Do you expect to see a box on a shelf of any retail store labeled, “Amphetamine” with a colorful picture of drugs?
It’s entirely reasonable for the retail store to tell the vendor to rename the product or else it will be removed from the shelf.
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.
When I buy software, I certainly don't expect to get drugs. When I buy a game called "Surgeon Simulator" I don't expect to receive actual surgeon training any more than I expect to get amphetamine after getting an app called amphetamine.
Fun fact: There are serious surgery training apps in the app stores. Surgeons, too, like to practice in a simulation rather than on real patients.
(Full disclosure: I work at a sister company of Level Ex.)
Apple has no real justification here, especially when it forcefully denies both the creators and the consumers a choice in the matter on many of its platforms.
It very much is the norm [1]
See stocking fees in physical retail stores:
* https://financialpost.com/news/retail-marketing/loblaw-follo...
* https://www.canadiangrocer.com/top-stories/headlines/loblaw-...
Apple has no real justification here, especially when it forcefully denies both the creators and the consumers a choice in the matter on many of its platforms.
Imagine it were called heroin, and the app logo used a picture of a syringe.. is it still okay to you because there is no heroin in the app?
Speaking of a straw man argument - heroin isn't a legal drug anywhere in the United states. Like the author pointed out, millions of Americans take legal amphetamines every year, I'd wager a bet that legal users of amphetamines outnumber the illegal users 10,000 to 1 or ever more. But all of that is irrelevant - the app doesn't promote the use of amphetamines any more than GTA promotes committing grand theft auto.
Plague Inc...
Drink extreme...
Trivia Crack Adventura...
Drug Mafia...
All of those are ios GAMES.
Now, I’m not advocating to remove those. I like games, but let’s not pretend that somehow calling an app after a molecule is worse.
Rohypnol is another possible name for a social app or something you use for late night shopping.
I also don't remember plague inc showcasing any substance abuse, but I could be wrong.
Censoring language is a bad idea even for the richest corporation, partially because there's practically no way to do it without looking like a hypocrite or also doing massive collateral damage. Like in this case, where Apple argues calling an app "Amphetamine" is bad but calling one "Drug Mafia" or "Drink extreme" is supposedly okay.
https://www.caffeineinformer.com/cocaine-energy-drink-is-bac...
Also, all the local stores in my town sell some sort of colorful box with drug capsules depicted on them. Many advertising that they give energy to stay awake.
Or I expect to see booze, depicted as booze, one of the most addictive and destructive drugs on the planet.
Or I expect to see.....any number of things which can be abused when used incorrectly.
No offense, but I think this argument is weak.
Go to any gas station to see similarly edgy boner pills, designer drugs like bath salts, things that are genuinely more dangerous.
The dev makes a good point that there are much more explicit iOS games and it's odd for Apple to single him out.
The amount offended is far less than when Ronald reagan began his war on drugs - meaning that offense changes with time, and that offense changes based off of what other people believe to be acceptable. By allowing that kind of advertising you reduce negative reaction to it.
Also retail stores sell plenty of products that give all manner of nice names. Like death coffee. Or "personal massager" vibrators. Don't forget apple also hates the idea of sex, and that's plenty acceptable to market.
Not so sure that's true in the USA. Though it could be payment processors and prudish culture are the drivers of this phenomenon.
Granting app store approval to an app encourages the company to build around the app and around the brand. And Apple gave that approval for many years. And then, after all that time, decided that the brand is projecting an ethos that they don't approve of?
Apple's process doesn't just involve tacit approval. It's very active. They had so many opportunities to not give approval, to not hit the button, but they did and for quite a long time.
Can we just admit that most people actually can't reasonably be expected to do so?