Caffeine was the old application that Amphetamine replaced. It was a long-standing utility that went unmaintained after Apple switched to the retina displays.
Really? I am still using it. It works fine with a Retina display, which is the only Apple display I've ever had.
2014 MBP 15 here.
Not so easy: https://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/24120/caffeine
> My advice is to immediately rebrand as gracefully and effectively as possible and use all that activist energy to effect the transition.
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).
Do you expect to see a box on a shelf of any retail store labeled, “Amphetamine” with a colorful picture of drugs?
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.
No, because at a retail store the expectation is that if I see a box labeled "amphetamine" it better contain actual amphetamine. Obviously that's not acceptable, so it's not going to happen.
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.
> When I buy a game called "Surgeon Simulator" I don't expect to receive actual surgeon training
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.
The point is that the game should not be removed for violating some silly guideline because its title contains “simulator”.
No, there isn't - certainly not for iOS, and not for Mac either, the App Store is barely hanging on by a thread
What about this? https://apps.apple.com/us/app/gastro-ex/id1202398609
(Full disclosure: I work at a sister company of Level Ex.)
Good point. And the App Store is not a retail store - developers PAY THEM to distribute their wares. They are Apple's customers too!
You may not know this, but plenty of physical retail stores charge manufacturers of goods to display their wares / offer shelf space for sale.
Yes, but it is not the norm. And physical retail stores can justify it to some extent because storage / display space is actually limited and obviously they would like to give the most space to products that sells fast and / or are more profitable. (This is why FMCG - fast moving consumer goods - are so heavily advertised. Brand awareness helps their sales, and thus shops are more ready to stock it.)
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.
> Yes, but it is not the norm.
It very much is the norm [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slotting_fee
Just because something is a popular business practice in the US doesn't make it a norm around the world too. And just because it found acceptance in one geography or some industry doesn't mean we have to accept the same it in another. A physical retail outlet is not the same as an online one, especially one that only sells digital products (software).
> developers PAY THEM to distribute their wares. They are Apple's customers too!
See stocking fees in physical retail stores:
* https://financialpost.com/news/retail-marketing/loblaw-follo...
* https://www.canadiangrocer.com/top-stories/headlines/loblaw-...
I do know about stocking fees and display fees. And also that it is not the norm, even if some would like it to be. (And phyaical retail outlets can justify it to some extent because space is actually limited in many stores and obviously they would prefer to give the most space to products that sells fast and / or are more profitable.)
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.
You're creating a strawman argument.
Imagine it were called heroin, and the app logo used a picture of a syringe.. is it still okay to you because there is no heroin in the app?
Of course it is. I'd be interested in hearing your argument as to why it isn't?
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.
I dunno, before I try a drug I usually scan the app store to see whether it's okay! heavy sarcasm
Do you truly believe that someone is going to see the word "heroin" next to a syringe and say "you know what, I should go shoot up some black tar?"
Grand Theft Auto comes to mind...
Plague Inc...
Drink extreme...
Trivia Crack Adventura...
Drug Mafia...
All of those are ios GAMES.
Yes this. The hypocrisy of the gatekeepers is infuriating. Let’s not forget that almost all popular games are mass murder simulators. One of the most popular kids games is a dog fighting game.
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.
Can you even call something “Arsenic”?
I'm calling dibs on the dating app named chloroform, chloroform-e, and chloroforme.
Rohypnol is another possible name for a social app or something you use for late night shopping.
I posit that it is capriciousness, not hypocrisy.
This is really great point I hadn't considered. They're applying their rules selectively and inconsistently.
Drug mafia sounds like something that should fall under this category.. but I don't see how Trivia Crack would unless they are showcasing drugs on their logo like Amphetamine.
I also don't remember plague inc showcasing any substance abuse, but I could be wrong.
The best argument against Apple is the inconsistency in application of rules. If what you say is reasonable why would they also promote iOS apps whose explicit purpose is the simulation of cartel wars or marijuana dispensaries? My hot take is one doesn’t make much money for Apple while the others provide a clear incentive to act willfully ignorant given their in app revenue streams.
I think this is the weakest argument? Selective enforcement of rules is a time-honored tradition and seems to be explicitly reserved as the right of the rules-enforcer everywhere. It might be a good argument in a hypothetical debate about the fairness and compassion displayed by Apple, but I don't think you'd get far with it convincing either Apple itself or even a court if one somehow was interested.
It’s a weak argument because Tim Cook has personally testified in from of Congress that the rules are not selectively enforced.
Also known as lying. It is blatantly obvious that Apple selectively enforces their policies. Anyone who has ever published multiple apps on the app store knows this.
Those at the top often allow themselves to believe that their company is virtuous by being disconnected from the day-to-day. I think that Tim Cook genuinely believes Apple acts honorably and is sincere. This decision is still bullshit.
He said companies don’t get special deals, but then I don’t know what else to call the deal they made with Amazon, where Amazon can bypass Apple’s payment system for some users.
Tell that to Cocaine Energy Drink.
https://www.caffeineinformer.com/cocaine-energy-drink-is-bac...
Or Sweetwater 420, which is neither sweet, water, nor 420.
You also won't find many products being labeled with things like "magic", except maybe for some of Apple's input devices, and drugs called magic mushrooms.
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.
It is unreasonable when the store is the only store in town, and the town (Apple ecosystem) ensures monopoly of that single store.
You can download Mac apps outside of the Mac App Store.
You mean after you spend at least $700 on a mac mini. Install developer tools. Learn enough about version control to clone the source and pay $100 annually.
Can we just admit that most people actually can't reasonably be expected to do so?
That's iOS.
You've never seen the energy drink shelf? "Cocaine" gained notoriety specifically for this.
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.
to be fair, gas stations are basically the bottom of the barrel when it comes to retail venues.
My grocery store sells an energy drink called liquid death.
I’m pretty sure that Liquid Death is just water.
Well, your body needs water to survive, so water could be called an energy drink for when you’re dehydrated /s
It's got what plants crave.
Apple themselves have featured this app[1], which feels like they endorsed it before.
1 - https://apps.apple.com/us/story/id1470456860
No, on retail shelves I expect to see an assault rifle with the logo of an enraged militant heading into battle where he will kill other human beings and/or be killed themselves.
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.
It's less reasonable when the store is the only one people are legally allowed to buy a product category at.
But this isn't a retail store, this is a software store. That's the difference.
I knew somebody who got national attention for making an energy drink named Cocaine. It did not last long on the market due to the name.
No but in software it's normal to have metaphorical names. I don't expect to be able to make a salad with cucumber js or have tea time with chai
https://github.com/cucumber/cucumber-js
https://www.chaijs.com/
Subscribing to the offended is advocating against yourself. The only reason why you don't generally see that kind of advertising is because it offends people.
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.
> Don't forget apple also hates the idea of sex, and that's plenty acceptable to market.
Not so sure that's true in the USA. Though it could be payment processors and prudish culture are the drivers of this phenomenon.
I bought Microsoft Windows. It has no actual glass windows in it. Is it reasonable to demand the OS not be sold so to avoid confusion and false advertising?
This totally misses the main point: Apple could absolutely have brought this up within a reasonable amount of time. The issue here is reliance.
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.
Yes, this is the real issue - when you distribute your app on Apple's App store, you are giving up control on a crucial part of your business and trusting Apple (a third party and a potential competitor) to not screw you in the future.
Apple doesn’t give a scheise about developers anymore. IMHO this is going to devalue the platform in the long term, but they seem to think differently.
Consumers don't give a scheise about developers either.
It's more due to ignorance though. All other things being equal, many would prefer to buy directly from the creator if they realize that they can save money, and the creator gets more profit. Apple is right now a corrupt middle-man bureaucrat between them, demanding a bribe from both to make a trade, but the consumers just aren't aware of that.
Value is relative. I don't see a comparable platform anywhere or coming any time soon.
The first mistake he made was making an app for the apple app store.
We can blame the users all we want but, as devs we also contribute to the problem when we publish (independently of course, not as employees).
Yes, this is the other crust of the issue that we developers need to understand - We are the ones that ADD VALUE to a platform like ios or macOS or Android. It is incredibly short-sighted to then PAY to develop and distibute apps on it!
I hate to agree with you, because I think I know what the 'right' thing is from my perspective. Sometimes to make a change, you have to fight and, likely, lose. You don't always effect change by winning. That said, I am not sure I would be willing to make that kind of decision.. and thankfully that is not my decision to make here.
I too recommend live to run another day approach ( ala Rincewind ).
..then again, this may be the right time to do stand up to Apple. Current upheaval in tech, clear battle lines being drawn over everything from section 230 to app store could stack up things in your favor..
Still, it is only a chance.
Yes, you should accept things over which you have no control, and you should speak up against injustice. Acceptance doesn't have to mean you can't advocate for change.
I concur with OP. Rebrand ASAP. Apple is looking for an excuse to shut your app down so that they can replace it with an in-house version. This is on purpose, they want you to feel outraged. If you take the bait and start a legal battle, you’ll play right into their hands. They will drag it out for years or until your money runs out.
Far better to keep the money you have earned, recognizing that even the rebrand won’t save your app in the long run. It’s done.
Amphetamine is and has always been free.
You can always just disable the screensaver on your Mac if you'd like. Amphetamine really helps when you have MDM installed or something that requires your computer to sleep every so often.
Ah, I remember this infamous Apple ad:
Here’s to the lazy ones, the mundane, the conformers, the rule-followers, the square pegs in the square holes… the ones who don't see things differently — they’re fond of rules… You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them, you can also safely ignore them because they dare not change things… they keep the human race stagnant, and while some may see them as the lazy ones, we see order, because the ones who are lazy enough to know that they can't change the world, are the ones who won't try
This is brilliant. I can't wait until we see an actual Apple ad with this script. Maybe 2021 will deliver!
The Tim Cook era of Apple. This describes well Apple’s fanboy drones, but also the company engineering, product and design.
If there was HN Gold, I would have given you some
Sounds like the Ray Ozzie motto
When I walk into the latest iteration of the Apple stores, the ones with those giant LED jumbotrons, I wonder whose job it is these days to throw the sledgehammer at the giant propaganda screen.
This, too, shall pass.
“He who is not angry, whereas he has cause to be, sins. For unreasonable patience is the hotbed of many vices, it fosters negligence, and incites not only the wicked but the good to do wrong.”
> My advice is to immediately rebrand as gracefully and effectively as possible and use all that activist energy to effect the transition.
They should be brave and rebrand it to Soma, nothing flies in the new world of apples and bananas.
This is one of those assertions that has the unusual property of being true if you believe it, and false if you don't. Like "I think this bank is going to fail!"
Apple doesn't "hold all the cards" unless we believe it is so. The longer that belief is popular we will lose the option to fight when the stakes get higher.
> but they hold all the cards..
It's a free app. There is no business to sustain. The indie dev can walk away, and app can die and Apple users will suffer.
This is absolutely horrid, imagine if Amazon could blacklist certain products they compete with
I couldn’t disagree with this mentality more.
No, they should not do this. They have six years of strong brand value, and they have a fairly solid case. And they have the world (well, part of the world at least) watching. Apple can and does change if you have those things, if you do it right. We did it with iSH (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25028252). If anything, this is their best opportunity to effect change, and I would very much hope they take it while they still have it.
I agree with this response 100%. Don’t use valuable mental calories on this. Just adapt. Use the saved energy on something more deserving of your time.
Your advice pretty much equates to "just bend over and take it", which is a horrible thing to tell people.
Maybe you should name it "caffeinate"...
Probably won't sell well in Utah.
The name might also collide with apple's program "caffeinate" too.
"Just got off a call with @Apple. Appeal accepted and Amphetamine will remain on the @AppStore."
https://twitter.com/x74353/status/1345421211677949957
Contrary to the original comment above yours, squeaky wheel gets the grease.
And my comment got downvoted of course. Because HN can't let pesky facts get in the way of good argument.
This site, sigh.
On the contrary: https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/2/22210295/apple-developer-a...
In this case, the complainer had several important details on their side: Apple had previously featured the app, the rule that they said was violated wasn't violated, and they tolerate other apps which violate those rules. It seems likely Apple realized in this case that it would be easier to keep the app since it's not like the app was ruining their family friendly image (although many people, especially in the US, picture the negative effects of methamphetamine additiction when they hear "amphetamine", amphetamine is actually an approved drug used by many in the US).
https://www.macrumors.com/2021/01/02/amphetamine-app-store-r...
Apple has reversed their position after the developer appealed. They did not lose anything or have to rebrand.
Given this outcome and the minor expense in time it took to achieve, do you still stand by your advice that people should immediately support and enable a unilateral decision because there is a power difference between the parties?
How has this updated your beliefs about the likelihood of amenable redress with the App Store appeals process?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
Thank God he didn't listen to you. Don't give up! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25618245.
Next, some app named Nitrogen will be banned because it is related to explosives and therefore to terrorists.
Nitrogen is an element, and a very common one at that. Explosives are a fringe use case.
Amphetamine on the other hand has only one very well defined use case.
I get the reference to another similar app (Caffeine) but this is a step too far, indeed portraying a dangerous drug in a positive light.
It's not portraying anything in a positive light. The fact that this is the name of the app implies no value judgement.
> Amphetamine on the other hand has only one very well defined use case.
Are you referring to the widespread use of it as an ADHD medication for children all throughout the nation?
Apologies, where I come from this is not a common treatment for ADHD. I’m not a specialist but as a father of two lively boys I did my share of reading about diagnosing and treating ADHD in Europe.
Vyvanse was approved in Europe ~5+ years ago and is a hugely successful and widely used product.
I apologize if I'm misunderstanding your comment. But just to help others avoid confusion, ADHD isn't the same as being extra energetic.
What drugs are, according to your reasearch, widely used in Europe? Here in Canada, Amphetamines are widespread, from Vyvanse to Adderall to Evekeo.
Ritalin is the dominant drug in that regard, and while it is very similar in every respect, it is not amphetamine-the-substance nor, I believe, technically in the class of substances also referred to as amphetamines.
(someone stated that amphetamines are now available in the EU market. But, if so, it's likely that few people will know, mostly because discussions of ADHD have somewhat faded)
It is, they just call it something else like Adderall, Evekeo or whatever.
Or perhaps to its widespread use as a stimulant for narcolepsy sufferers - which is clearly what the app's name is alluding to.
It's like banning an app called fertilizer because fertilizer can be used to make bombs.
>It's like banning an app called fertilizer because fertilizer can be used to make bombs.
Great and extremely apt analogy!
And adults as well
I seriously doubt your nerdsniping changes the point of the original poster. Which you could easily figure out if you weren't so eager to jump upon every single minute detail and consequently missed the forest for the trees.
I wouldn’t call it nerdsniping. I found OPs argument to be a strawman.
which use case did you mean? treatment for narcolepsy? ADHD?
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. Besides, amphetamine is just the name of the compound, it doesn't suggest anything. If you imply that simply knowing that amphetamines can keep you awake is dangerous, then I'd like to point you towards centuries of proof that not telling people about sex totally stops them from having it.
FYI, there is an open-source alternative with the less catchy but less controversial name, KeepingYouAwake. (Note that Amphetamine has more advanced features, if you need them.)
https://github.com/newmarcel/KeepingYouAwake
You can also just use the built-in Terminal app and run the built-in executable named “caffeinate”, it’s free and provided by Apple: https://ss64.com/osx/caffeinate.html While the command has a few options, just typing the word at the terminal and hitting enter will stop your Mac from going to sleep, etc. A long time ago I worked for a company that had a terrible policy for inactivity screen lock that kept interfering with my ability to get work done, and the caffeinate command helped me prevent screen lock when I needed it to.
I mean, on this point I'm actually inclined to think Apple's general policy is reasonable, even if it sucks that Apple is only now adding or enforcing this rule.
It doesn't want apps that jokingly call themselves "Crack Cocaine", "Crystal Meth", or "Mango Vape". It doesn't have anything to do with them actually promoting drug use, but it helps normalize illegal drug use in a way, while Apple wants to keep a "family friendly" approach to its App Store.
Honestly, if I were the creator I'd just rebrand it.
I remember coming across the app years ago, it wasn't obvious from the name what it did, and when I finally understood it, it just seemed like the creator was trying a little too hard to be "edgy". And if you want the widest possible usage/distribution of your app, "edgy" is usually not the way to go.
macOS ships with a command line program called "caffeinate" that disables the sleep function of the laptop. With this background knowledge I was immediately able to assume Amphetamine is a more powerful program that provides the same results. With this background in mind I find the name to be clever.
And if someone made yet an even more powerful program called cocaine, that would be okay too, because the name fits so well. right?
That's funny because Apple maintains Coca, which is the name of the plant source of Cocaine. The Coca plant is controlled/regulated by the DEA exactly like cocaine is. So by following Apple's example in Apple's ecosystem it is okay to name things directly after drugs.
Cocoa and coca are not the same.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocoa_(API)
Apple disagrees with you - or at least they did when it was a Mac App Store Story.
I already said it sucks that Apple is only now enforcing or adding this rule.
Clearly Apple has changed its mind.
No. Amphetamine is the name of a chemical with both legal medicinal and illegal applications. I might agree with you if the app's name was "Meth" or some other slang term for a stimulant drug associated with illegal use.
Another comment in this thread said the same thing, and someone replied saying "but I take meth to function (desoxyn)".
The quote was "I use methamphetamine (desoxyn) to function!"
The exclamation point was in the original. I quoted it because "meth" is a slang term, but methamphetamine isn't
The usage here (stay awake with amphetamines) clearly refers to the recreational illegal application of using it to stay up.
Absolutely amphetamines have prescription medicinal applications including for chronic fatigue. Just like cocaine has applications such as a topical anaesthetic.
But it's completely disingenous to suggest that the app is using the name "Amphetamine" as if it were under the context of a doctor's prescription. It's obviously in the recreational context of healthy people staying awake. And exactly the same as with "cocaine", when most people hear "amphetamines" they think of illegal drugs, not prescription ones.
Amphetamine is used for treating narcolepsy and idiopathic hypersomnia, too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcolepsy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiopathic_hypersomnia
Of course. I just used chronic fatigue as one example, those are others.
Regardless, my point stands: when the average person thinks of using amphetamines to stay awake, they're thinking primarily of the illegal context, not the prescription one.
> "when the average person thinks of using amphetamines to stay awake, they're thinking primarily of the illegal context, not the prescription one."
Be careful when claiming knowledge of what "everybody" or "the average person" is thinking. You expose your own bias. It can come off as a weird self-own, as if you're saying that you use it that way so you can't conceive of innocent uses
I already am careful and I'm not exposing any bias, but thanks for checking.
It comes across as a weird self-own that you assume I can't conceive of anything else. Especially since I already mentioned the medical uses multiple times. It's simply which usage/meaning is more common, not that the other doesn't exist. It's about frequency, not bias.
No need to get prickly. But no need to explain again either. It's more common to you and your social circle, apparently, but [citation needed] for "the average" person.
You're exposing a lot more about yourself and your lifestyle than you realize, evidently
Oh I'm not prickly, ha -- where ever did you get that idea? I'm touched by your concern for me -- it's quite sweet -- but it's really not necessary. And I'm not at all concerned about "exposing" my lifestyle, what a hoot!
Do you have a "citation" for the average person? If not, then I really don't know what you're arguing about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
The author makes the point that amphetamine is a legal drug used to treat actual disorders, and in no way promotes abuse
Sigh, this is disappointing. I’ve been using Amphetamine for years and it’s quite literally one of a handful of utility apps on the App Store that isn’t a scam or neutered by the policies of the store. Apple was right to recognize it it in the past, and they are wrong today in their reinterpretation of the guidelines.
FWIW, I do app review policy for iSH, which went though a similar situation recently (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25028252) where we managed to convince Apple that they had misinterpreted their review guidelines. If you’re looking for help to get Amphetamine approved as it should, feel free to contact me at saagar@saagarjha.com. I’d be really disappointed to see Amphetamine lose its years of brand value over such a petty review decision.
I hope the author see's your comment but he may not even be aware of this post on Hacker News. His twitter is in the original article - it would be worth a quick tweet to him too as I to use and am a fan of Amphetamine and would hate to see it go, or the author have to expend energy fixing something that isn't broken vs. spending his time on work that would bring actual value :/
I don't have a Twitter, unfortunately. However, I did create an issue on the GitHub project: https://github.com/x74353/SaveAmphetamine/issues/4. I noticed someone filed https://github.com/x74353/SaveAmphetamine/issues/8 which got a response with an email in it, so I'll follow up there.
Wait until Apple realizes that "Final Cut Pro" seems to promote irreversible self harm for profit.
Or glorifies professional cocaine users :p
That's very silly. The times are ready for a new job title: software product namer, to make sure a name won't offend anyone or violate trademarks and store guidelines.
Avoiding offense while choosing product names is already a well developed and ubiquitous task, and has been for a very long time. It's a reasonable thing to want to do. But I understand the point you're trying to make.
Honestly the real enemy (if people are genuinely offended I tend to side with them) is people being offended on behalf of other people.
This kind of crap has been around long before people started caring about how marginalized people feel. Look no further than obscenity laws which have been in place a lot longer than this wave of empathy.
In most cases where a group-defining parameter is simple, it's best to avoid classifying them as "the enemy".
It may be a little nastier than that.
In some cases, they're selective about which groups will and will not be sheltered from offense. And they may refuse to admit that, let alone engage in a public, civil debate about their choices.
You're assuming that this is actually the reason. It smells to me like the real reason they kicked it off the platform has fuck all to do with the name, but feigning "wokeness" serves as a decent cover for a variety of evils.
Not advocating drug use has exactly nothing to do with wokeness.
The times are ready for a new job title: software product namer, to make sure a name won't offend anyone or violate trademarks and store guidelines
This profession already exists, and has for at least a century. Where do you think the name "Exxon" came from?
Well, this is pretty silly. Surely this won't last. I've only tried apps like Caffeine and Amphetamine a few times, but I never associated it with a bad thing.
Also, why is Apple making a political statement that doctors should not prescribe Retalin or Adderall ?
It doesn't seem like Apple's place to be making judgements on what medicines are good or bad.
Would Apple ban an app called NyQuil that puts your computer to sleep when it gets hot?
This reminds me of all the hand wringing and pearl clutching about SATAN [1], by Farmer and Venema. Corporate types and bible-squeezers had a huge meltdown over the name.
Unfortunately American culture is simply unsuited for free expression unless buttressed by something list the 1st amendment, which of course only applies to Government.
Fundamentally Apple can and will do whatever it wants and there is no point complaining to them. OTOH allowing direct installs and multiple apps stores is a security disaster. But parliaments can pass laws to regulate monopoly conduct, in the same way that essential services are. Privacy, competition policy (including market access), arbitration procedures for small vs large companies, etc are all mature fields of law, and action in any large market would have significant effect on Apple/Google policy.
Lobby your politicians. Support organizations like EFF.
[1] https://www.usenix.org/system/files/login/articles/login_dec...
Change the name to "Amph" and change the icon to remove pill. You can't fight Apple, they make and enforce all the rules. If you want to protest Apple, stop developing software for their platforms.
Nah rename it to modafinil
I wonder what's the rationale behind this policy. I can think of three reasons:
1) They are worried of bad PR from a headline being published that goes: "Apple encourages drug abuse with multiple apps such as Amphetamine".
2) They are worried of a lawsuit if it is found some app contributed to the sell of illegal drugs.
3) They are worried of parents complaints being concerned that they've found an app called Amphetamine on their kid's device.
And in some way, I can agree that as a Company, I'd rather not take my chances with any of them. Now, the policy being applied inconsistently is another issue. And ya, I wish the world wasn't so that a company needed to worry about these, but it isn't, so I'm not sure I can blame Apple that much for it. This also seems like a silly cause for them to champion.
I would agree, but I can't because Apple is a monopoly. If monopolies are allowed to exist then they must be required to reflect the principles of the governments in which they operate.
If everyone could see this decision and easily move over their apps to 1 of 20 other iOS app markets then it might be reasonable for Apple to have self-determined restrictions in place.
My manager (who uses Windows as a daily driver) overheard me recommending a colleague to install Amphetamine and gave me a very puzzled look. Another time I had to explain secops people why do I have an executable called "riot" on my machine (part of Apache Jena if you are curious). So I can imagine Apple just got tired replying to complaints (semiautomated?) from IT sec departments that Amphetamine has nothing to do with drugs and decided to force Amphetamine to rebrand instead.
PS: I vote for Redeye as a new name (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red-eye_flight, just as Amphetamine was used by pilots in the past https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_and_culture_of_substit...).
> secops people why do I have an executable called "riot"
No doubt your secops are trying to justify their existence like app store reviewers if this is what worries them!
What a dumb application of this rule in this context. I remember a similar app called caffeine (not sure what happened to it).
Amphetamine is great - I use it daily to stop annoying infosec rules from locking my computer after 2min since I’m working from home. It’s my favorite kind of software, focuses on one issue and does it well.
The whole world is starting to cuddle everyone to death. It’s so disgusting to see the walled gardens censoring, boycotting, deciding what is truth, interfering with ones beliefs and trying to modify them. Also everyone feels offended by something thus entitled to tell what I can and cannot say. Grow the hell up! Sticks and stones may break my bones, but facts don’t care about your feelings. Pampering society will lead to a generation of incompetent crybabies just because they can’t handle another view/perspective
The hypocrisy is that Craig Federighi jokes about Marihuana all the time in Apple keynotes, but when a 3rd party developer does the same thing they ban it...
They also publish TV shows with violence, bad language etc. That is OK but dare an app store developer make a joke....
It's similar situation to removal of slave/master terminology from IT. Without context such accusations are pointless. "I don't like the word you use so you are not allowed to use it." We're seeing the same thing. Apple doesn't like you using the word that's also name of a drug, so you're gone. No context needed.
Don't develop for Apple platforms.
Don't tie your income to a platform you can't control.
App store, youtube, ... they all can lock your out without reason and recourse. Don't rely on them.
Just change the name and move on. It is stupid to waste energy fighting it. How about Insomnia? Keepup? Stayup?
I don’t think Apple has a strong argument, given the feature set of the app, but I also think the name is kind of tacky/in poor taste. I used an identical app for years called Caffeine. Yes, Apple should buzz off, but choose your battles.
I also think the name is kind of tacky/in poor taste.
I agree. When I turned my wife's old MacBook into a media server, I needed an app like this. I chose one that didn't share its name with controlled substance.
Branding 101. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
The post conflates methylphenidate-based stimulant medications (Concerta, Focalin, Ritalin, Metadate, Methylin) with true amphetamine-based medications (Adderall, Dexedrine).
Related, the former are not amphetamine derivatives, which is a common misnomer.
It's so common of a misnomer, in fact, that I know what the app does!
Back in the very early days of the App Store, I got contacted by Apple regarding the submission of my app “!@#?!% Allergies”, as they believed the name may lead users to think their iPhone Springboard app was buggy :(
> Apple became the place that I lost feeling of physical and psychological safety and the terror that it inflicted on me has impacted me on such a core level that the painful memories and flashbacks have replaced my dreams and they will hunt me until I am alive.
I'm sure Apple is a political quagmire, but if you describe your experience working there the same way someone might describe their time at Auschwitz, it's probably you and not them.
They should collaborate with Simone Giertz and re-brand it the "Wake Up Machine"!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh2-iJj3dI0&ab_channel=Simon...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61FaYVGVY_I&ab_channel=Simon...
I don’t understand the rationale to remove the app. Are they selling drugs through it or committing a crime with prior precedent in a court of law or under legislation passed by an elected committee?
If it’s just the name, how far does this go? Can I not name a band after a drug? Can I no longer write a book about drugs? What about a company? What if I’m a pharma company? Who is deciding these rules and how do we get rid of them?
I don't agree with Apple here but I also don't feel too outraged either, I can see both sides and it's their store.
I actually think Windows/MacOS should build the most commonly used sleep-gating functionality into the OS. (On Windows there's Coffee and Milk, where Coffee helps you keep it awake and Milk helps you figure out why it doesn't sleep. Seems like basic modern OS stuff to me.)
Its not just their store. Its my device and they are not letting me run a program in it by the dumbest reasons. We shouldnt normalize manufacturers censoring software arbitrarily.
does the developer not let you download the app outside of the Mac App Store?
If you are not outraged, you aren't putting yourself in the author's shoe - they created an app that has been in the app store for 6 years. They marketed it and got a large number of users. And now suddenly Apple removes it because it doesn't like the name of the app. Do you want Apple to be the arbitrator of silly things like the name of the app or even your company?
So with the way Apple is going with this, is Amphetamine's cousin 'Caffeinated' [0] going to be next?
> A little taste of 'Caffeine'.
This will prove to be a complete waste of time for Apple.
[0] https://apps.apple.com/us/app/caffeinated-anti-sleep-app/id1...
They explicitly wrote "illegal drugs" in the policy, so no.
This is one more example of a pattern of abuse by the app stores of apple, google, and maybe even microsoft.
Any app store vendor is the alpha and omega on its platform. Any app store has a monopoly on its walled garden. There are some good aspects like user protection against bad apps, but on the whole, is it worth the price.
Main question now is how society should deal with this. Some ideas from the top of my head
* One option is to simply break the monopoly. A platform could be obligated to implement a store API, and the default platform store should use that same API as any other.
* Another option is a separation of duties. Just like lawmaker, judge and police can't be the same entity in a democracy, they could be split up in the app stores.
* Maybe the safety of the user device can be guaranteed independently from the app store. If the OS enforced walls between apps are strong enough that malicious apps can always be removed and no data theft is possible, the damage done by bad app stores can be lowered?
I have used this while using Macs before and it's a pretty good tool. The name also some what makes sense since it's a "stronger" variant of the past tool.
What's really sad is why this kind of feature even needs to be implemented through a third-party application when it should really be handled on the OS side...
If one has ADHD, then an amphetamine, paradoxically, helps you calm down.
It’s a weird thing that a stimulant can help you chill; from this one could conjecture that an amphetamine to keep you awake isn’t being used to treat ADHD.
I am not a medical Doctor; I am not many things.
Although it would appear that A&E and GP Drs around here aren’t up on lis-Dex
I'm sympathetic, but it's not a great argument.
Adderall®, Concerta®, Dexedrine®, Focalin®, Metadate®, Methylin®, Ritalin® are all “brand name” amphetamines.
Yup, and they're controlled substances that you can't buy without a prescription and which are only supplied in limited quantity. Your app branding is literally a kind of drug abuse - using a drug to stay awake rather than its medical use to just be normally functional.
This isn't to endorse Apple, which ought to apply its guidelines more consistently instead of ignoring or enforcing them in arbitrary manner, and which should be more transparent with communities of users rather than using its leverage against individual developers with no real process or recourse.
But when you get down to it, you are in violation of the ToS and there isn't a great moral crusade here. Rebrand and be happy.
Considering how hostile Apple seems to be to the creators that make their platform worth using, I'm consistently surprised that people keep developing for it/investing in it. At least Microsoft is apathetic all the way through: don't expect any help, but as far as I know you won't get shot out of the blue. To me, Apple's whole shtick these last few years reads as if they're just saying "We don't want you to develop on our platform." ("Pay us for even the ability to start making anything on our devices. Give us our cut for letting you exist and provide content for our platform. You can't do that anymore; banned. Make this arbitrary change or you're gone in x days...")
It's one reason the Mac App Store is a pale shadow of the iOS app store.
Inconsistency in sand boxing, especially with Apple apps distributed via the app store vs. non-Apple apps.
So much promise utterly wasted. What really is annoying is that it's been bad for so long without any seeming care from Apple in improving things. I'll use the app store for free or small dollar apps, but anything over $20 if I can buy it outside the App store I absolutely do even though it's more of a hassle.
The App Store (i.e. a single gatekeeper with arbitrary policies) is a terrible way to distribute software. Since this is a MacOS app, perhaps the developer should choose to distribute it as a .dmg, free of all the App Store bullshit.
Don't you need to find some setting buried somewhere deep to enable installing dmgs now?
What about GTA lol
There's a great talk titled "Lessons Learned from the App Store" by Phillip Shoemaker - https://youtu.be/tJeEuxn9mug
One of the main points is that apple has a hierarchy of priorities for their App Store: protect Apple's brand, protect the customer, then make money (timestamp 5:08 in video). Apple probably got some complaints about the name of the program (probably 100 or less) and decided it wasn't worth the $0 it was making to leave it up.
> and decided it wasn't worth the $0 it was making to leave it up.
Then apparently they made a poor decision - the app apparently has been downloaded 500,000 times. That means it adds value to the users who use it, and that means it creates more value for Apple's platform. Apple shouldn't forget that developers add value to their platform, and moreover, with Apple charging them, they are also clients too!
Apple is so freaking random with their complaints. It makes it VERY hard to build a business around. 10 years ago I had a police scanner app called Scanner911. It sold well.. until a competitor innovated around me... by gaming the app store's review system. Complaining to Apple yielded nothing.
Not that I wanted to build a career around police scanner apps, but it was an independent income.
People here defending Apple are conformist fanboys.. the same people that were sitting staring at that video screen in the old 1984 ad.
Funny how the world repeats.
I want to suggest rebranding as Beige - the most harmless, boring, and forgettable "color" in the universe. But then even that would likely offend someone, somewhere, somehow.
Maybe Apple should change their name? Given what apples did for Adam & Eve?
Yes, words are important. But so is context and intention. If we keep eliminating words - removed from context and intent -then all we'll have left are emojis.
Oh wait...nevermind.
Botton line: Come on Apple, really? Of all the fights to fight in the world, this is a good one? Shame on you.
We really shouldn’t normalize the kind of thought control, censorship, and morality policing that underlies this Apple guideline. We need to break up and heavily regulate any company that is so powerful that there is effectively no choice but to cave to their demands. These companies, like with the Apple-Google App Store duopoly, are powerful enough such that even though they are technically private, their actions are as direct and impactful as the government enforcing such rules.
It’s a great app! I do tend to agree with them, as every time I looked in the corner of my screen, I was reminded of how much harder I could work if only I had some adderall.
This does seem like a weird shift on Apples part. They even featured the app in “app stories” at one point in time. I’m a user of this app and found it when I couldn’t find caffeine which I used on an older MacBook.
As an aside I’ve noticed that it’s Apples day to feature on the hn front page. Seems to be an unusual influx of bad apple press. I’m curious if it is coordinated? I’ve wondered the same about anti google/Facebook/Amazon as well. They all seem to come in waves.
Caffeinate is now a default preinatalled command, just saying..
I've used this application and the one that came before, caffeine, and in my opinion Apple shouldn't remove it. It would've been different if it was rejected as soon as it was submitted to the Apple store... But after 6 years it's very unfair, after it has built a brand identity and a community.
That said there's a command line application that comes with MacOS X called caffeinate that does essentially the same thing.
I agree with the author: if Apple wants to tighten up rules around drugs, they should have a grandfather clause for popular apps with an established brand.
Perhaps you can inform Apple that amphetamines are not necessarily illegal, and are in fact prescribed to treat many problems including narcolepsy.
Interesting. It's annoying that the review process is so inconsistent. But although the amphetamine-based drugs listed are legal, it would be illegal to prescribe for the purpose of "staying awake", so the implication of the app's name that an "amphetamine" is a safe and legal means to "stay awake" does probably violate the spirit of the rule.
I remember when app stores started up and everyone said "this is great, you can get verified results, reviews, and they can handle disputes."
However, this is the reality. Apple created a fixed game and you are the victim. Don't play their game, poison their well. (Inform others and your users what goes on in that environment and that they're bad actors/middlemen)
Caffeinate is a default terminal command in Macos for a few years already, what's the purpose of caffeine and amphetamine? ..
Convenience.
In the U.S., caffeine is not a highly regulated substance. You can buy it without limits in concentrated pill form, or in coffee and cola. By contrast, amphetamine is regulated as a Schedule 2 controlled substance [0], i.e approved for medical use but considered to have "high potential for abuse". Opioids like fentanyl are also in Schedule 2.
[0] https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/schedules/
It is bad for them to apply such a policy so inconsistently, to the point that it's subjectivity.
It's also bad to name apps after drugs that are widely abused. It's just too extra. Call it something positive and pro-social like "matcha" or "oolong" or maybe "dark roast" or "espresso" or something.
I suggest changing the name to "Speed Apple." That way you can take a slam at Apple, and use an icon of poop, because in some western states "speed apple" is slang for quadruped manure on the road.
See also: "Speed goat" which is another word for "antelope."
(Yes, I'm mostly joking. Just change the name.)
Whether the app name will be changed or not, I’m glad that this sort of thing doesn’t happen in silence or under NDA.
I can see how theoretically the app name could cement the idea of amphetamines being a useful tool for promoting wakefulness if you were a young person.
Sensibilities about naming things do change over time - as various sports clubs have found.
I'm sorry for the developer, but I can see why the guidelines might have been triggered.
Despite the valid arguments on both sides, I fall on the side of this being stupid. Let them keep the name!
I wonder if app store moderation is run on a quota system. It would explain why we continuously have stories about app X getting banned under a very loose interpretation of a guideline if moderators are "poor performers" when they don't find offending apps.
There is obviously a range of names of drugs and chemicals from Aspirin to ZyclonB that could be considered harmful and/or offensive. But I personally would not use any of them as a name for a software product, if only to avoid confusion.
Funny how that kind of problem doesn't even exist on Linux.
I really don't understand how people can willingly buy and use Apple products given the kind of paternalistic, I-know-what's-best for-you attitude this abomination of a company has.
The iPhone X, also known as the iPhone XTC, iPhone Adam, iPhone E, iPhone Molly
The developer uses Github but I cannot see source code, only compiled binaries.
Developer probably has a private Github repo for source code and a public repo for things they want publicly accessible.
It's funny that much of the public only associates Github with Open Source even though all their paying customers use it for closed source development...
I also use Github for non open-source development at work. But I don't distribute binaries through git. That's weird.
Is not open source
https://github.com/x74353/SaveAmphetamine/issues/1
So OP created a product very similar to Caffeine, with an edgier name and now it's becoming an issue. Where I think you chose the name just to help get into a similar space as Caffeine in the first place.
First comply and change the name to something like 'Amph' also change the icons (you will find something quickly that you can use) then sue them and if you win open the source code.
(Comply & Sue).
Why do you care if it is on the app store or not? Just let users download it from your website. In any case people aren't discovering mac apps from the app store in any significant numbers.
Cant help but feel some level of whatever that german word is for finding misery funny.
Watching devs willingly deal with apple is like watching someone pay for the privilege of being oliver twist.
I like the concept and promise of App stores, but over time I am less and less convinced there is any company that can competently run one with any sort of consistency.
I'm so happy I've never bought an Apple product in my entire life. With behavior like this, I shall continue to only buy things I can actually control. :)
This seems really simple to me.
I tweeted my suggestion of rebranding as “vigil” and selling “pro” features to allow branding as “provigil” (commercial modafinil name).
Apple tend to be hysterically puritanical about these things (and lately, hysterically PC) but it’s their store so why not just follow their rules?
It's not Apple that's hysterically puritanical, it's the market they operate in.
They don't give two f__ks about being politically correct, they're a corporation, their main concern is profit, and if you're not being hysterically PC in 2021, you're gonna loose money because of the radical minority that's ruining it for everyone.
I feel that Apple goes above and beyond. Like banning the confederate flag from all apps, I don't think people would have boycotted Apple if they hadn't done that. And Tim Cook's personal morals are very well aligned with PC, so I don't think it's just posturing.
Makes me wonder what proportion of Apple employees use Amphetamines regularly... Adderall is quite popular especially among techies.
The problem here is that there is a centralized app store that can gate your product.
On Windows, you could just host the msi or exe on your website.
This is a Mac app, not iOS.
This would be analogous to Microsoft kicking them off the windows app store. You could still download it manually.
For now. The walls are getting higher on MacOS lately.
Of course the same is true on mac, as well. Both OSs have stores, but allow sideloading.
Wow, this whole thread has prompted me to get off mobile and onto a keyboard, because I have many thoughts on this matter. I have ADHD, delayed phase sleep disorder, a dual BS in chemistry and psychology, I have studied addiction and drug reform, and even worked on synthesizing phenethylamine derivatives. I have many thoughts.
First, methamphetamine is not amphetamine. Meth belongs to the broad class of molecules properly known as "substituted amphetamines" or "phenethylamines." No one in-the-know refers to meth as "amphetamine" by itself, though some do broadly refer to assorted substituted amphetamines as "amphetamines" but this is pretty sloppy and if you want to refer to the class and "substituted amphetamines" is a mouthful, just use "phenethylamine" (PEA).
The name, of course, one of the most clever elisions in chemistry, Alpha-Methyl-PHenyl-ETthylAMINE, refers to the methyl group alpha to (the 1st substituent on the carbon backbone) the amine. This makes PEAs structural analogs of dopamine (DA, aka 3,4-OH-PEA) and norepinephrine (NE, aka 3,4,β-OH-PEA), and their the ability to modulate DA/NE receptors is what gives PEAs their general stimulating properties.
Meth-amphetamine has a methyl group on the amine. This seemingly small structural change makes a big difference pharmacologically. Methylation of amines makes drugs more fat-soluble, which makes them better at penetrating the blood-brain barrier and cellular membranes, while inhibiting its breakdown and clearance. This makes METH harder hitting, better at receptor binding, faster acting, and with far stronger effects than AMPH. Modelling addiction is tricky, but we can loosely approximate how strongly habit-forming a drug can be by multiplying the blood plasma curve by an exponential decay. The faster and higher a drug peaks, the more likely it will be addicting.
METH's lipophilicity also means it tends to cause DA to leak into places it shouldn't, resulting in unwanted chemical side-reactions which can damage neurons and glia, making it more toxic than AMPH. (this is a huuuge oversimplification; there are reams of studies on the mechanism of METH toxicity, and yes the literature uses METH as the abbreviation, I'm not being dramatic by all-capsing it)
Together, this makes METH much more dangerous than AMPH, and hence why AMPH and prodrugs such as Vyvanse (lysine-dexamphetamine) are commonly prescribed for ADHD, sleep disorders and eating disorders, while METH (under the name Desoxyn) is much more obscure medicinally (but still used! In fact another comment in this post mentions it).
Both are DEA Schedule II. Scheduling has basically no correlation to actual addictive potential or harm in any way. Psilocybin is SchI, has virtually no risk of addiction or overdose, Zolpidem is SchIV but is notoriously prone to abuse, and tobacco isn't even scheduled but is exceptionally addictive, causes easily >$100B in costs in USA alone. Yeah, the DEA schedule is kinda useless IMHO, but I digress.
AMPH can be abused and sold on the street, but that's true of literally any drug that humans find interesting to consume, including weak PEAs like bupropion, and OTC drugs like diphenhydramine and dextromethorphan.
Bottom line is - amphetamine is safe and effective when used as prescribed for improving focus and wakefulness. Lumping it in with METH or other street drugs is chemically imprecise, and does a disservice to those struggling with executive disorders. Apple makes it seem like just the name Amphetamine implies inappropriate drug consumption, which adds to the stigma those who benefit from amphetamine treatment already experience.
Thanks for coming to my TEDHN talk.
Would this have been OK if Apple acknowledged the popularity of the app and acknowledged pointing it out after 6 years?
I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, but the App store may constitute an essential facility for a desktop program developed specifically for Apple Computers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_facilities_doctrine
Sure, but they're not denying access to competitors. They're setting rules for use of the facility. "You can't promote illicit drug use in our facility" is a reasonable rule.
Whether the name "Amphetamine" does in fact promote illicit drug use may be up for question, of course, but that's got nothing to do with monopoly power.
There's no way this would apply here considering you can distribute Mac apps outside the Mac App Store.
Well. It is their store.
Come join the happy world off Linux if you want to avoid that sort of corporate control
Trademark issues aside, I wonder if this would be a problem if the app was named Adderall.
using random drugs for a product name is totally not gonna result in trouble down the road.
Which reminds me that ppl use random words for all kinds of things so I can't find what I'm looking for because now some animal or item is a software name...
Megacorps suck and are dumb. But snitching on other apps’ names is not cool either.
Looks like someone at Apple is having a "morality police" attack. :(
These things happen when you depend on a middleman to distribute your product.
It sucks and Apple is really over protective with this stuff so just change the name.
If you’re feeling brave/stupid, try calling it something like Khat.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khat
Does Apple promote fruit consumption?
(No, Apple does not promote fruit consumption.)
The levels of symbolic irony here are rewarding and disturbing.
Would rebranding as Caffeine also be against terms of service?
It's a pre-existing competing(?) product.
https://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/24120/caffeine
Apple needs to fire the person who made the choice to ban this App. They have no purpose in the company, bring no returns, and cost a pretty penny. They are a rent seeker (apple policy) on top of an otherwise great business.
... can't you just run `$ caffeinate -d` in terminal?
...some people don't know how or even care to use the command line.
The best thing to do is to let Apple remove the app. Do not rebrand it. Do not try to restore it. Eventually Apple will realize that their platform is worthless if they have no developers making apps for them.
It's annoying, and unfair, but I'd take advantage of the "publicity" around this name change, and change it to "StimulusCheck" or something trendy, and move on with things.
Perhaps change one letter of the name to APPhetamine?
Well, it's a play on Caffeine.app's name. I'll make an ever better Mac force-wake program called Crack Binge.app, anyone who dislikes this name is a puritan Apple sycophant.
Just change it to Cocaine. Problem solved!
Wasn’t there another one called caffeine?
Could you change it to Modafinil?
Insomnimac.
You’re welcome.
I'm with Apple on this one.
Even for legal use the use of the name seems like an endorsement of sorts.
I would change the name.
Try HyperCaffeine or smth. Oh wait,the name is not as breathtaking as amphetamine.
"Don't let programmers name things", issue #2,776,972
Change your apps name. Not that big of a deal.
Easy, adopt new name.
iViagra(TM): Keeps your Mac up
Another day...
rename it
to ApplePhet
From the writeup:
> Argument #1: Amphetamine Does Not Promote the Use of Illegal Drugs or Facilitate the Sale of Controlled Substances
> Amphetamine does not promote the use of illegal drugs. Not only that, Amphetamine does not promote the recreational use of legal/prescribed drugs. In the United States, amphetamine is prescribed by doctors to adults for narcolepsy and to children for ADHD...
> ...Just like amphetamine (the organic compound) can be legally used to keep humans awake and attentive, Amphetamine (the app) can be legally used to keep your Mac awake."
While "amphetamine" isn't itself an "illegal" drug, promoting the use of amphetamines for anything other than the FDA-approved indications (e.g. narcolepsy and ADHD) is something that can approach illegality [0]. For example, Pfizer and many other companies have had to pay billions to settle charges of promoting drugs for non-approved indications [1].
The author doesn't help his case when he asserts, "amphetamine can be legally used to keep humans awake and attentive". Yes, that's an effect of the drug, but it's only official legal uses are for treating narcolepsy and diagnosed ADHD. Adderall's manufacturer would get in big trouble if it started a campaign to convince doctors (who can basically prescribe for any reason they judge necessary) to get patients on Adderall for general boosting of performance and productivity.
Of course, the author (I assume) isn't in the pocket of Big Pharma. it's also not a stretch to see how this falls afoul of Apple' policy against encouraging the illegal use of drugs, in that the application's very name creates an association between "Amphetamine" and "making your computer more productive". Alcohol isn't an illegal drug either, but as the author notes, Apple explicitly bans encouragement of "consumption of...excessive amounts of alcohol" – i.e. a harmful use of an otherwise legal drug.
To use a hypothetical example, if a developer created an app that reduced screen glare and excessive contrast in UI elements, and then called it Fentanyl, I'd imagine Apple would have the same complaints as it does against Amphetamine, even though Fentanyl is a drug legally prescribed for severe chronic pain.
[0] https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20160719.05588...
[1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-...
WWJD
> Apple [...] featured Amphetamine in a Mac App Store Story
Ouch
> Customize Your Mac’s Sleep Settings
> Amphetamine gives you granular control
https://apps.apple.com/us/story/id1470456860
inb4 Apple releases this feature natively...
change the name
As someone who depends on amphetamines to function daily, it’s disheartening to see their use further stigmatized. For many people like me, amphetamines help them live a normal life. The app isn’t called “meth” or “methamphetamine” and it’s not referring to a street drug.
I’m saddened to see so many equating amphetamines to illicit drugs, when that’s simply not the full story. This perception is exactly what stops people from taking their medication when they should and balking at the idea of a medication being able to help them.
While I wholeheartedly agree with the thrust of your argument (particularly that stigmatization is detrimental)...
> it’s not referring to a street drug.
Amphetamine (and other amphetamines) are certainly available as 'street drugs'. The stigmatization of 'street drugs' (and generally, drug use as part of someone's self-directed diet) is also harmful.
Exactly. If you were to describe objectively to someone the properties of alcohol or tobacco without saying the name, people would be clamoring to crack down on the "epidemic" claiming thousands of lives and costing billions.
So apps with the words pep or speed in the name are also inappropriate?
Uhhh, no. I don't think this name, nor any name based on a psychoactive compound, is a bad or inappropriate name on that basis.
Speed can refer to a drug, but it can refer to a lot of other things too; people will think very different things depending on whether they see the word next to a picture of pills or one of a running shoe.
You surely know this already.
Hah! I use methamphetamine (desoxyn) to function!
Some irony there in complaining about the stigmatizing of a drug with high abuse potential then immediately stereotyping another.
Cocaine is also used as a medication. We use topical spray cocaine for anesthetizing the nasal cavity and pharynx before certain procedures.
Just saying.
Also occasionally used in optometry (applied directly to the eyeball!) as either an anesthetic or diagnostic tool.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3885453/
I don't mean to sound pedantic (though I certainly will), but Focalin, Ritalin, etc are formulations of methylphenidate which is absolutely not an amphetamine. It's a DARI, not a VMAT2 inhibitor. They work in very different ways and are not chemically related.
I only bring this up because if you're trying to educate folks on compounds in this sphere, being accurate is a nice thing to do.
I wish this project all the best. It's absolutely silly that the name of a commonly prescribed compound should be so maligned. What if I named an app "Metformin"? Would that be at risk of uh, encouraging type 2 diabetes?
Developing mobile apps sounds painful, imagine building an app and its userbase for many years and some faceless corp destroys all your work on a whim. Maybe web apps arent so bad
We all know Steve Jobs dropped acid. What's the big deal if an app is named after a prescription drug?
Surely there aren’t any songs or movies in Apple’s catalog that might be promoting drug use.
Seems pretty clear.
I think finding molecular differences of amphetamine is missing the point. There is a lot of knee jerk reactions I see here. This is primarily an image thing for Apple.
Personally, I think this is a bad name for an app of this sorts. Caffeine is good one, amphetamine is borderline.
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
From the guidelines linked at the bottom.
I am sorry. Thanks for the reminder, I edited it.
You're not going to win against Apple. Change your app's name.
There is still an appeals process, change it after you exhaust that.
Strategically I would say don't bother, personally. Just change the name.
It all depends on how much value the name has as a brand. If there are a ton of positive reviews and mentions of the app using that name, it’s not going to hurt to appeal.
But if almost all of the materials referring to the app by that name are on your own web site, I agree with you, change it and move on. Use those efforts in better places.
Amphetamine isn't exactly an innocent name. Of all the app takedowns that occur, this one seems pretty normal and actionable.
It's important to remember that reviews are superficial, and passing review is not at all the same as being compliant with the terms. Compliance is the burden of the submitter.
Now, that app store monopoly makes terms unfair and arbitrary is another discussion entirely.
There are gambling games in the app store marketed to children. You can sink 10s of thousands of dollars into gatcha games and they make every effort to make it easy and desirable to do so. If Apple wants to be a moral arbiter I'm not sure why it doesn't have a problem with those and even highlights them as "featured" apps from time to time.
That there are other violations slipping through is not valid legal argument.
That the priorities in the terms the developer is subject to does not match yours is not a valid legal argument.
The app store monopoly should fall, but until then, you're subject to the terms unless you get it declared unenforceable by a court, or convince Apple to change them.
I agree with most (actually all) of your conclusions but...
They start with the premise of culpability of a name. Which _is_ the problem in the first place.
That culpability was not demonstrated but was simply declared by remote association. The same arbitrary judgement can be made for an innumerable list of other words without making that judgement neither correct nor just.
Direct association, not remote association. The name is an intentional reference to a hard drug.
The name isn't related to the functionality, but that's not what is claimed. This restriction on drug references is spelled out in the terms, making it valid and non-arbitrary.
That the terms themselves aren't "just" is a different matter altogether, but there is no argument for it but being valid.
First I m just wondering why can't they change the name of their app... And eventually ask for help from Apple to reroute confused customers. Second apple is not responsible for your brand identity. A lot of people associate their brand with drugs. And it always come with drawbacks. Should the app store promote drugs? Would you want that on the mac of your children?
Oh come on, you use it as a drug to let the Mac stay awake. Whether or not the guideline makes sense, you are obviously violating it, just change the name.
I don’t use this and don’t care. But I can imagine my kids asking, what are amphetamines, why is it named that way, did you ever try them, what is it like.
Just like you’d say to kids, you don’t ever need to take those pills, maybe you should use your energy to push Apple so that your app isn’t necessary? I certainly try to educate my kids such that they will not be in a position to need those meds.
We like to think we own our hardware and make decisions about how it works and Apple sucks cuz they take away ownership, but cmon like you got to choose sensible defaults for your brain? “What’s in your .brainrc?” Random lines from your parents and friends at school, that’s what
If your kids asked you that, I hope you'd give a reasonable answer about these being prescribed medications for narcolepsy and ADHD, that much improve the quality of life for people afflicted with these conditions. Rather than ignorant shit like "you don't ever need to take those pills".
Sure if that was the case. How many abusers have you seen tho? Have you seen their MRIs after the damage?
I genuinely don’t understand the outrage in these HN threads about Apple. This is an application undoubtedly built with Apple hardware, probably using an Apple-developed programming language and an IDE made by Apple, to be used on machines created and manufactured by Apple, and provided on a store that’s setup and run by Apple.
This isn’t even a so-called ‘walled garden’. Let’s take Instagram for instance: built on technologies provided freely by others (HTML, JavaScript, CSS) and exploiting user-created content, I still need to sign-up to a Facebook service to be able to see that freely-provided content.
If these apps were boxes on a Walmart shelf, why would it be seen as some sort of civil-liberty infringement if you got a call someday, to say that Walmart had decided to discontinue selling your product?
Just change the name and move on.
Can we stop endlessly puting Apple's various authoritarians missteps under the spotlight? It's been literally decades now, we know they can and will do whatever they want in their walled garden. Stop giving them attention. Complaining clearly does not work, if you want to make a difference, change platforms. Nobody is forcing you to develop for Apple.
Do you similarly think that American newspapers should stop publishing articles about China's various authoritarian missteps?
You could just ignore articles that don't interest you, and you certainly don't need to go to the trouble of commenting on them, although I support your efforts to encourage people to change platform (and reduce their customer base by half).
Are you seriously equating a company choosing not to host an app with the genocidal policies of a communist government?
I'm not equating Apple's policies with China's, I'm just trying to understand if "Complaining clearly does not work" is a good enough justification for preventing people from learning about bad policies.
Perhaps the argument is that people have a duty to learn about genocides going on in the world, whereas there is no moral imperative to learn about bad policies of tech companies, but by that logic nearly every discussion on this site should be removed.
HN is not a newspaper.
Apple is under heightened antitrust scrutiny IIUC, so it's plausible that past and current discussions were/are actually helpful.
And fwiw, you're welcome to just ignore any threads or stories that you feel are getting repetitive. Many of us have a personal list of such topics, but our lists may not match.
> Can we stop endlessly puting Apple's various authoritarians missteps under the spotlight?
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or if you think the whole 'if you don't like something then shut-up and move' strategy is actually a logical solution.
There's better use of people's outrage than rallying behind a developer giving away their time to Apple in their walled garden. The replies in the HN thread confirm a derivative of my opinion is shared by most.
And in this case, a strategy including 'move' will almost always be superior to one without. Complaining to incumbents does very little.
Can we stop upvoting Apple stories on HN then? If not, then the best solution is to at least show us a balanced account of things.
Not sure you understand what "authoritarian" actually means.
How can you tell he doesn't? I've read the same post and the semantics seem fine to me.
There are a number of cases where the publicity helped to reverse a not favorable decision. I think this is the same strategy used here and they seemed to have made their homework before going public.
I don't know for how many cases this didn't work but it's clear that it works for _some_. They don't want to make a difference and don't want to change platforms.
For what is worth, I'm glad for this publicity for it's clear it's part of a continuing stream of issues that should steer away any newcomer with open eyes.
I couldn’t have guessed the purpose of the app from this name, and now that I know what it does, I would specifically avoid giving money to it due the name alone.
I’m glad someone made an alternative to Caffeine.app but “they’re both drugs” doesn’t weaken my personal objection to the choice of name. I am glad that Apple is compelling the name to be changed, and I hope the author complies. This is where “universal freedom” clashes directly with “common sense for a department store” for me, and while I understand others aren’t on my side, I prefer department stores to flea markets.
Why should your "personal objection" be a reason for someone else to change? You do you and choose an app based on naming if you want, but don't go pushing your puritan views on everyone else.
My personal objection is shared by others, unpalatable as that may be to some. Thankfully, my celebration of this outcome is wholly irrelevant to Apple's decision-making process, as I neither work for Apple, influence Apple, nor participate in any app store review processes on behalf of Apple, or any other either. So you may take comfort that had I exerted any effort to push my view — which I haven't — it would have meant just as much to the outcome as our discussion here in this thread: Absolutely nothing whatsoever.
Demeaning me with the phrase "pushing your puritan views" is is tasteless and inappropriate, and makes incorrect assumptions not only about the root of my objection but also about the belief systems surrounding it. You are wrong about both.
As someone I guess not in the loop with the latest in outrage culture... what exactly is offensive about the name?
My issues with it stem from something unpublished in the late 90s, which is not something 'dismissable' that you can simply set aside using the negation-by-framing of 'outrage culture', so I can't offer any reply to your question. Please accept my apologies for how far off the mark my reasons are from your assumptions; perhaps another time we'll be better aligned.
On the contrary, intentionally obtuse and unsubstantive references to some unpublished something-or-other, and unspecified personal objections which are claimed to be 'common sense', are pretty vapid and dismissable.
Noted, thanks!
> something unpublished in the late 90s
Why should anyone care about this? I’m still confused.
I'm not here to help you determine whether you should care or not. That's entirely up to you. For some unknown reason you seem to care, and I certainly can't figure out why from the replies so far.
As best as I can guess from the evidence available, you're looking for some vector to "No, you're wrong!" disprove some aspect of my personal view of this. This will, of course, go nowhere. I didn't submit my personal view as some sort of entry in a debate, and I'm making no effort to persuade anyone to my view.
If you can't find a way to derive value or relevance from my viewpoint, other than trying to disprove it or debate it, then you'll just have to move on. I'm not going to try to pressure you, persuade you, influence you, argue with you, or otherwise make any effort to interfere with your freedoms of thought and choice. That would be inappropriate for an unsubstantiated personal view such as the one I have provided.
>I'm not here to help you determine whether you should care or not.
Other than attention seeking what was the point of your original post? It certainly wasn't for dialog since you can't have a dialog unless you are willing to put all the points of discussion on the table.
People are rightly puzzled by your posting because this site is about dialog - not one direction orations. That you are attempting to act "above the fray" is even more amazing.
I can think of several interesting and relevant dialogues that could occur, but I also predicted that a viewpoint on this topic not couched in SSC-compatible rationality terms would be rejected and attacked by other HN commenters. Having confirmed that prediction, I’m content not to share any further details about my biasing experiences so as not to offend further, and avoid being emotionally vulnerable to y’all in the process. Or, restated, I was able to verify that the non-logical nature of my experiences and viewpoint remains intolerable within HN’s limits as a forum. I will continue to keep this in mind going forward as I have previously but it’s necessary to recheck assumptions now and then and this served that purpose acceptably.
I think it’s pretty clear that what was being discussed was a freedom of expression issue (as a value not a law). Doesn’t matter now though cause Apple backed down and the dev noted this in his response: “We may not all agree, but I am happy we all still have the freedom to express ourselves today”
I think that sums things up well
https://www.macrumors.com/2021/01/02/amphetamine-app-store-r...
I’m sad to see this outcome, but it’s kind of you to ensure that I see it again for a fourth time today. Thanks and be well.
This is pure censorship and nothing but a ridiculous, culturally damaging move from Apple. Forcing developers to pick from particular, puritan subset of the human language and banning apps relating to whole segments of the human experience will do nothing but hamper creativity and expression.
It is also extremely hypocritical, Apple distributes and profits from existing works of art that depict and describe drug use, among other topics, through Apple TV, iTunes, and Apple Music. Apple has no concerns with profiting from art after someone else approved it whether some other movie producer or record label. As long as some other large institution vouches for it then Apple will look the other way. But if every institution operated like Apple, most of the best works of literature, music, and film would never have been approved.
Honestly, I can not fathom why so much open source and free content is produced for Apple's ecosystem. Everything from the desktop MacOS operating system to Apple's app store policies is counterproductive for developers and anyone who disagrees with Apple's rules. The opportunity of the App store makes sense for commercial and profit driven apps but there is no reason to give charity to the most valued company on the planet.
Finally, I really doubt there is any legal ramification for Apple here. Apple can ban any app they want for any reason which is fine. I just think anyone starting to get into developing should consider anything but app development for this reason. If the product has to be an 'app' then try to make it a web app. Anything besides putting your life in Apple's hands.
Incredibly insensitive product naming.
I’m guessing the software authors don’t have children and don’t have multiple friends and family who’s lives have been destroyed by meth.
Instead it’s just a bro having cool fun with words “hey keeps your computer awake! Get it? Ha! So clever!”
Maybe they have a child with ADHD whose life was saved by amphetamines?
Your username has its uses too.
Not bad for a night out although not really to my taste.
Ketamine for treatment resistant depression. We've got to kick the mind expansion folks out though. They are going to ruin everything like Timothy Leary ruined LSD.
That's the problem I guess. Some people will abuse it, then everyone will be denied access to it because of them.
Amphetamine and metamphetamine (meth) are two different things.
In the context of illegal/recreational usage, not really. Chemically they are similar, and affect the body in pretty much an identical way. Methamphetamine metabolizes to amphetamine. Methamphetamine has more potent effects for the same dose. And of course street meth is a crap-shoot.
Yes, really. That methyl group makes a big difference. It increases potency, toxicity, absorption rate and overall addictiveness, hence why amph is commonly prescribed, while meth (desoxyn) is reserved for severe narcolepsy.
You didn't read the post, did you?
Please go and read the post. Especially the following section: https://github.com/x74353/SaveAmphetamine#what-arguments-can...
The App is named Amphetamine and not Meth which imho is a big difference.
You pointing out semantics makes zero difference to how I feel about meth/amphetamines and how regardless of semantics these are insensitive product names.
When I hear “Amphetamine” I instantly think if they people I know who’s lives have been destroyed, but you feel I’m mistaken and you’ve got a good argument against my line of thinking.
Telling me how to think.
So they are insensitive to you. But this does not generalize because knowing many meth addicts does not generalize either.
Amphetamine is what our drug companies use to make medication for those suffering with ADHD. I think you have watched too much Breaking Bad.
To quote Stephen Fry on what I think of your argument: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzdpxKqEUAw
How you feel has no bearing on altering the fabric of chemistry or reality.
Amphetamine is not meth and no amount of crying will change that.
Nor does someone naming an app "amphetamine" cause an increase in drug usage.
Were you one of those German soldiers issued Meth during WW2 to help them fight longer and with less human emotion? Cause that’s all I think about when you talk about meth destroying lives.
By your logic nobody should be able to call their app "lemonade" since it's a drink and some people are alcoholics
What about all the people with ADHD, eating disorders, and other problems whose lives have been saved due to amphetamine?
Also I take it you'll be demanding the removal of WINE from all package managers due to the existence of alcoholics?
Take it easy, it was named after an older similar app, Caffeine.
It’s a clever name because it rhymes and they’re both stimulants. That’s all.
You're the one who brought up meth.
Amphetamine isn't meth.
Looks like it's you that has the meth obsession. Shouldn't you be ashamed with yourself for having used the word? What about all the people whose children's lives have been destroyed by meth? Shouldn't you delete your comment?
Also can you please link me to a study that shows a causal link between names of apps, and an increase in usage in that drug the app is named after?
And then one that shows an increase in usage in a different drug (because again, amphetamine is not meth)?
I'd really, really like to read that study.
Presumably you want to ban WINE too, because of all the people who know someone who was an alcoholic? Have you written to the WINE maintainers telling them how evil they are?
Meth is amphetamine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine
No, meth is an amphetamine. Meth is not amphetamine, amphetamine is a different molecule.
Amphetamine is a general term as well as a proper noun. Both are valid and widely accepted meanings.
Meth is amphetamine.
This is simply technically incorrect as many people are pointing out to you. There is a named molecule called "amphetamine" short for alpha-methylphenethylamine, it has a unique IUPAC name ((RS)-1-phenylpropan-2-amine).
Methamphetamine is a derivative in the class of amphetamines (amphetamines being the family that was originally established by amphetamine). I know that's confusing. But, it has its own chemical structure, N-methylamphetamine, which is chemically distinct (yet extremely similar).
If your point is 'meth is an amphetamine', that's fine but it doesn't strengthen your arguments.
My only argument is that it’s reasonable for the GP to say that meth is amphetamine, even if it’s grammatically more correct to say an amphetamine.
It’s basically bullshit to dismiss what they were saying on the basis of this pedantry.
Amphetamine is a structural class.
It’s also clearly true that people not versed in chemistry associate meth with amphetamine.
What’s ‘technically’ correct to a chemist really isn’t relevant to this debate.
We wouldn’t generally argue that it’s incorrect to say that champagne is wine, even though it’s more technically accurate to say that champagne is a wine.
In the case of amphetamine, we feel the need to make the distinction more strongly because the word has two meanings.
This is only true for those of use who are aware of the presence of both meanings.
Those who think of amphetamine as a class and don’t distinguish it from the substance are not wrong. They are just less precise.
It's not a problem with grammar when the "incorrect" grammar changes the whole meaning of something. No one would be jumping on the comment if it had said, "meth is a amphetamine," which has the same meaning despite the incorrect grammar. Removing the "an" completely changes the meaning.
This should be clear?
It only completely changes the meaning for someone technically versed. Most people are not.
This should be clear?
A lot of people are going to think of meth when they see the word amphetamine. Likely most people.
The relevancy to the debate is established by the meaning of the word. Which is a technical issue. Leaving the definition of a precise term to the whims of layman results in that we can't any longer say if we are talking about the same things.
Look no further then to this very thread.
There is a technical definition and there are lay understandings.
This has always been true. Wouldn’t you say?
True.
The end result is that the merge of the two ends up in the dictionary. Perhaps it's time to update the definitions but I doubt that 'amphetamine' will be defined as slang for 'meth' when in fact 'meth' is slang or short for 'methamphetamine'.
Yeah - I’m not expecting it to end up as slang.
Just that as a lay term people think of meth as amphetamine in the way that people think of champagne as wine.
Not really, it's pretty confusing and when I worked at a medicinal chemist working on substituted phenethylamines, no one referred to molecules aside from amphetamine proper as "amphetamine".
I'll just leave this here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition
Sort of? It's more like a derivative (has an extra methyl group) and it's far more potent. So it would not be correct to say it "is amphetamine".
Yeah sure, meth is an amphetamine.
Just like how the hydrocortisone I’m using for my eczema is a steroid, yet it would be unwise to confuse it with Winstrol or Dianabol.
> Also can you please link me to a study that shows a causal link between names of apps, and an increase in usage in that drug the app is named after?
How about this one? Considering that the app also has a picture of a pill as a logo, I think it would be ill-advised for former addicts to have the app installed. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00213-004-1828-4
Also have this blog post from psychology today https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-addiction/...
It's a successor of the (now-defunct) caffeine app which did mostly the same thing.
Given that most other coffee names were already taken, I can understand the logic of why they chose the name.
As you said though, it is now considered by many to be insensitive. So Apple it's probably in the right here.
I'm sure they would welcome suggestions on how to rebrand.
You are just displaying your ignorance here. Amphetamines are used in medications prescribed for narcolepsy (i.e. unwanted/inappropriate sleepiness), ADHD and obesity.
If you look at this and think of street meth, that's your own problem.
Regarding your comments in this thread (the worst of them are currently "dead") and in case you decide to keep posting on HN, you should take a look at the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The guidelines seem very reasonable and beneficial for the discussions, here are some excerpts:
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
BTW, I don't claim to follow the guidelines perfectly all the time, the reason I'm writing this comment is basically because I would have preferred if you managed to get your point across better.