Hacker News Reader

Comment by Bodell | Hacker News Reader

Honestly if your name your product stupid things I would think that some of us might be choosing not to download your product as a result. And if a store decides not to sell your product because of this it’s really their prerogative. Saying you violated their terms with impunity for 6 years doesn’t mean they lose the right to correct the mistake.

This name is pretty rings rather badly in my ears, though I’m not offended by such things. I’d feel similarly if they had named it “fuck sleep”. I’m not offended by the word “fuck” but I don’t really want to buy products that are named that. Do apps need energy drink names to be successful? I’ve noticed a trend in talking about men’s balls in ads, manscaping, underwater fart jokes. It’s seems so much like idiocracy more then something offensive.

On the other hand a rose is still a rose. So I agree they should probably just rename it. I doubt there would be any major loss from doing so.

View on HN

> I’m not offended by the word “fuck” but I don’t really want to buy products that are named that.

Then don't. How is this relevant? They say the app has been downloaded 500,000 times, so many people are fine with the name.

These stories keep coming; they should remind us that nothing is more precious than the open web, and all those stores or walled gardens, their "rules" and vague TOS are the ennemy.

It is less that the rules are vague than that the rules are whatever Apple says they are today, for you.

Apple was promoting Amphetamine not that long ago:

https://apps.apple.com/us/story/id1470456860

Yeah. Clearly one team at Apple feels (or felt) that the name was no impediment to them marketing it. Like all corporations, Apple is just a congregation of human beings, rather than a synchronized hive mind. But it's problematic if app authors can't trust in consistency as a result.

FWIW, it's a net downside for me that my professional workstation has an app named "Amphetamine", so I'm quietly in favor of a rename. But it's obviously the author's prerogative to choose its branding, so long as it falls within (consistently) applied policies of those who they rely on to distribute it.

How is it a net downside? The entire purpose of the App Store being locked down is that it's reliable. There is no way any HR department will launch an investigation because you downloaded an app called Amphetamine. Worst case scenario they go look it up and realize there's nothing more to the situation.

I'd have to see a documented event of this happening rather than a hypothetical scenario to believe a downside actually exists.

Just because your HR would be ok with it doesn’t mean all would be

Who is dumb enough to think people get drugs by installing an app called Amphetamine, monitors user software installs anally AND also lets users install their own software locally in the first place?

Most corporate PCs are windows. On a fraction of the macs users are allowed to install their own software, on a tiny fraction of those amphetamine is installed, on a tiny fraction of a fraction of those maybe someone exists who has a problem with HR.

I'm not sure the last subset actually exists in the real world nor that we ought to support censorship to help imaginary people deal with imaginary morons.

Just because you imagine it's a problem doesn't mean it is.

Like they said, doc or it didn't happen.

This, I think is perhaps the biggest item in the developer's favour. That Apple themselves found the name palatable enough to promote the app on the front page of their App Store with the existing name.

I download and use the app despite the name. I’m not okay with it, but I need the features it offers and there isn’t a better alternative with a better name. There used to be (called Caffeine) but it disappeared from the store and I’m not sure why.

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

But do you believe Apple should be the ultimate arbitrator of such silly things like the name of an app you create?

In their environment that they clearly indicate is their environment from the outset? Yes..

They are not telling the author they can't call his app whatever they want. They are saying they will not sell it in their app store under that name.

And that's the bargain you enter into when you sell in a walled garden ecosystem.

> They are saying they will not sell it in their app store under that name.

But they were indeed selling it under that name for 6 years!

How would you like it if you spend a lot of money to advertise your company or product and create a brand value to it, to one day Apple telling you that they would like you to change the name or they will not distribute it on their store?

Yes, the app store is a closed environment where they can dictate some terms. But don't forget that the developers PAY THEM to use it, and as such their terms cannot trump the consumer laws that exist to protect against such abuse. (By the way, "my shop, my terms" have already faced legal scrutiny some of which were found to be illegal - popular ones include refusing to serve people of colour or gays.)

They are also doing everything they can to block people from distributing apps outside of their walled garden.

So they are in fact telling the author that he can't call his app whatever he wants. Because if he does, they will do everything they can to prevent anyone else from ever using that app.

They probably want their users to use their proprietary store, but I got a new MacBook Pro for work in September and I installed everything I needed and wanted using Hombrew and brew cask, so I didn't use the Apple Store at all. You can also Download .dmf files and install Apps that way. What is it that you say they do to prevent people installing Apps outside the Apple Store?

Apple requires software to be "notarized" (signed by apple) be able to run on newer Macs. Apple also blocks developers they do not like from notarizing apps. See Apple vs Epic.

You might be able to bypass the notarization requirement as an end-user, if you have enough technical know-how, but good luck explaining that to your customers. Especially when all the dialogs are calling your software malicious, untrustworthy, etc.

>Apple requires software to be "notarized"

This is not exactly true and you know it. For example:

>if you have enough technical know-how

You right click the app and then click open.

>Especially when all the dialogs are calling your software malicious, untrustworthy, etc.

Another lie. The dialog says "this is from an unidentified developer" and does not say anything about being malicious or untrustworthy. What is your beef with Apple that you're so willing to say so many outright lies on a forum filled with people who know better and can call you out on it?

Windows does this with UAC. Many Linux distros require executables to be explicitly set with the +x flag. macOS is not unique in this, and like with the other OSes it's a security feature.

Check out the warning and "bypass" for yourself: https://www.macworld.com/article/3140183/how-to-install-an-a...

There's no need to be confrontational. Apple themselves say that software must be notarized going forward in Catalina, as GateKeeper will check all apps that are quarantined, which is essentially all apps that you download from the internet. Apple would very much like you to notarize your applications and the workaround you provided is not intended to be a general-purpose solution.

GateKeeper will also flag your app as malicious and having the potential to damage your Mac if Apple revokes your certificate, which they have done in the past by mistake.

https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xcode/notarizing_m...

> Beginning in macOS 10.14.5, software signed with a new Developer ID certificate and all new or updated kernel extensions must be notarized to run. Beginning in macOS 10.15, all software built after June 1, 2019, and distributed with Developer ID must be notarized

That just says signed apps and kernel extensions must be notarized. Unsigned apps still work.

>They are also doing everything they can to block people from distributing apps outside of their walled garden.

People keep saying that but nothing on my Mac has ever stopped me from installing whatever software I want. I wish people would stop repeating this lie.

You already forgot about the Epic games debacle where Apple did exactly that?

I must have forgotten it because I can open the Epic store and play Fortnite on my Mac right now without any warnings. I actually just downloaded the installer right from epicgames.com and it installed just fine. Apple doesn't even try to stop me.

I remember Apple revoking Epic's access to Apple's developer tools because of a disagreement over their developer program TOS, but that only stops Epic from using Apple's tools. It does not prevent me from installing any software.

I have a ton of software on my Mac that's not part of the Apple developer program and the developers have never asked Apple's permission nor given Apple any money for the software and Apple has never once tried to block those developers from creating that software or me from installing and running it.

Yes, there were lawsuits and the courts forced Apple to stop their ridiculous behavior. That is why you can do this right now. Not because of Apple's goodwill, quite the contrary.

The lawsuits were for iOS not MacOS.

Apple's developer program is the same for both.

I'm going to say yes.

This isn't unique to Apple. Debian and other Linux distributions have also had similar discussions when considering the distribution of packages with obscene, morally repugnant or inappropriate names, as well as the package contents themselves.

Whether it's a commercial entity or a volunteer organisation, there are considerations regarding image and reputation. People can and will push the boundaries of what is acceptable, and somewhere you're going to have to draw a line.

The difference is that Debian or others still give both the users and the developers a CHOICE to distribute / acquire the app through other means. Apple cripples (and even outright denies this) on some of its platforms.

The caffeinate command is built into macos.

Edit: This keeps the computer awake until 6 PM each day.

  caffeinate -u -i -s -t $(($(date -j -f "%a %b %d %T %Z %Y" "$(date +"%a %b %d 18:00:00 %Z %Y")" "+%s") - $(date +%s)))

That command makes me really glad Amphetamine exists.

Handy, but not exactly easy on the eyes. I usually just us the -t flag to pass it seconds, like 'caffeinate -t 3600' to prevent sleep for the next hour.

You can still get caffeine directly from the developer's website: https://intelliscapesolutions.com/apps/caffeine

Why aren’t you okay with Amphetamine?

I use it on my work computer and it's not a word I'm comfortable showing to clients. You never know who may have had (or still does have) an addiction, and I also don't want them seeing it and thinking I have an addiction since that could be bad for business.

I prefer to reject the process of turning a technical neutral term into some kind of bad word.

If a thing isn't bad, then it isn't, and if someone is ignorant and makes associations and assumptions that are wrong or unsupported, then I'd rather add my tiny influence against that rather than help it.

Or do you yourself do the same thing to your clients? What features of your clients do you use to prejudge them and make unfounded assumptions about them? Should your clients worry what clothes they wear in case you think it means they are gay, which maybe you associate with having Aids... Personally I woukd think things like that are none of my business but apparently you don't think like that.

Please don't smooth the way for the wrong things. I can't demand, obviously, that's why it's a request with the word please.

It seems to be a small thing but big things are made out of small things, and you and I can only do small things. All we have is the choice of which kinds of small things we do.

That's surprisingly reasonable. Thanks for the thoughtful answer.

(edited due to inaccuracy)

There is a command line tool called caffeinate that ships with Mac OS. Maybe Apple didn’t like somebody using something so similar their system utility name.

Originally I thought it was the same name, so this seems much less likely now that they're merely similar.

No, that's called caffeinate.

Ooops, edited my original comment. Blame tab completion for never making me type the end of the name! Thanks for the correction.

Better app that's open source: https://keepingyouawake.app/

Amphetamine does a lot more, so it's not a 1:1 replacement, but I prefer KeepingYouAwake, too.

[Caffeine's original developer here]

I removed Caffeine from the App Store when Apple started complaining that a click on a menu bar icon for an app without a dock icon must always show a menu (offering a Quit option). I wanted it to toggle the active state instead and show the menu on right-click/cmd-click.

Did you just not feel like arguing with the app store review team or was it a clear decision between changing it or leaving the app store? The author of amphetamine told that there was a similar problem but apparently he could settle this.

> Amphetamine updates have been rejected by Apple on numerous occasions. One time, Apple’s App Review Team did not like my “Preview” screen shots. Another time, Apple objected to the default behavior when clicking Amphetamine’s menu bar icon, saying it must open the menu by default and not start a session.

Amphetamine changed the default.

> I removed Caffeine from the App Store when Apple started complaining

Good for you! That is exactly what everyone needs do when Apple starts being pointlessly petty. Yes, operating systems have UI guidelines. But they are guidelines - sometimes a developer may come up with something better, especially for power users, and no such developer should have to waste time trying to communicate and convince some committee of this, and worse, wait for an approval from them to launch the product.

In my opinion they made the right choice here -- that is a much different behaviour than any other kind of menu bar icon has and it would be inconsistent with every other app and the OS itself.

It's a neat idea but that is just not the use case the menu bar was designed around and I don't think it makes sense for individual apps to go against the current in that way

This behavior design choice is exactly why I use caffeine :)

In my mind maybe this is something like an HOA. Sure, your friends might love your house parties, but your neighbors have to deal with the consequences

Aren't HOAs widely hated?

The HOA stereotype definitely is, but all HOAs are not the same. My HOA is generally hands off but you do need to ask permission for structural or cosmetic changes -- the neighborhood doesn't want to look like an amusement park. But, no one is going around measuring the height of your grass or other overly strict things I've read about.

However, I did just get a nasty gram to take down my political "Giant Meteor for 2020 - just end it already" yard sign.

> the neighborhood doesn't want to look like an amusement park.

I do think this is where a lot of the HOA problems come from - if someone wants to put something up on their front yard or lawn, then neighbors can intervene and say you can’t do that there.

Since you bought the property and it’s yours, why do others get to have a say in it? I know I don’t give two hoots about what the neighbor does to their own home.

> I know I don’t give two hoots about what the neighbor does to their own home.

You don't give a damn till you need to sell off your property. Once it is in the market, you don't want your neighbours attitude turning of potential buyers, or worse, bringing down the value of your property. (I hate HOA's too, but a decently run one does help increase property value).

> Since you bought the property and it’s yours, why do others get to have a say in it?

Because you signed on a line that said you agree to being governed by the HOA when you bought the house. It’s that simple. The sad reality though is that if you don’t like it, you have to find somewhere else (which doesn’t work well if your whole city is under the HOA)

Buying the property came with the HOA strings.

If you didn't want those strings, then go buy a property somewhere that doesn't have an HOA.

Same with this case, I sympathize with the author and I personally think this is a stupid thing for Apple to do, but the author (hopefully) understood the bargain they were entering into when they chose to enter the walled garden.

> If you didn't want those strings, then go buy a property somewhere that doesn't have an HOA.

The HOA is becoming more and more like your American ISP. When more and more properties demand an HOA, there’s only so many choices for you.

Though I don’t like the answer of “go do it somewhere else” because the real problem is not analyzed and/or solved, I do agree on the Apple front.

No. Certain internet communities have a culture of dunking on them, but they do not represent any kind of real majority. The housing market continues to show a preference towards communities with HOAs.

> The housing market continues to show a preference towards communities with HOAs.

Is it the housing market as homeowners who favours HOAs, or is it the builders who favour them? Are HOAs opted in by homeowners in existing communities because of their benefits, or do builders create them force them upon new communities because it benefits them somehow?

I am asking because while I do not have any knowledge of HOAs, I have been following the saga of rental water heaters/furnaces/ACs in Ontario for a while. Long story short, construction companies sign a long-term contract with an appliance company instead of buying and installing necessary appliances like furnaces for new houses. They get a nice kickback for this. If you want to buy a new house, odds are you will be bound by a long-term contact. If you want to terminate it early, you end up paying 30k for an appliance that is worth 10k new and installed. If you keep your contact, you will pay the same over many years.

It is a deal that is very much to the benefits of the builder and very much against the interest of the homeowners. But they have been exploding in popularity. There are relatively more and more homes with rented water heaters and fewer and fewer homes with owned water heaters every year. It would still be wrong to conclude that "water heater rental is beneficial. See, the market has spoken."

This feels like a case where the market will dictate what works and what doesn't.

It sounds shitty/shady to you (or at least that's how you're framing it here - apologies if I misunderstood) but if people are still buying those homes, then they must think it's an acceptable contract to enter into.

The fact that people grudgingly sign a contract does not mean all the terms of the contract are fair. People sign away their right to sue or join a class action lawsuit as a prerequisite to buying goods or services from companies all the time, but I still believe it is unfair. People grudgingly sign work contracts with strong non-compete, non-disclosure, and IP assignment clauses, but I think those clauses are unfair.

It sounds like exactly the opposite, where the market created or allowed a situation where the majority of people get something they don't want at all.

It's ridiculous to even try to say that a home owner will not weigh 50 different factors, and have to tolerate 10 things they do NOT want because they come packaged with 40 other things they either want or absolutely need.

Why does anyone even try to pretend like they don't recognize this unless they are themselves one of the few people actually benefitting from one of these consumer-hostile deals?

> It's ridiculous to even try to say that a home owner will not weigh 50 different factors, and have to tolerate 10 things they do NOT want because they come packaged with 40 other things they either want or absolutely need.

You make it sound like there's a lack of options for homeowners when you say this. Where I live (Toronto) that is not the case.

Of course there is no perfect deal, there will always be things that aren't ideal but I don't know anyone (and I'm old enough to know lots of home owners) who has ever bought a house that had some kind of feature or clause they absolutely hated or didn't want.

If it's that bad, you don't buy that house, and you find one that better suits your needs.

Otherwise, you're understanding and accepting the terms, and you're willing to live with them.

I hate the argument that "people" are too stupid/naive/stuck to understand or avoid the terms of an agreement they're entering into.. except for the narrator who sees themselves as the smart person who is yelling about it from the mountaintop.

I’m assuming that the long term contract also carries with it a warranty? So if your furnace fails while in the contract it is repaired/replaced free or at a pro rated price?

If so, I could see people liking it as it serves the same function as an HOA: a hedge against bad things happening.

Water heater died? Plumber comes out, no charge. Neighbor starting a junkyard on his front lawn? HOA sends a letter, no confrontation.

Some people will decline an HOA for the same reasons they decline extended warranties: they’d rather deal with situations themselves, as they arise. Others don’t want to be bothered and let someone else handle it. I think there is space for both.

> I’m assuming that the long term contract also carries with it a warranty?

I believe so. But the price is so unreasonably high that you could replace the furnace literally 3 to 5 times and you would still be ahead compared to renting the furnace. How many people would purchase an extended warranty that is priced at multiples of the price of the object they are buying? More than none, but a very small number. New rentals are signed overwhelmingly by builders and not homeowners.

That's the way warranties work. Warranty providers are not offering them at a loss.

If you buy a home warranty, or an extended warranty for your car, you are (on average) going to be out of pocket more than you would be without it. You are buying it for the peace of mind that comes from not having to deal with an unlikely but major repair expense.

> That's the way warranties work

Not at this price. Usually the warranty is a percentage of the price of the goods. So for example, I expect a $1000 gadget to have extended warranty priced at $100 or so. I have never seen the warranty of a $1000 gadget to be priced at $3000 to $5000 dollars. And that is for stuff that break down more frequently, e.g. phones and laptops and cars. The odds of a furnace breaking down are even lower.

I think the “party line” response to this would be that the warranties you get include preventative maintenance as well, making it a different proposition - you’re not just buying a warranty, but a full service plan after all. But I’ve never been convinced by that argument.

I just went through buying a furnace and had a few prospective installers. The first tried to sell the extended coverage: twice annual “checks and maintenance” and a 30% discount on all parts.

The second said he’d let me source the parts myself if I so desired and if I would be responsible for changing the air filter on schedule and hosing down the outside fan every summer I’d be better off putting the annual fee into a sinking fund. Or, I could pay him $200 a year to hold a hose, money he’d happily take. He got the job. ;-)

The question is, are people buying these products for that peace of mind, or are they buying it because they are not a savvy consumer?

Or worse, because they are over leveraged and unable to fund a replacement without an installment plan – so they have no better option?

I’m not sure. I can see a consumer protection argument to be made.

HOA for thee, not for me. That's my take.

If I want to practice drums in my garage the neighbors can go pound sand.

But when a neighbor decides to park their truck in their yard I'm all for HOAs.

These are probably just examples but I'm firmly in the no-HOA crowd. If my home owning neighbor with a yard wants to park a truck in their yard I really don't care, and I abhor any organization that punishes someone for that. They could have a perfectly good reason to park it there. I've had former neighbors yell at me for fixing my car in my own driveway which makes no sense whatsoever except perhaps to privileged elitists with no DIY skills.

I think I'm with you as well.

> The housing market continues to show a preference towards communities with HOAs.

I wouldn't read too much from that. The market preferring something doesn't mean most people dealing with it like it, it means that it makes money for the people with most say in the matter.

In this case, I think the sufficient explanation for the phenomenon is that HOAs are good at protecting property values. In my experience, most of the silly / annoying rules can be explained by either protecting property value, or by most people being too busy to attend meetings, allowing a small group of bored people to take control.

> In this case, I think the sufficient explanation for the phenomenon is that HOAs are good at protecting property values.

Uh yeah, that's their defined purpose that everybody knows about and agrees upon. I've lived in several properties under HOAs, haven't had any trouble, and don't know anyone personally who's had any trouble either.

IMO, HOA problems are of those things that's extremely rare in practice, but makes for outrage-inducing stories on the internet that get upvoted heavily and widely viewed. Since this is well known and plenty of people will do anything for internet upvotes, I'd bet a significant number of the stories are either made up entirely or are highly exaggerated and misleading.

If HOAs were really that bad, you'd see a market for homes advertising the lack of them. We don't though. The better analogy is internet free speech. In theory, everybody likes free speech. But if you create a new forum specifically for the purpose of not censoring anything, it tends to get filled with the worst assholes of the internet. Similarly, you can guess who'd be itching to move in if you advertised your housing development as not having a HOA.

The congressional approval rating has been between 10 and 30% for the last 8 years, and over this same time the re-election rates of incumbent congressional reps is 89% or higher. People are largely happy with their own congress members, and vote to reelect them and their own HOA, and they will choose to purchase homes with an HOA, and not disband them.

No, everyone thinks they could do a better job but no one actually wants those jobs.

As are dentist visits and prostate exams - but even those things ultimately add value. HOA’s arguably do so as well even if they’re often hated.

But do most people consider them as such, i.e. painful but necessary/beneficial? My understanding was that they are widely regarded as parasitic organizations full of busybodies who are there to advance their personal agenda and to feel a sense of power over people at the expense of all the reasonable people who just want to live their lives; they are considered the polar opposite of live and let live.

I personally have never dealt with an HOA, so my understanding of their popularity is shaped solely by what I have read online. I must say your comment is the only one I have ever seen that has put them in a positive light.

Most people I know who have been pro-HOA are the ones who have a say in it and are on the board, or have strong opinions on how their neighbors should outfit their own house.

The ones that hates the HOA are the ones that have paid a ton of money (I’m in the Bay Area) and can’t do as they please. Who wants to pay close to a million and have others chime in and start giving you directions on what to do to your own property.

I rent, but the principe of the HOA is a big enough leech in my mind that I’d hold out for a single home, whenever that is (if at all).

HOA does have what feel like arbitrary busybody restrictions, but they are also the authority that makes people remove the broken washing machine from their front yard and they are the only recourse in my region (when I lived briefly in a suburban house) for someone who refuses to do anything about their dog that barks 24/7 or flings trash into your neighboring yard. HOA fixed it for me on both occasions. The police certainly don’t care.

So people aren’t going to like the HOA. But they also offer essential recourse and order.

I grew up in a large neighborhood with an HOA. There were a few times where my family butted heads with the HOA (replacing fences with a non-standard style, a play swing/slide thing being a bit tall) but for the most part the HOA was nice. They managed a park and pool for the neighborhood's exclusive use. They decorated the entrance signs to the neighborhood for the holidays. They put on some holiday events like an easter egg hunt/picnic, a fourth of july bike parade, Christmas light judging/awards. People didn't have tons of clutter in their front yards, the streets weren't super crowded with cars.

Except in this case there are no “neighbors” to speak of. Every app is kind of like an island in an archipelago and don’t have a means of communicating to each other.

It’s more like the government of the archipelago decided that they don’t like the name of the island as people interested in such an island are promoting narcotics.

How could this analogy work? There's no consequences to having a app with the word 'fuck' in it. Meanwhile throwing big parties obviously does to neighbors. I don't feel a lot of meatspace analogies work to things that are purely digital and can be filtered or ignored, while a houseparty with 100+ people and its noise and drunk drivers obviously cant be.

> There’s no consequences to having a app with the word ‘fuck’ in it

I suspect that Apple has done studies and has a projected “likely lost sales” figure attributable to having an app store overrun with “mature content” apps.

(Edited: tried to clean up a clunky sentence :))

> These stories keep coming; they should remind us that nothing is more precious than the open web, and all those stores or walled gardens, their "rules" and vague TOS are the ennemy.

Yes. And the solution is:

1. Creating a viable alternative.

2. Promoting it.

Which is the opposite of what TFA is trying to do: They just want Apple to make an exception for them. Not to solve the root problem.

> Which is the opposite of what TFA is trying to do: They just want Apple to make an exception for them. Not to solve the root problem

They name several apps which would seem to violate the same guideline, at worst they're asking for the same exception Apple has already given to others. An argument can be made that they're snitching on the others, but it's also an argument for consistency that one could say is the root problem.

I agree. Which is why I use a non walled garden operating system. Maybe the same should apply to these complaints. I don’t get mad at wal-mart because of what they choose to stock on the shelf and not stock.

The App Store is already a walled garden, so complaining that it's not the open web is hardly a relevant objection. The maker of “Amphetamine” was gappy enough to get that half-million downloads on the App Store, so now that the other side of the coin rolls around he gets to accept that too.

500k may seem like a lot, but it’s not in the context of the Mac App Store. Apple has sold over 100M Macs in the time this app has been around. Also, Apple’s policies are distinctly not driven by “if enough people are fine with it”.

Apple’s policies are bullshit, don’t get me wrong, but let’s not act like download numbers give the developer any leverage.

[Sorry, I'm a bit hyped up at the moment]

This is all ridiculous and I don't like where we're headed as a society.

I’m very glad you brought up weed actually. See I have no problem with weed and like to smoke a joint every now and then. However what I don’t want is to have to buy weed called dumb things like “bro down”, “the obliterator”, and “brain destroyer”. I’d much rather you just named something not so click baity.

Sure it’s just a chemical. Everything is just chemicals but I don’t need “meth” for my computer. Same reason our kids don’t need toys advertised as “crack for your baby”.

Agin not offended its just not a good name. Even if let’s say you build an app that’s hooks into some other program and you sell said app for two dollars, you may think it’s hilarious to call it “two dollar hooker”, hell I myself might even chuckle. But only once, then I’ll just get annoyed every time I see “two dollar hooker” in startup, “two dollar hooker has crashed” etc.

I also would not buy your product if it were called alcohol poisoning. I love alcohol. I’m drinking a beer right now (happy New Years everyone). But naming a computer program after it sounds like an odd thing to do. And more to your point would also be a violation of the same rule Apple is using in this case.

Alcohol 120% has entered the chat. /s

I can see why Apple chooses the family friendly route and rebranding probably is the best option in this case as fighting it would most likely be futile.

I don't think they went overboard with the name in general tho. It makes sense for the app as much as the other coffee/coca branded ones do.

They explicitly chose "amphetamine" over "meth" which is a medical term and has valid uses.

The application keeps one's Mac from going to sleep. Its name is basically a direct analogy, and doesn't imply any wrongdoing or illegality, as far as I can see.

> I also would not buy your product if it were called alcohol poisoning. I love alcohol. I’m drinking a beer right now (happy New Years everyone). But naming a computer program after it sounds like an odd thing to do. And more to your point would also be a violation of the same rule Apple is using in this case.

What about an application that assists in force-quitting other programs? One might call that "Scotch", since that's what it does ("It 'scotches' other processes, you see..."), and the application might have a cutesy whiskey glass as its icon. Would that run afoul of your sensibilities?

I don't think it implies wrongdoing, just sounds like a silly joke.

Scotch vs scotch whiskey is more of a word play joke as well than a direct analogy. But I see your point and your totally right that one sounds less bad to me. I'm only stating that as a matter of taste I do not like this particular apps name.

And since it's apple's store they have the right to not like it either. I just don't think this is a profound "free speech argument" like some do in these comments.

Personally I think it's really odd that someone would need an app to keep their computer from sleeping. This says far more about macs than the arbitrary naming policy.

Haha. It's just a convenience, not a need. There's nothing stopping you from going to screensaver settings and energy settings, manually setting it to "never", then going back after you've completed the download, screenshare, or whatever, and changing your settings back. Alternatively, you could use Apple's built-in CLI tool, `caffeinate`, as others have mentioned.

Amphetamine sounds clinical to me, I used to take prescribed, 24 million people in the US, including me in the past, are prescribed amphetamines.

I generally dont like obnoxious marketing either, but unless it is inappropriate for the setting i dont think it should be banned, and this is far more tame than other apps on the app store

Anything that could have offensive connotations could also be trivialized as "just a [noun]". That doesn't make it any more or less likely to be taken badly by the intended customer base

> For God's sake, is this where we're headed? Just ban anything that sounds offensive?

Headed?

I don’t buy your claim that there’s a double standard here. “Beer bong” would be another bad name for this app that I wouldn’t blame Apple for restricting. This isn’t about the arguably mixed up public policies that treat certain drugs as more dangerous than other drugs.

It doesn’t sound offensive, just stupid and provoking. Along the lines of Condom Antimalware Suit or Holocosta Firewall. Condoms are great for protecting you and holocaust just means “burn all” - had nothing to do with burning people. It only burns network packets, look at the context, it’s fire wall! No need to come the raw prawn here, simply rename it.

There are lots of software that I won’t touch simply because if I ever had to explain the name, I would immediately be put on the defensive, regardless of how useful they may be. It’s a conversation that would waste my time.

Similarly, I would avoid naming something potentially weird or offensively for much the same reason, no matter how appropriate or funny it might seem at the time.

While rebranding might be a pain, I suggest just doing it. This not a free speech hill worth dying on, in my opinion.

I'd set up a mastadoon server but I don't want to tell my friends to check out my toots.

Hehe your fucking five, but then it just gets annoying.

To most of the world, that word does not mean farts. That is only the case where you happen to live.

To most people, it refers in this context to the noise an elephant makes.

> Amphetamine is a chemical. What is wrong with that?

This disingenuous take on the term does not help your case nor reflects positively on your reputation as a honest person. Amphetamines have a long reputation as recreational and illicit drugs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphetamine

Amphetamines, much like cocaine and heroin, are not a mere chemical, nor do they convey a mental image of chemists doing science in a lab to the public. And please don't try to pass everyone as a bunch of stupid idiots by claiming that an app designed to keep a device awake is named after a mere chemical, with a long track record of being used as an euphoriant, without any popular connotation with drug abuse.

Americans being American. "We love freedom of speech but fuck you if your product name mentions a chemical compound or a word I or someone else might find offending".

I don't see how any of these contradict freedom of speech. We are talking about 1) people being offended by a name; 2) a company banning an app on their own app store.

Whether you find the situation distasteful, it has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Neither the offended people nor Apple is infringing on the developer's freedom speech.

Freedom of speech isn't the same as freedom of distribution. There are lots of edgy things that you can say somewhere. You just can't say them everywhere.

We can have lots of lively debate about how to draw the boundaries. But we'll get a lot farther if we can move beyond the two-state absolutism of "allowable everywhere" vs. "outright banned with breath-taking severity."

This is still not it. He's not facing a government warrent.

Freedom of speech means the government won't/can't prosecute you for what you say. It doesn't have anything to do with how companies or private citizens respond to your words.

You're (usually) legally allowed to say you'll fuck my mom but I don't have to bring you over for family dinner.

One could contend that apple's refusal to host this app on it's store is in itself free speech.

Either way, the government jasent gotten involved so nothing here treads on free speech issues.

> Freedom of speech means the government won't/can't prosecute you for what you say

The First Amendment says this. Freedom of speech is “a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction” [1]. It is broader than the First Amendment, and gave rise to it, though the First Amendment is its most successful codification in the modern world.

A society that shuns those who say “bad” things, even without state action, may not hold true to the values of freedom of speech.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

No, you have the right to hold and express any view you want.

You don't get to choose peoples reaction or the way they view you after you say something. That would be infringing on their right to hold or express opinions about your views.

What's complicated about that?

The complicated part is that freedom of speech is both a legal right in the US and an ethical principle globally, and your legal rights are less broad than the ethical principle. Something that is legal can still be in violation of the ethical principle.

You say "[we] don't get to choose [people's reactions]", but this is not at all relevant. We're not asking whether their actions are legal or whether we can legally dictate what they think, we're asking whether they're acting ethically.

That is the First Amendment, not freedom of speech.

One is law, the other is a principle.

I know a very intelligent software engineer who told me he had never used Exercism (despite him using other similar tools) simply because he’s a practicing Catholic and thought the name to be in poor taste. You definitely alienate people at the fringes by naming things something even slightly risqué.

And do you really want Apple to be the arbitrator of such silly things?

For their own app store, of course.

Even when their AppStore is mandaded to all your hardware by DRM with you not having any choice of opting out? You want all your possible business speech, products and content you consume dictated by a corporate decree with no accountability?

The app store is a closed environment where they can dictate some terms. But don't forget that the developers PAY THEM to use it, and as such their terms cannot trump the consumer laws that exist to protect against abuse.

(By the way, "my shop, my terms" have already faced legal scrutiny, some of which were found to be illegal - popular judgements include that shops cannot refuse to serve people of colour or gays.)

Those “popular judgements” were because the laws on discrimination say so. There’s no law saying a store has to sell what they don’t want to. If Target (for example) decides to stop selling Pampers because they don’t like the name (for whatever reason), that’s their choice.

You could argue that this is also why we now have system services instead of daemons.

There are a surprising number of Christians in CS, but they're generally of the more contemplative kind. I definitely remember people being uncomfortable with that but big enough to not make much of a fuss about it.

I'm guessing it's been slowly changed by people big enough to realize the name doesn't matter.

Twenty-something years ago, I've seen some Christians legit freaking out on Netscape's Book of Mozilla[1] easter egg.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Mozilla

/Library/LaunchDaemons disagrees ;)

Amphetamine is a drug to keep one awake. So the name is appropriate.

This just detracts us from the actual discussion - do you think Apple should be the ultimate arbitrator to decide what you name your app?

This whole thing is why I'm so glad someone finally sued Apple over their control of the app store, it's just more fuel for the fire.

> Saying you violated their terms with impunity for 6 years doesn’t mean they lose the right to correct the mistake.

Well it gives you an argument I think. Along the lines of a trademark infringement -- if you have let people use your trademark name for years without protest, that can work against you if you suddenly start demanding that it be enforced.

Not sure it would hold much weight here, since it's a case of Apple deciding what they want to allow in their own store.

What if it was "caffeine"?

A stimulant drug, just happens to be legal.

Or Coca? A plant that release a stimulant when chewed.

Now if the app was called "Sweet Meth", you'd have a better parallel with "fuck sleep", but it's not.

Funny you mentioning „caffeine“ [1]as this is also an app for macOS which solves the same purpose as the one posted. But this one is not in the App Store. I just had a look and next to amphetamine we have taurine, theine and caffeinated and a few more that use some form of coffee / a substance that keeps one awake. The „Prevent Sleep“ app is the only one which clearly states what it is for :) [1] https://intelliscapesolutions.com/apps/caffeine

There's an app called Caffeine that does the same thing. It's what I use.

Apple’s own command line tool which does the same is called caffeinate.

Next on the chopping block.

Doubt it, seeing as how caffeine isn't a controlled substance.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com