Comment by joseph_grobbles | Hacker News Reader

Comment by joseph_grobbles | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

joseph_grobbles

Let me be more explicit for you, then: I speed past a cop who is pointing his radar gun at me, staring at me, but for some reason he doesn't decide to pursue me (an experience many of us have actually had).

Maybe it's an off day for him and he just doesn't care. Maybe he was confused about the speed limit on that stretch. Maybe he is waiting for a bigger fish. Maybe he likes my car (or skin) color and decided to look the other way. Regardless, I got away with speeding.

If I then at some future date pointed to that as legalizing my speeding for all time, that would be ignorant nonsense. Yet we see this exactly this sort of childish argument in all realms: Some guy deducts something unlawful for years and then one day the tax man says "Uh no...that isn't allowed", and they point to their prior years as if that makes it suddenly lawful. That getting away with it before grandfathers it in or something.

Some random Apple employee writing a story linked it (or a tax employee accepting a tax return, or a cop giving a pass to speeding), therefore it is officially sanctioned for all time. Give me a break. That isn't how any of this works.

But it makes for a lot of crybaby stories.

Down vote away, my challenge still stands for you to catch up to the cop or to pull over and ask "Hey I was just going x over the limit, do you want to give me a ticket?" :P

All jokes aside, I feel that this is a poor analogy that really misses the key issues (in my mind).

A developer creates an app and then submits an app for review. The app is approved and the app starts to build an organic following. At some later date, and without any explicit changes to the app or to the terms, Apple decides that the app is in violation of the terms for information that was available upon review. The developer and app are unfortunately the ones to pay the cost, as the organic growth is deterred. Will the new app be able to recapture the same market share? Hard to say. Regardless of Apple's action in this case, I think it would be in the company's best interest to consider the developer's experience when proceeding with issues like this.

Are you confused into thinking I downvoted you? I hardly have the karma to, nor would I, however misplaced your comment is.

I, on the other hand, have taken (thus far) about 15 downvotes. And I regret none of them given that I'm absolutely right, and this is yet another stupid torch mob about nonsense.

The guy is going to end up changing the name (and icon) of his project. Life moves on. Story at 11.

If (a) there is no definite speed limit, just an imprecise policy statement (like "don't drive too fast") and (b) a person drives by the same cops for years at the same speed and gets clocked and doesn't get ticketed, and then (c) is one day pulled over and told that they're driving imprudently, then they indeed have a basis for complaint. That is exactly how this works. The interplay between vague policies and regular practice is how people gain clarity in the absence of a bright line rule -- playing ball.

An app named "amphetamine" (a controlled substance in most countries), using a pill as its icon, with narrative like the "most awesome keep-awake".

Yeah, there isn't a lot of ambiguity here. This was absolutely getting away with it.

A lot of noise and bluster in here, but I'd peg the probability that Apple stays firm at 100%.

The issue with your analysis is the long standing approval and acquiescence on Apple's part. The app itself, and each update, only ever went out with Apple's explicit acknowledgment, review and consent.

But there already is a bright line rule here, it has just not been diligently enforced up to now. The basic argument is that the Amphetamine app has been able to slide for so long that the ToS provision it violates should be treated as a dead letter, or as if some statute of limitations had expired; the Amphetamine brand has existed so long (and under such favorable conditions) in the app store that the developer now has an economic interest in the brand, gained through a reliance on Apple's non-enforcement of this ToS provision.

The developer could try suing Apple on the basis of laches, the legal doctrine whereby if one party has 'slept on their rights' so long that the situation changed, they can't suddenly decide to enforce a term later. But there's no hard and fast rule about this, and since it would tie Apple's hands they'd probably fight it tooth and nail, throwing enough legal resources at it to wear out any opposition.

The only bright line rule in the provision is that an app should not facilitate the trade in controlled substances, and it doesn't.

FTA:

  Apple has accused Amphetamine of violating the following guideline:

  1.4.3 Apps that encourage consumption of tobacco and vape products, illegal drugs, or excessive amounts of alcohol are not permitted on the App Store. Apps that encourage minors to consume any of these substances will be rejected. Facilitating the sale of marijuana, tobacco, or controlled substances (except for licensed pharmacies) isn’t allowed."

Looks like you forgot some other stuff.

No, it looks like you don't understand what "bright line rule" means.

I understand it just fine. You are just trying to gin up a controversy where none exists.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com