12 ms·

Amphetamine isn't exactly an innocent name. Of all the app takedowns that occur, this one seems pretty normal and actionable. It's important to remember that r

Amphetamine isn't exactly an innocent name. Of all the app takedowns that occur, this one seems pretty normal and actionable. 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.

AlexandrB 6y ago
There are gambling games in the app store marketed to children. You can sink 10s of thousands of dollars into gatcha games and they make every effort to make it easy and desirable to do so. If Apple wants to be a moral arbiter I'm not sure why it doesn't have a problem with those and even highlights them as "featured" apps from time to time.
- arghwhat 6y ago
  That there are other violations slipping through is not valid legal argument. That the priorities in the terms the developer is subject to does not match yours is not a valid legal argument. The app store monopoly should fall, but until then, you're subject to the terms unless you get it declared unenforceable by a court, or convince Apple to change them.
crististm 6y ago
I agree with most (actually all) of your conclusions but... 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.
- arghwhat 6y ago
  Direct association, not remote association. The name is an intentional reference to a hard drug. The name isn't related to the functionality, but that's not what is claimed. This restriction on drug references is spelled out in the terms, making it valid and non-arbitrary. That the terms themselves aren't "just" is a different matter altogether, but there is no argument for it but being valid.

AlexandrB 6y ago

There are gambling games in the app store marketed to children. You can sink 10s of thousands of dollars into gatcha games and they make every effort to make it easy and desirable to do so. If Apple wants to be a moral arbiter I'm not sure why it doesn't have a problem with those and even highlights them as "featured" apps from time to time.

arghwhat 6y ago
That there are other violations slipping through is not valid legal argument. That the priorities in the terms the developer is subject to does not match yours is not a valid legal argument. The app store monopoly should fall, but until then, you're subject to the terms unless you get it declared unenforceable by a court, or convince Apple to change them.

crististm 6y ago

I agree with most (actually all) of your conclusions but... 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.

arghwhat 6y ago
Direct association, not remote association. The name is an intentional reference to a hard drug. The name isn't related to the functionality, but that's not what is claimed. This restriction on drug references is spelled out in the terms, making it valid and non-arbitrary. That the terms themselves aren't "just" is a different matter altogether, but there is no argument for it but being valid.