Apple has threatened to remove Amphetamine from the App Store
github.com
github.com
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.
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.
The iOS App Store has got to go.
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.
What are some TV content that's similar to these banned apps?
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.
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.
Taking this literally, is an amphetamine an illegal drug? It’s a class of Schedule II drugs that are legal in all 50 states.
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.
Since the App store is global, it makes sense to just not allow anything that could run afoul of those rules.
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.
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.
Amphetamine rebranded to showcase it as a pill.
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.
>"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."
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.
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.
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.
This is not done by some random manager.
Huge fan of Amphetamine(the app) but its Apple’s walled garden. This nonsense is a consequence.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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).
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, too, shall pass.
Sounds like the Ray Ozzie motto
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.
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.
This is all ridiculous and I don't like where we're headed as a society.
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?
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.
This is why it keeps getting worse and worse. People just comply!
How is just using the word or a charicature of it encouraging drug use? This puritanism is a mind disease.
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.
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.
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).
They should be brave and rebrand it to Soma, nothing flies in the new world of apples and bananas.
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.
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.
While taking amphetamines.
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.
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.
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.
Probably won't sell well in Utah.
The name might also collide with apple's program "caffeinate" too.
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.
Are you referring to the widespread use of it as an ADHD medication for children all throughout the nation?
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.
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.
Clearly Apple has changed its mind.
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.
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.
This profession already exists, and has for at least a century. Where do you think the name "Exxon" came from?
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?
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...
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.
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.
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...).
No doubt your secops are trying to justify their existence like app store reviewers if this is what worries them!
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.
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.
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.
Related, the former are not amphetamine derivatives, which is a common misnomer.
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh2-iJj3dI0&ab_channel=Simon...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61FaYVGVY_I&ab_channel=Simon...
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 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.)
> 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...
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?
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...
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
That said there's a command line application that comes with MacOS X called caffeinate that does essentially the same thing.
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)
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.
See also: "Speed goat" which is another word for "antelope."
(Yes, I'm mostly joking. Just change the name.)
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 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.
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...
(Comply & Sue).
Watching devs willingly deal with apple is like watching someone pay for the privilege of being oliver twist.
I tweeted my suggestion of rebranding as “vigil” and selling “pro” features to allow branding as “provigil” (commercial modafinil name).
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.
On Windows, you could just host the msi or exe on your website.
This would be analogous to Microsoft kicking them off the windows app store. You could still download it manually.
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.
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.
Come join the happy world off Linux if you want to avoid that sort of corporate control
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...
If you’re feeling brave/stupid, try calling it something like Khat.
(No, Apple does not promote fruit consumption.)
You’re welcome.
Even for legal use the use of the name seems like an endorsement of sorts.
iViagra(TM): Keeps your Mac up
to ApplePhet
> 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-...
Ouch
> Customize Your Mac’s Sleep Settings
> Amphetamine gives you granular control
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.
Some irony there in complaining about the stigmatizing of a drug with high abuse potential then immediately stereotyping another.
Just saying.
> 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.
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?
Personally, I think this is a bad name for an app of this sorts. Caffeine is good one, amphetamine is borderline.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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!”
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?
It’s a clever name because it rhymes and they’re both stimulants. That’s all.
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.
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.
If you look at this and think of street meth, that's your own problem.