No, because at a retail store the expectation is that if I see a box labeled "amphetamine" it better contain actual amphetamine. Obviously that's not acceptable, so it's not going to happen.

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.

> When I buy a game called "Surgeon Simulator" I don't expect to receive actual surgeon training

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.

The point is that the game should not be removed for violating some silly guideline because its title contains “simulator”.

No, there isn't - certainly not for iOS, and not for Mac either, the App Store is barely hanging on by a thread

What about this? https://apps.apple.com/us/app/gastro-ex/id1202398609

(Full disclosure: I work at a sister company of Level Ex.)

Good point. And the App Store is not a retail store - developers PAY THEM to distribute their wares. They are Apple's customers too!

You may not know this, but plenty of physical retail stores charge manufacturers of goods to display their wares / offer shelf space for sale.

Yes, but it is not the norm. And physical retail stores can justify it to some extent because storage / display space is actually limited and obviously they would like to give the most space to products that sells fast and / or are more profitable. (This is why FMCG - fast moving consumer goods - are so heavily advertised. Brand awareness helps their sales, and thus shops are more ready to stock it.)

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.

> Yes, but it is not the norm.

It very much is the norm [1]

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

Just because something is a popular business practice in the US doesn't make it a norm around the world too. And just because it found acceptance in one geography or some industry doesn't mean we have to accept the same it in another. A physical retail outlet is not the same as an online one, especially one that only sells digital products (software).

> developers PAY THEM to distribute their wares. They are Apple's customers too!

See stocking fees in physical retail stores:

* https://financialpost.com/news/retail-marketing/loblaw-follo...

* https://www.canadiangrocer.com/top-stories/headlines/loblaw-...

I do know about stocking fees and display fees. And also that it is not the norm, even if some would like it to be. (And phyaical retail outlets can justify it to some extent because space is actually limited in many stores and obviously they would prefer to give the most space to products that sells fast and / or are more profitable.)

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.

You're creating a strawman argument.

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?

Of course it is. I'd be interested in hearing your argument as to why it isn't?

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.

I dunno, before I try a drug I usually scan the app store to see whether it's okay! heavy sarcasm

Do you truly believe that someone is going to see the word "heroin" next to a syringe and say "you know what, I should go shoot up some black tar?"

The best argument against Apple is the inconsistency in application of rules. If what you say is reasonable why would they also promote iOS apps whose explicit purpose is the simulation of cartel wars or marijuana dispensaries? My hot take is one doesn’t make much money for Apple while the others provide a clear incentive to act willfully ignorant given their in app revenue streams.

I think this is the weakest argument? Selective enforcement of rules is a time-honored tradition and seems to be explicitly reserved as the right of the rules-enforcer everywhere. It might be a good argument in a hypothetical debate about the fairness and compassion displayed by Apple, but I don't think you'd get far with it convincing either Apple itself or even a court if one somehow was interested.

It’s a weak argument because Tim Cook has personally testified in from of Congress that the rules are not selectively enforced.

Also known as lying. It is blatantly obvious that Apple selectively enforces their policies. Anyone who has ever published multiple apps on the app store knows this.

Those at the top often allow themselves to believe that their company is virtuous by being disconnected from the day-to-day. I think that Tim Cook genuinely believes Apple acts honorably and is sincere. This decision is still bullshit.

He said companies don’t get special deals, but then I don’t know what else to call the deal they made with Amazon, where Amazon can bypass Apple’s payment system for some users.

Grand Theft Auto comes to mind...

Plague Inc...

Drink extreme...

Trivia Crack Adventura...

Drug Mafia...

All of those are ios GAMES.

Yes this. The hypocrisy of the gatekeepers is infuriating. Let’s not forget that almost all popular games are mass murder simulators. One of the most popular kids games is a dog fighting game.

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.

Can you even call something “Arsenic”?

I'm calling dibs on the dating app named chloroform, chloroform-e, and chloroforme.

Rohypnol is another possible name for a social app or something you use for late night shopping.

I posit that it is capriciousness, not hypocrisy.

This is really great point I hadn't considered. They're applying their rules selectively and inconsistently.

Drug mafia sounds like something that should fall under this category.. but I don't see how Trivia Crack would unless they are showcasing drugs on their logo like Amphetamine.

I also don't remember plague inc showcasing any substance abuse, but I could be wrong.

You also won't find many products being labeled with things like "magic", except maybe for some of Apple's input devices, and drugs called magic mushrooms.

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.

Tell that to Cocaine Energy Drink.

https://www.caffeineinformer.com/cocaine-energy-drink-is-bac...

Or Sweetwater 420, which is neither sweet, water, nor 420.

No, on retail shelves I expect to see an assault rifle with the logo of an enraged militant heading into battle where he will kill other human beings and/or be killed themselves.

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.

You've never seen the energy drink shelf? "Cocaine" gained notoriety specifically for this.

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.

to be fair, gas stations are basically the bottom of the barrel when it comes to retail venues.

Subscribing to the offended is advocating against yourself. The only reason why you don't generally see that kind of advertising is because it offends people.

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.

> 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.

This totally misses the main point: Apple could absolutely have brought this up within a reasonable amount of time. The issue here is reliance.

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.

Yes, this is the real issue - when you distribute your app on Apple's App store, you are giving up control on a crucial part of your business and trusting Apple (a third party and a potential competitor) to not screw you in the future.

It's less reasonable when the store is the only one people are legally allowed to buy a product category at.

I bought Microsoft Windows. It has no actual glass windows in it. Is it reasonable to demand the OS not be sold so to avoid confusion and false advertising?

My grocery store sells an energy drink called liquid death.

I’m pretty sure that Liquid Death is just water.

Well, your body needs water to survive, so water could be called an energy drink for when you’re dehydrated /s

It's got what plants crave.

No but in software it's normal to have metaphorical names. I don't expect to be able to make a salad with cucumber js or have tea time with chai

https://github.com/cucumber/cucumber-js

https://www.chaijs.com/

But this isn't a retail store, this is a software store. That's the difference.

I knew somebody who got national attention for making an energy drink named Cocaine. It did not last long on the market due to the name.

Apple themselves have featured this app[1], which feels like they endorsed it before.

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

It is unreasonable when the store is the only store in town, and the town (Apple ecosystem) ensures monopoly of that single store.

You can download Mac apps outside of the Mac App Store.

You mean after you spend at least $700 on a mac mini. Install developer tools. Learn enough about version control to clone the source and pay $100 annually.

Can we just admit that most people actually can't reasonably be expected to do so?

That's iOS.