I mean, good for the app, but at this point this really makes my blood boil.
Each month, I use several hundred different "apps" (broader meaning)- how many of those are written by a two-person teams in Iraq or Kazakhstan who do not have thousands of monthly Medium readers? How many of your cache cleaners, debuggers, flashlights and mac utility managers are written by some kid in Northern England who never even heard of HN?
Every time somebody writes a "my app got finally restored :)" post hundreds or thousands of equally good and legit pieces of software get thrown into the abyss - and why? Because the author speaks no English, has no network, does not tweet enough. What a shitty reason.
In the long run, this makes the internet and tech culture as a whole more and more "Silicon Valley" and less and less diverse - and plain worse. Just because FAANG - the guys supposedly at the spearhead of AI innovation and diversity - cannot be bothered to moderate, except when there is a PR thread. I consider that quite the disgrace.
I want to agree with you, but I'm not going to use Cydia on my phone for my banking apps. At least the Apple app store makes some effort (liability is the wrong word) to make sure that my banking apps aren't fraudulent or scammer apps.
I have no such trust when downloading apps from alternate places
But why would you have concerns downloading a banking app directly from your bank? You have trusted them with your money, after all... With apple, you can't install and run software even from sources you trust, outside of apple.
Apple policy could be described as an insult to the scientific principles that led to computing, let alone user rights to run software on devices they own (somewhat established in courts).
"In the famous Apple v. Samsung lawsuit, Apple even claimed ownership of geometric shapes such as rectangles with rounded corners", cited from
The crisis of intellectual monopoly capitalism, Ugo Pagano
And that's great - the App Store serves a hugely useful purpose - but you shouldn't need to rely on an iPhone vulnerability and a jailbreak to opt out.
What would be your point if you know about evidence?
I mean I've read countless stories of app/software being thrown into abyss here on HN itself. Does Apple release any such data? Where does a guy with no network report to about such incidents?
“ I mean I've read countless stories of app/software being thrown into abyss here on HN itself”
Really? - I don’t remember the last time I read one. There are a few a year where there is a serious debate. Certainly plenty of people dislike the rules, but that isn’t the same as Apple just throwing away good apps.
I think the statement that hundreds of good apps are being thrown into the abyss is bullshit.
You are using the absence of evidence to support a strong claim.
We really don’t know whether there is any truth to it or not.
Given how many people seem to think this is such a problem, I’m surprised nobody has aggregated the stories.
"Voting with the dollar" does not generally work to change corporate behaviour because of oligopols, a multitude of issues and lack of transparency. A user might want to "talk to them" over privacy (buy Apple?) or "talk to them" over App censorship (boycott?).
I guess I was replying to him, but meant the general point. As long as people still treat Mac products as something that they want to be apart of they give a free pass to the behavior. Sure, speaking out does something, but not buying Apple tech does more to effect change.
Or maybe it's too late. Apple is so rich and so big, this is just people being ground up in the gears of bureaucracy.
>I guess I was replying to him, but meant the general point. As long as people still treat Mac products as something that they want to be apart of they give a free pass to the behavior.
That sounds like "if you don't like how this country is run, immigrate elsewhere" - used usually by right wingers.
How about people liking other aspects of the country (or, in this case, liking the OS, the hardware, the ecosystem, and so on) and considering them worth staying over the alternatives? Should they move to what they consider a sub-par platform to "make a point" about some App Store policies or some other such thing?
And if most people are fine even with those things (e.g. could not give less fucks how the country is run as long as they're doing ok or don't care about some App Store faults) how is small scale immigration/skipping platform wont get lost in the noise?
Boycotting companies is only a real tool when there are very heavy issues at stake, and millions of people agree on it, and also they thing there are perfectly fine alternatives for their use cases. Easy to boycott Nike when there's 100 sneaker brands that will do.
How about improving the country/platform in other ways? Including publishing opinions, pressure groups, shaming when necessary, and so on.
This argument is already covered, let me re-iterate clearer:
(a) this just sends a fuzzy signal they can easily ignore
(b) for the signal to not be fuzzy needs the coordination of millions (good luck)
(c) those millions will also hurt themselves in the process, assuming they otherwise like the platform and prefer using it over others, their complaints about it aside (e.g. I needs people to go like: "Yeah, sure, lemme change the OS and hardware I love because the App Store is not managed well or there's this or that other flow, great idea, that will show them!") [1]
(d) ...and even then the signal will still be fuzzy enough ("Hmm, many people left the platform. Was it because we don't have enough color options for our laptops or because we mistreated some app developers?").
[1] Obviously people who have major qualms with Apple (as opposed to minor) would easily leave/have already left. But those are not the majority of people using and liking Apple products that gives the company top satisfaction ratings every year for example. Those would be those that dislike Apple or its current product line, not those that merely want to punish it for this or that issue (e.g. App Store policies).
I don't, and this is not really an Apple problem - you can see the same on YouTube, Steam, gPlay, Windows Store, PayPal, Facebook Marketplace and whatever else. But I agree with you: Stopping to view tech giants as some kind of godking would be a nice first step, as a society.
There's no prerequisite on having a popular Medium blog, Twitter, etc for having lots of users. Applications have a large network, but little media presence.
Also, you're never going to get any network if Apple never approved your app in the place...
I mean you could also say "If you get thrown into jail unjustly and have nobody to advocate for you that just means that nobody cares for you at a person" and be right in the same way - that does not mean that this system is particular good and everyone should be proud of it.
Polemic metaphors aside, I don't think the relationship you propose (quality app > network > you get help) is very consistent or reliable. Say I make an app for soccer moms with millions of users - do you think I would get significant Twitter support from my customer base if my app went away? Conversely, don't you think I can get the radicalized 50 customers of my pro-genocide to scream very loud on Twitter for weeks?
This does not even touch on founders/devs who want to stay anonymous for whatever reasons and a lot of other edge cases. It is a shitty system.
I still think this wasn't an "Apple decision to ban the app". It was one reviewer (potentially two reviewers) interpreting the guideline in a weird way, and the publicity caused someone with both a functioning brain and authority to take a look and fix it.
This is the root cause behind sooo many "big company bans X" decisions. Each step in the review/appeals process has a false positive rate. If you have a 1% false positive rate, and 10000 apps, one of them will not only be taken down for no good reason, but the takedown will even be confirmed on appeal, purely due to human error.
I still always upvote the outrage posts, because they're the only way to get a third person to look at it.
To the commenter calling me a Randroid, I've only read the one book, and I absolutely do not consider myself to be in the latter category.
I'm absolutely a follower. I want an easy life. I'm not ashamed to admit it, and there is no shame in admitting that. The vast majority of us fit in this category.
That comment is actually good advice though. Whether Apple was ever going to reverse course was always entirely beyond their control, and the fact that they did doesn’t prove it was a good strategy to rely on them doing so.
Well complaining is free, and it certainly was worth trying as much as he did. It would have been a very poor choice of hill to die on though.
But as much as I think this is a dumb move by Apple, I think it’s also a dumb name. I personally would have just used it as an opportunity to rebrand with some free marketing thrown in with the anti-Apple furore.
Is it? I know a lot of HN thinks in terms of stocks, options, VC rounds etc. but time and energy is not 'free' either and is exactly what the author had to spend.
More virtue signalling from a company with little ethics, that uses modern day slavery to increase its cash reserves. Slavery and e-waste are some of the biggest problems humanity faces and Apple is at the top of the culpability list.
And here we are squabbling over an “offensive” app name.
Its a distraction and it’s the height of hypocrisy.
On e-Waste, Apple is the second highest rated tech company on environmental impact according to Greenpeace. The top rated company, the only one with a better rating than Apple, is Librem.
In terms of ethics, even Librem advise in their own literature that they cannot vouch for their upstream suppliers, the vast majority of which are in China. Presumably they don't have the resources to conduct the level of supplier auditing Apple carry out, there's no shame in that few companies do, I'm not knocking Librem they're fighting the good fight. Apple have ditched suppliers when they've found compliance violations though. Those are violations most other companies would never have even known about. Can you name another company that has actually done more on this issue than Apple?
The bottom line is the issue here is not Apple or Librem, or Amazon or any of the other companies doing business in China. They are all exposed to these risks. The problem is the Chinese government. Those are the people we need to be holding accountable.
Whatever you are talking about has zero relation to the topic at hand. Apple can do two things.
And the worst part is that you're correct, they have few ethics, ewaste is a problem, etc. But that has nothing to do with their app store policies which often are a problem as well.
Why is there a difference (or double standard) in how Apple treats those who can afford to buy an iPhone to those who are forced to build them?
From the AppStore submission policies:
"Apps that encourage consumption of tobacco and vape products, illegal drugs, or excessive amounts of alcohol are not permitted on the App Store ".
I don't believe "Apple can do two things" is a valid argument. You cannot promote "protecting" one set of people from drugs whilst exploiting another set of people for financial gain. It is twisted logic and we shouldn't stand for it.
That is the originally supplied reasoning that Apple gave the developer.
> Gustafson says Apple contacted him on December 29th and told him Amphetamine “appears to promote inappropriate use of controlled substances. Specifically, your app name and icon include references to controlled substances, pills.”
That sure sounds like Apple is trying to protect people from "inappropriate use of controlled substances", or more colloqually, "protecting people from drugs".
>Why is there a difference (or double standard) in how Apple treats those who can afford to buy an iPhone to those who are forced to build them?
Because the second group is at their mercy (or, the suppliers mercy, where chinese, taiwanese, indian, etc) for feeding their families, "free market" BS aside.
That's not Apple, that's capitalism in general (or any system where you're not given something like a UBI or ample social wealfare so that you can only work on production lines and such by choice).
It's not just capitalism as in capitalist's either. The whole "western world" benefits from such cheap goods, even people working McJobs at home. That said, there's a balance there, because after some point working/middle class jobs also go abroad, and new ones replacing them domestically are either crappier lower-wage than before or not-created. The 10% will always benefit from cheaper goods though - and they will be those with high quality jobs that can't/won't yet be jobs outsourced.
Now, pro-market people would say that at least this guys the developing countries some jobs, they wouldn't have otherwise, and low/exploitative wages and conditions of work are better than no jobs at all.
(That's debatable: often the developing folk are forced to go work in the cities/factories because of policies devastating their rural communities, not because of some free choice to "ascend" themselves in the rat race).
IMHO, the alternative would require either some kind of universal raise of both salaries (to total global equality) and costs of living (to same), or trade and outsourcing restrictions (so to avoid the race to the bottom).
You really expect ethics from corporation? They are not human. They do not feel empathy. If you want them to act a certain way, it has to be put in law.
That, or it has to otherwise affect their bottom line.
Laws are sticks. Profits are carrots.
Reduce the costs of doing the right thing, and suddenly companies will do just that.
Look at the difference in Obama's treatment of corporate inversions and Trump's treatment of it with the TCJA -- as well as the associated repatriation tax holiday.
The human review process in the app store leaves a lot to be desired for consistency. I've worked on multiple apps that were denied during an update renewal for something that wasn't part of the update and was already approved. If a specific app gets approved or denied often has a lot to do with which reviewer picks it up.
While it seems like bad press has changed the review outcome it is plausible to me that the stance would be reversed regardless because it's such a grey area in the rules.
For what it’s worth, non-human review processes are equally problematic. Just look at all the automated shutdowns of YouTube channels for bogus reasons.
I’m not sure there any evidence the PR had any effect. This was about apple’s appeal process working as intended.
Id much rather have a human involved with some inconsistency and an appeal process, than an automated algorithm or rigid process that is consistently wrong.
There has been enough anecdotal evidence by now to show a pattern. The silent appeals often fail, while publicized appeals, accompanied by public outrage, are often successful.
Their intention is to make money (they do). And to do so, they have to maintain a good image and please different crowds. Some of them want very restrictive regulation, some none at all.
Not possible to make them all happy and very expensive to try.
So they indeed make decisions based on public "feedback".
Is this fair? No.
But walled gardens by monopolists are never fair. But this is sadly where the money is.
Can you provide some examples of legitimate but failed silent appeal, because on the other hand I think of quite a few publicized illegitimate appeal that failed not matter what. Fortnite being the incontestable leader of this category.
You may be right but we should gather some metrics before jumping to claims about correlation between publicity/outcome. Perception bias is inevitable when remembering anecdotal evidences.
Well it would be nice to have an independent plateform to track and compare review process of the different appstore. Maybe EFF or a news outlet could think of that.
As a developer you may not have enought follower to publicize widely but you could fill a report. Theses report could then be audited by the independent plateform to label claims as legitimate or not (and maybe publicized or not).
I acknowledge this is a huge work, but this would be a good way to make a strong case and eventually go to court together. Collecting anecdotal evidence is not enough and is always biases toward publicized cases.
> Developers of certain apps should run to Congressional antitrust committees. Some of them already have.
Questioning the standard HN stance on this topic has led to instant downvotes for me before, but I'd genuinely like clarity on why it's considered a matter of civil liberty to develop whatever you want and force Apple to distribute it on their store?
I honestly don't understand it, and I'd really like someone to explain it to me, instead of just downvoting.
It's mainly because Apple (or Google or whatever other monopoly you can think of) has accrued so much power that they can stifle competitors by replicating the competitors' features, entire products (and offer them for free), and engage in anti-competitive practices. All of these companies have hoards of cash and can basically ice out any smaller contender indefinitely. This is basically why the exit strategy of many startups is "get acquired by FAANG and friends".
The issue about civil liberty is a byproduct, a stop-gap measure to deal with the monopoly that currently exists. The actual issue is that these companies have accrued for too much power that it prevents competition. Is the product good? Yes or folks wouldn't buy it. That doesn't negate the incentives to behave in an anti-competitive way due to shareholder supremacy. I recall that most publicly-traded organizations could be sued by their shareholders for not pursuing clearly profitable ventures (e.g. replicating a popular product with their vast resources).
[ed: completely missed that this is macOS, not iOS, so much of the criticism here isn't valid]
Wouldn't have to force Apple to put it on their store store if they allowed third-party stores.
These devices aren't just phones, in fact the phone is the minor function these days. They're computers in fact and in the marketing copy, yet Apple exerts monopoly power[1] to capriciously decide what may run on the device that I bought, paying upwards ofa thousand dollars for[2].
[1] in terms of app revenue iOS is dominant. Apple is able to dictate usurious and abusive terms and vendors are effectively forced to capitulate due to the size of the market they control.
[2] I don't actually have an iPhone despite the superiority because of this, but couching it in third-person terms is awkward.
In this case, of course, the software could have been distributed outside of the store since the platform was macOS. As such, much of the issue was that Apple claims to apply their rules fairly and sanely on their store, and it was clear that this was not happening.
> capriciously decide what may run on the device that I bought, paying upwards of a thousand dollars for
But aren't there alternative phone devices that you or anyone else is free to choose? There are even phones that can install open-source operating systems. So an Apple device isn't strictly a 'monopoly' is it?
In fact, the high price of the device could be said to operate against it being a monopoly: unlike (say) Amazon, that squeezes out local competition by strategically under-pricing until all other alternatives are unable to remain economically viable.
For me, these contentions seem to conflate a company's success with monopoly power.
I as a consumer am free to choose alternative devices, and I have. A vendor is constrained to go where the money is, and on mobile devices, Apple serves as the sole gatekeeper to a lot of money. And the vendors pay a usurious 30% cut to Apple because there is no alternative. And high prices like that are absolutely indicative of a monopoly. Do you think Hey would still be in the app store if Basecamp didn't raise a huge stink and Apple didn't have a pending antitrust hearing? For a monetization strategy that's identical to Netflix? If alternative processors were allowed for in-app purchases is 30% really the natural commission they would all charge? If it were allowed to say, "hey, if you subscribe through the website it'll be 25% cheaper because we don't have to pay the App Store commission", how many people do you think would take the cheaper option?
We can argue about technical definitions of what constitutes monopoly until the cows come home. But look at the behavior of vendors and the knock-on detrimental effects on consumers (high prices, lack of choice): these are the effects of monopoly, and the harms that that antitrust legislation is meant to prevent.
Stripe is successful without being a monopoly. Nokia phones had the market share to be called a monopoly, but they didn't wield monopoly power. Shimano is absolutely dominant in bicycle drivetrains, but if they tried anything from the monopolist's playbook bicycle vendors would laugh at them and SRAM would eat their lunch.
> And the vendors pay a usurious 30% cut to Apple because there is no alternative.
Fortunately for developers, there is an alternative. Most desktop/laptop computers run some flavor of Windows, which you can develop and distribute software for without paying any gatekeepers.
It absolutely is a monopoly. They control the distribution within an OS that a good chunk of the population uses. Phones are not commodity devices that one can build in a shack - they require significant effort and investment, and it’s not realistic to say that PinePhone is going to be a viable alternative to Android and iOS anytime soon. This is akin to Microsoft becoming the gatekeeper of every single application you run on Windows under the guise of “it’s for your own good” - it would be infringing on your consumer rights, and you would have little decent alternatives to run Photoshop and Illustrator (without shelling out thousands on a Mac computer of course).
There is no realistic way to move between these giant platforms. As a consumer, once you’ve purchased services and applications, you are pretty much locked to the ecosystem. This is another aspect that requires legislation.
Taking this problem into account, it is monopoly power. Allowing this party software installation is the only solution.
In this case, since it’s on macOS, the problem is moot. But on iOS, that is the only solution that will benefit consumers.
Oh well, as the downvotes have started I may as well say that I'm genuinely not convinced by any of these arguments. And I'm not in any way an Apple 'fan-boy' - I'm very much opposed to how deceptive the app-subscription system can be, and hate the monetized apps aimed at children (and have written to Apple many times about these matters).
But pretty much the only substantive argument in favor of using legislation to attack Apple's 'monopoly' always seems to boil down to "their system is so much better than the alternatives that the user is locked-in".
If that's the best HN has got, then I think the standard stance is basically sour grapes.
Anyway, as others have pointed out, Amphetamine could totally have been distributed outside the supposed 'monopoly' store environment - so the app-developers bleating was especially egregious.
I'm not sure it's a matter of civil liberty, but I think it's definitely an issue of social responsibility.
imo, it's desirable to live in a world where anyone can code up any app they want, and share it with people. This seems like a given to me if you care about equitable access to information technology or whatever.
Apple is creating a world where they're the only realistic way to get apps onto the personal computing devices of a large share of society.
Since that's Apple's choice, it's their responsibility to reconcile these two points.* If they're not doing that, it seems appropriate for society to create better incentives for Apple.
(* Promoting and processing payments for every sketchy unverified submission is probably not the right way to go about that, sure.)
Let me put a simple analogy. Assuming the future continues with digitisation, whether that is online or offline, and Visa or MasterCard dedicate what you can sell, use or buy with their Network.
People will come and argue you can use cash with Offline. But what about online? Are these people left without a large portion of online opportunities?
People will argue you should start your own OS / Smartphone if you dont like it, Why dont people start their own Payment network ?
The reason why we dont have those problem with payment much is because of regulation. I couldn't think of a single industry which has more regulation than Finance.
One you have grown big enough into a Duopoly, and a foundation platform of the Digital Society, there are more responsibility to be hold. You can no longer act like Apple in 2010 when they dont have the market shares or the importance.
So the question is, why should two companies be so powerful to dictate all of our Digital Life, when Digital has increasingly become the norm.
Before Apple shifted its strategy to Services Revenue. App Store as an App Distribution platform was fine. That was 2015. Teaching App is't required to have Apple Sign in, 30% wasn't required for Education Apps to more than a few peoples. IAP wasn't strictly enforce for non-gaming Apps. And what apple calls "Reader" Apps, that is Netflix or the recent Hey.com didn't have much a problem. Right now Apple is trying to extract all the values it can, while being the gate keeper of the possibly largest Economic platform known to human history.
That doesn't just make Apple the Judge Jury and the Executioner. They are also the Tax Code writer and the Collector.
I consider it to be the lazy/pragmatic approach to change things without having to deal with drastic problems that would arise from changing plattforms, like with many other topics.
People who are inside apples universe don't want the hazzle to get out of it. They rather want to influence the universe they are in, by all means avaiable. Where the legal system is the most powerful one to have an direct impact.
Same applies to facebook, microsoft, etc.
I can understand it as pragmatic, but personally I rather want to invest in open plattforms by default, instead of trying to change fundamentally flawed ones to make them somewhat bearable.
> but I'd genuinely like clarity on why it's considered a matter of civil liberty to develop whatever you want and force Apple to distribute it on their store?
Ideally the store wouldn't exist, or at least it would be possible to bypass it.
You supposedly bought the device, you should be able to run whatever you damn please on it.
Are you able to build your own programs on the dishwasher? On the vacuum cleaner? Is your car's ECU readily programmable?
Because the way I see it and the way Apple markets the iDevices, they're not general computing devices.
They're not computers in the Wozniak, IBM, Stallman, Torvalds sense.
They're not DIY devices.
The DIY tinkerer friendly computers exist and are sold as of today with various levels of DIY-ness -- and their user friendliness and security often suck because of their very nature.
It's literally because of the openness and customizability that the Linux desktop experience sucks HARD for any kind of non-programmer professional usage. (And before you hit that reply button, i KNOW that YOUR i3 no-mouse vim emacs org-mode Arch setup works just fine. I'm not talking about you.)
It's because of it, that your parents and grandparents' Windows boxes get viruses, because Windows apps regularly ship 200kB custom "installers" that download everything and spawn per-app daemons that handle software updates and everything is permitted and nothing makes sense.
It's because of it, that sw piracy is rampant on Android, that the Google Play is full of shitty iOS app clones, fakes and outright malware, that end users can buy Android devices that are outdated on their launch day, that are full of LONG KNOWN vulnerabilities that the manufacturer doesn't give a shit about.
And what you're saying is you want the manufacturer (Apple) introduce new, insecure functionality (app sideloading) into an appliance (iDevice) that was never supposed to have said functionality, because the appliance reminds you somehow of a general purpose computing device, despite the fact that neither Apple nor the (overwhelming) majority of the users consider it to be one.
> Are you able to build your own programs on the dishwasher? On the vacuum cleaner? Is your car's ECU readily programmable?
I sure hope so. You should be able to do whatever you want with your own property.
> It's because of it, that sw piracy is rampant on Android
I don't see how Android app piracy is bad for consumers. If anything it seems to be a selling point to many in low income regions.
> Google Play is full of shitty iOS app clones, fakes and outright malware
Yes indeed. Just goes to show that walled gardens are not necessarily an effective strategy for stopping malware. The Apple App Store has had it's own fair share of malware also.
> Android devices that are outdated on their launch day
Because makers of appliances (such as those you mentioned in the beginning) are well know to always provide software updates with the latest security patches for many years (No, they aren't).
> Are you able to build your own programs on the dishwasher? On the vacuum cleaner? Is your car's ECU readily programmable?
My dishwasher wasn't marketed as a platform for third-party wash cycles, the way iOS is. But I don't see how a customizable dishwasher wouldn't be strictly better than what we have at the moment.
On the other hand, my dishwasher doesn't try to limit the brand of soap that I use.
> You supposedly bought the device, you should be able to run whatever you damn please on it.
I do not condone any of their practices, and I dislike Apple, but... before you bought the device, you knew that you would not be able to run whatever you damn please on it, right? If so, why did you buy it? If not, can you not return it? In any case, we, the people, should buy products that allow us to do just that. I know that we do not have a huge selection of these devices, in all fairness. They all suck in some way or another, and we do need a phone...
> before you bought the device, you knew that you would not be able to run whatever you damn please on it, right? If so, why did you buy it? If not, can you not return it?
Maybe you didn't realize the issue at the time. Maybe you got it as a gift (from your parents, for example). Maybe the choice seemed more viable back then, before the noose tightened (jailbreaking, safetynet, etc). Maybe you didn't really have a choice (for example, here in Sweden, BankID is pretty much mandatory at this point).
We don't let grocery stores sell rotten food, and then blame the people who buy it.
> I do not think that buying rotten food is the way to fight against the grocery store selling it. Do you believe it to be a good strategy?
I have never bought an Apple device, but have been forced by circumstances to use them in the past. But as I said, people make mistakes, and circumstances change. As is perhaps more relevant to me, Android isn't looking all that much better these days.
You do need to eat. And it looks like soon rotten food will be all that is available.
> What do you think about BankID being mandatory?
I hate it, but I can't really do much about it. Uninstalling it would mean losing access to:
1. All bank accounts
2. All insurance accounts
3. Filing my tax returns
4. Union account
5. Bostadsrättsförening account (think: home owners' association for appartment)
6. Mobile plan management
7. ...
I don't think that's a reasonable ask for the "privilege" of being able to use whatever damn phone you please.
There is finally some talk of building alternatives for it, but most of it seems to go in the direction of OAuth: they all fundamentally verify you the same way, and it's up to each service provider to support each of them separately. Expected end result for the citizen.. instead of needing a device that runs BankID, you need one in the intersection of BankID, Freja eID+, and whatever else crops up.
> You do need to eat. And it looks like soon rotten food will be all that is available.
I do not believe it to be the case. As long as I have fire, I can cook stews of legumes which are healthy, for example, and quite cheap. In any case, I do not know where you are, but it does not seem likely around here.
> Android isn't looking all that much better these days.
Because it really is not. I do not know of a phone that is worth having. Maybe Librem, but I have not yet tried it. :/
> I hate it, but I can't really do much about it. Uninstalling it would mean losing access to [...]
Well yeah, this is where we should think about something that would help us achieve our goal. I do not have the answers, sadly.
> I'd genuinely like clarity on why it's considered a matter of civil liberty to develop whatever you want and force Apple to distribute it on their store?
Some value the civil liberties of individuals more than that of corporations.
This isn't a civil liberties issue, it is an antitrust issue.
Companies that produce good products and market them well accrue power. At some point the incentives change, and the company starts to squeeze locked in customers, suppliers etc. who have nowhere else to turn to. In order to maintain a healthy market economy the government is forced to handicap the 'winner' by splitting them up, enforcing regulations, etc.
We've already seen Google prepare for this with Alphabet; Facebook went the other direction, integrating their acquired subsidiaries to make such a breakup technically difficult.
Microsoft narrowly escaped a breakup in the early 00's but with the new surveillance capitalism companies I see much bigger market threats and winner-take-all power than Microsoft had then. If you look at Apple, they are much harder to compete with than Microsoft was due to their complete vertical integration. At some point the government needs to step in and restore market balance, some way or another, or the entire small business and hobby side which is the seed for the next generation of technological innovation will die before it can really be born.
App Store at the time was not part of Services Strategy and huge profit generating machine. App Store was used as a moat to sell iPhone. Steve always had a product strategy. Just like iTunes was used to sell iPod. It also kept things simple.
Apps and Smartphone was also not a necessity like they are today in a modern society. Steve passed away in 2011. That was the iPhone 4S. It is not even far fetch to say most of the world at the time were not even on Smartphone. ( It is crazy we think back now, how they world have changed in the space of 8-9 years.)
I did like to think Steve will have a different perspective. Tim Cook is exceptionally at execution. But he is not customer centric enough to see through the problem.
> "If you run to the press and trash us, it never helps."
Bullies.
Apple has so much power. They crush everyone like ants. They're a gravitational black hole in our industry.
We need the DOJ to force Apple to open the platform. Nobody should be forced to give up their customers to "Apple Login", pay a 15% tax, or be tied at the neck to Apple for distribution.
And not just apps! Web on Apple is held back because nobody can put a non-Safari rendering engine on the device. Or custom runtimes. This, too, needs to end.
Apple already makes a fuck ton of money, and they will continue to do so. They're making a car and a film studio, for fuck's sake. They shouldn't own all of computing for 50% of Americans. Not to mention these people will be increasingly cut off behind their own commerce Berlin Wall. It's like Apple customers are a nation state of pawns at Apple's disposal.
Complain to your representatives. Use the government. That's what it's there for.
You'll never convince average Americans about the complexity of the problem. This is a massive systems problem, and we need law to guide how the system should operate so that the ecosystem around Apple doesn't suffer.
Or, perhaps, it’s not a system problem at all. “You’re all too dumb to understand this” isn’t much of an argument.
Getting the DOJ and congress to force Apple to open their platform is generally a terrible idea, and will not likely find broad support in the US or EU.
The fever dreams here of getting the US Congress to break up / force to open / regulate one of its darlings is surreal.
Not only is it politically and legally highly dubious (listen to the judge in the Epic case , she can barely contain her contempt for Epic’s line of argument), it will cause far more problems than it solves.
Solution 3, the most common solution available and that has a 100% track record: the market changes. People build new things, people buy different things. They don’t necessarily stop buying iPhones, but it becomes less important.
Case in point, Microsoft retains a PC monopoly with Windows. People still buy PCs. But no one really cares that much.
The smartphone App Store market is barely a decade old and we are ready to treat it like a utility to be enshrined for 50 years. It took decades to regulate electrical generation vs distribution. It also didn’t really “open things up”, it just enshrined the existing players as the standards.
The only pipe dream here is that the government will somehow force Apple to run other people’s App Store software on their devices, and remove any curation ability. Considering that curation and integration is what Customers actually want, I don’t see how any government enacts this in the consumer interests. It’s only in the interests of other vendors.
At best it would be an independent App Store approval process regulated by the government.
It absolutely is regulation. The vast majority of computers dating back to the 1960s didn’t allow you to install anything you wanted on them (if you wanted support!). My network switches (outside of merchant silicon) don’t allow it. The game consoles don’t allow it. My in-car computer doesn’t allow it.
The Personal Computer with its tinkerer and hobbyists roots is the exception. I think tinkering is great. But I also think it’s legitimate for a user to trust their device can’t be tinkered with.
The restrictions of the iPhone are a feature. Getting rid of them is getting rid of one of the main drivers for its success. I think forcing Apple to allow jailbreaks without blocks is legit, as it allows for tinkering. But that’s not generally what people have in mind: they want the full Apple experience except Apple can’t set the rules anymore, but retain all the responsibilities for support.
Let’s also be clear - if I was a software developer, I can download and install my own software on my iPhone - without jailbreak! - today, without the App Store, and without Apple review, using ad hoc distribution. So personal software install and tinkering has never never been the issue.
This is about ISVs that want to force apple to lower their security restrictions so their 3rd party stores can curate and sell whatever they want, and Apple still has to support everyone.
This is not going to happen by the EU or US governmentS. At best they might regulate the App store process. But governments won’t cross customers and customers will en masse object to a Wild West experience like the PC.
I do appreciate computers that don’t have restrictions, but I don’t want or need that in my phone. If you do, then go ahead and buy one that acts that way. The happy iPhone users will continue to live in their walled garden.
It has been 30 years, but there are FCC technical rules for consumer radio's. There are specific rules for channel requirements. Includes the ability to receive on all defined channels in the alloted band.
The comment about banning single channel radio's was from an old ham radio book. If you think about it an old school AM radio that works on a single channel can be made really cheaply. I think you only need one tube and a couple of components.
If you look online you don't see anything about technical requirements. But you do notice that historically the FCC has had a serious bug up it's butt about making sure no one could buy up all the stations in an area. So you can imagine what the old FCC thought about radio stations selling radio's that can't pick up their competitors stations.
I don't use apple products. Voting with your wallet is the only kind of voting the corporates understand.. besides shitstorms on social media.
I use Android but will pay for a Linux phone as soon as one can be bought here in Denmark (importing can be really expensive) and I would happily pay a monthly fee to not be tracked/targeted (be free of Google at last).
That's your opinion. Android is not perfect but at least I am free to sideload anything I want without jailbreak so I'm not stuck in Google's walled garden.
>I can't stop giving Apple money, because it will very adversely affect the quality of my life
Jesus, in what first world is giving up on Apple impacting one's quality of life? This is meme material.
Of course it's my opinion. Did you read it as an universal statement on everyone's behalf?
And it is my world where giving up Apple smartphones and tablets will effectively means not using any of these, because as I said there are no suitable alternatives. So doing that will make my life far less convenient and comfortable than it is and it's not a real option.
"Jesus, in what first world is giving up on Apple impacting one's quality of life?"
Likewise, this is also just your opinion. Why can't you accept other peoples opiniin on their idea of quality of life?
And it actually makes sense to me (even though I never use apples products). Because it means changing (allmost) all your apps and software. Everything you set up to your liking. Don't you think changing this is hard and therefore lowers quality of life?
Sure, if you feel a walled garden improves your life go ahead, but don't be surprised later when the owner of the garden takes advantage of you being locked in.
It's almost like you can both have a successful economy (EU, Germany, etc) and not throw the underclass under the bus (consumer protections, free healthcare).
I agree with most of what you say. The walled garden bullshit they pull with the iphone and their other products should not be legal. I don't care if customers "want it". Just as apple is willing to call it's prospective customers who want more control over it's products "stupid", I will call anyone who knowingly buys a device they fundementally don't control (e.g. no sudo) "stupid". In situations where customers are "stupid", proper recourse can be found through government and/or legal action.
It's especially bad because apple legitimately makes better built products than competitors. It's too bad that they use this lucrative position to take a sh*t all over not-"stupid" customers while simultaneously baiting the uninformed masses into giving away their computing freedom.
Proper adblocking is not even a consideration for most iphone users. Apple users have few defenses against predatory marketing and attention leeches. That's horrible for society, and a user shouldn't be forced to choose between good build quality and controlling their device...
There were some very coherent arguments here about why the name Amphetamine should be abandoned and the energy fighting spent elsewhere.
I am surprised too - well done.
Sad to hear that "raise a stink on HN" is one of the only ways to catch an actual human's live attention at a mega corp.
In a better world, this whole issue would have been averted by the first-level support escalating it to the supervisor who would have used common sense and the liberties of his leadership position.
> Sad to hear that "raise a stink on HN" is one of the only ways to catch an actual human's live attention at a mega corp.
It’s not. There’s an appeals process staffed by humans. He used it. This is the result.
Unless I’ve missed something, there’s no indication raising a stink helped in this case. The original article mentioned that he’d appealed the rejection with Apple which was still pending. This is the result of that appeal. In all likelihood this was a trigger-happy reviewer whose decision was always going to be reversed on appeal. Had the appeal failed, then that would have been newsworthy.
Apple has other problems, but it’s not difficult to get human attention from Apple when they reject your application. Use the appeals process; you always get to a human. I think perhaps you’re mixing it up with Google? They are notorious for leaving developers stranded with automated rejections without any route to speaking to a human.
> Unless I’ve missed something, there’s no indication raising a stink helped in this case
Of course, there's no way to know. But do you 100% honestly believe reaching the frontpage of HN yesterday had nothing to do with the appeal being accepted today?
Like you say, there’s no way to know for certain. But I 100% honestly believe this was the likely outcome regardless of any media attention. I’ve appealed plenty of dumb Apple decisions in the past and this is the normal outcome when there’s no media attention at all.
He filed the appeal, he didn’t wait for the result. The result has now come in. It’s a massive assumption to attribute that result to media attention.
Perhaps if your only experience of the Apple review process is hearing about it when it pops up on Hacker News then it’s easy to make the assumption that the media did this, because the media is always involved in those cases. But this is what happens without the media getting involved as well.
All valid points, and I do agree that the most likely outcome was this. That said, the media storm basically guaranteed it, and there is a very important difference between those two probabilities, even if the expected outcome is the same.
Apple (and arguably most medium to large tech vendors) don’t make decisions based on HN opinion/fashion, which is about as consistent as their review process.
I agree but guys, let’s admit that that train has left the station. This is a well-trodden path at this point, it’s one of the only weapons you have when you’re in their position.
Apple. The company that got its name thanks to Jobs tripping on acid! It's incredibly sad that they ever banned an app over a drugs name in the first place.
It is ironic... Even more so considering their 1984 ad. Consider that they are now in a position to ban programs from running on their devices at all.
All of these types of issues would evaporate if they were not in that position: banning programs over concern of public image (can't be even tangentially associated with drugs), irreconcilable political differences between countries (can't block criticism of a dictatorship without being undemocratic)... this is why anything resembling an app store should be federated, and the ability to install individual programs at will of the user should never be suppressed. But selling the most expensive and high profit electronics on the planet was not enough.
> In the Steve Jobs biography, Jobs told Walter Isaacson he was “on one of my fruitarian diets” and had just come back from an apple farm, and thought the name sounded “fun, spirited and not intimidating.”
It depends on how seriously you disagree; the answer thus somewhere between run for office and ultimately you have to accept the limitations of cumulative representation.
It looks to me like this was just a standard rejection and appeal. Some human reviewer noticed the app was technically potentially breading the guidelines and flagged it. The developer appealed and another more senior reviewer reversed the decision. I’m pretty sure this would have been the result regardless of the press the issue has gotten and it’s something Apple OS devs face at least a few times in their career.
In a process with human reviewers there will be mistakes and reversals all the time. Creating a fuss before you’ve even attempted to appeal the decision seems disingenuous and a way to create some PR.
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 cannot understand why corporations give any credence to the concept of demonizing individual words or concepts. To me, it is just as bad as demonizing technology.
So many comments written due to assuming that it's about iOS where App Store is the only method of app distribution. Apparently scarcely anybody reads TFA.
As far as the actual issue goes, it's their App Store, they have their rules and are free to execute them as they see fit. Given how you can easily distribute your apps outside of App Store, it's a completely different situation from the duopoly on mobile devices, where developers don't have a choice.
My guess is that some "policy" person/team needs to report they "removed xyz apps violating ToS per week" as their quality bar, so they actively seek any reason for banning an app. It's the same reason why companies dumb down their UI, make weird "unique" choices or remove useful functionality, because some team needs to report work.
App Review seriously needs to stop rejecting app updates for things that have nothing to do with that particular update. How many times do we see them suddenly rejecting version #250 because they found a problem with something that had been in place for the entire lifetime of the app (such as its name, or some key feature)?
Let's face it, this is a hilarious HN episode: all the pitchforks that came out to protest Apple's 'monopoly' appstore, when the app-developer was actually totally free to distribute the application outside the appstore in any way he wished - but actually wanted to force Apple to distribute it for him, INSIDE the appstore.
I'm glad you are here to defend apple, you should write up a medium article asking apple to reverse their decision. Clearly apple was wrong to reverse it.
>I'm glad you are here to defend apple, you should write up a medium article asking apple to reverse their decision. Clearly apple was wrong to reverse it.
What a strange personal attack.
I'm not here to "defend Apple", but there's an undeniable irony in all of the posts decrying Apple's supposed 'monopolistic' rules 'forcing' developers to use the AppStore, when this application could have been freely distributed outside the AppStore - which was precisely what the developer did not want to do.
FWIW, I'm with you down here at the bottom. The developer wants to
distribute non-free software and wants Apple's help. Why should we
sympathize with either party?
Yup. Both parties here are in the wrong. Apple for their shitty walled garden model no one should participate in but in which people are coerced to participate due to their profit motive. And the Amphetamine developer for primarily caring about the profits he can achieve from getting into the walled garden and going so far as to demand access to another's (really shitty and lame) property.
Hey, sorry yeah my sarcasm was a little misplaced. Clearly on Mac which is a semi open platform (at least more open than iOS) the option to not use the App Store is available. The problem with your argument imo is that it can be extended to iOS where apple has the best hardware and software but force you to use their store. And in this store they abuse developers in a similar manner to what they do here.
Wanting to participate in a marketplace doesn’t necessarily imply that you agree with how that marketplace is run in every detail. Especially when it seems that there is one set of rules for Netflix and Amazon and another for everyone else.
It would be fine except the user has no way of proving to the developer they already bought the app, which would be handy for continuing to get updates elsewhere. Apple doesn't share anything about who bought what.
This isn’t quite correct. Vendors can and do verify Mac App Store purchases with applications deployed outside the Mac App Store. The installed bundle contains a receipt you can validate yourself. I think there is a gap where if you delete the application, then Apple removes it from the Mac App Store, you can’t reinstall it to get the receipt, but that’s a bit of an edge case; the majority of customers will be “upgrading” from the Mac App Store version to a newer non-Mac App Store version in a situation like this.
Also, if you have user accounts and plan for it in advance, you should upload the receipt to your server and associate it with a user account, which makes some things like this a lot easier.
I had the same thought, but more as an illustration of why the approval process worked exactly as Apple would like here: they likely want to establish a barrier against whimsical provocative marketing but not against serious app development.
If you're willing to make a serious case for why your app is called "Heroin" they might approve it. If you're clearly doing it to make a point, they have every incentive to censor it.
For the record I'm not a fan of this sort of censorship either.
But I'm guessing their aversion to drug references is more to avoid offending people than to discourage drug use: opiate (and amphetamine) abuse is a pretty serious problem around the world, and a lot of people have lost family or years of their own lives to addiction. Naming an app after something with so much destructive potential---and as a marketing gimmick, no less---might seem a bit insensitive to some of these people.
Again, I'm not saying I agree with this logic, but it's a perspective to be mindful of.
Each month, I use several hundred different "apps" (broader meaning)- how many of those are written by a two-person teams in Iraq or Kazakhstan who do not have thousands of monthly Medium readers? How many of your cache cleaners, debuggers, flashlights and mac utility managers are written by some kid in Northern England who never even heard of HN?
Every time somebody writes a "my app got finally restored :)" post hundreds or thousands of equally good and legit pieces of software get thrown into the abyss - and why? Because the author speaks no English, has no network, does not tweet enough. What a shitty reason.
In the long run, this makes the internet and tech culture as a whole more and more "Silicon Valley" and less and less diverse - and plain worse. Just because FAANG - the guys supposedly at the spearhead of AI innovation and diversity - cannot be bothered to moderate, except when there is a PR thread. I consider that quite the disgrace.