Apple Backtracks After Popular Mac App 'Amphetamine' Threatened with Removal(macrumors.com)
macrumors.com
Apple Backtracks After Popular Mac App 'Amphetamine' Threatened with Removal
https://www.macrumors.com/2021/01/02/amphetamine-app-store-removal-threat/
134 comments
Eh. Anything Apple does is giant megacorp against poor indie devs. The scenario you proposed would just turn into the headline “Apple begged us to kill our brand and we told them to fuck themselves” and pretty soon everyone wants a sit down with Tim Cook because they disagree philosophically with the rules.
It’s not clear, despite what it appears here, that the Twitter storm actually changed the outcome. This looks more like T1 support made a call that T2 reversed. Not unusual.
It’s not clear, despite what it appears here, that the Twitter storm actually changed the outcome. This looks more like T1 support made a call that T2 reversed. Not unusual.
> This looks more like T1 support made a call that T2 reversed. Not unusual.
It's not unusual and that's the problem. The process is a huge distraction to the developers and produces a great deal of undue stress if T2 is just going to override it.
Perhaps T1 should not have the authority to remove, ban, etc. They can approve all day long but rejections are escalated to T2, at which point T1 must justify the escalation and perhaps allow the developers to respond if T2 finds the escalation warranted.
Even if this Amphetamine App were found to violate ToS and need to be removed or modified, there was no urgency. It wasn't driving droves of people to Meth addiction.
It's not unusual and that's the problem. The process is a huge distraction to the developers and produces a great deal of undue stress if T2 is just going to override it.
Perhaps T1 should not have the authority to remove, ban, etc. They can approve all day long but rejections are escalated to T2, at which point T1 must justify the escalation and perhaps allow the developers to respond if T2 finds the escalation warranted.
Even if this Amphetamine App were found to violate ToS and need to be removed or modified, there was no urgency. It wasn't driving droves of people to Meth addiction.
Yes, but how are we accounting for the cases where T1 already makes the right call?
The reality is that we don’t hear about it unless if we have a situation like this.
So I’m not sure how we can draw any conclusions re: Apple vs Indie devs and the whole Goliath vs David aspect of this.
The reality is that we don’t hear about it unless if we have a situation like this.
So I’m not sure how we can draw any conclusions re: Apple vs Indie devs and the whole Goliath vs David aspect of this.
That's why T1 would write a justification of a request for ban to T2. They would provide an argument to T2 and T2 would review it.
Banning shouldn't be the unilateral decision of a single individual. We've had our App updates rejected numerous times for arbitrary reasons that were approved without change when resubmitted because we got a different reviewer.
Banning shouldn't be the unilateral decision of a single individual. We've had our App updates rejected numerous times for arbitrary reasons that were approved without change when resubmitted because we got a different reviewer.
Your frame of reference is the number of times a T1 made a bad call.
Apple's frame of reference is the number of times a T1 made any call.
So let's say they've made hundreds of bad calls. Is that out of thousands of decisions, or millions? Or tens of millions?
If tens of thousands of apps are banned, but only hundreds are banned incorrectly, that doesn't suggest the same thing as if a large percentage of bans are later reversed.
Apple's frame of reference is the number of times a T1 made any call.
So let's say they've made hundreds of bad calls. Is that out of thousands of decisions, or millions? Or tens of millions?
If tens of thousands of apps are banned, but only hundreds are banned incorrectly, that doesn't suggest the same thing as if a large percentage of bans are later reversed.
It's not about the number of decisions they've made, it's specifically about decisions to ban Apps that were already approved to the store.
How many Apps are banned after having been approved? I would certainly hope they haven't had to ban thousands, millions or tens of millions of Apps after they had approved them to the store. That would speak to a very big problem with the initial review process that admits an App into the store.
How many Apps are banned after having been approved? I would certainly hope they haven't had to ban thousands, millions or tens of millions of Apps after they had approved them to the store. That would speak to a very big problem with the initial review process that admits an App into the store.
I wouldn't be surprised if it were tens of thousands.
Clever scammers play a long game, and at Apple's scale, they deal with a lot of them.
Clever scammers play a long game, and at Apple's scale, they deal with a lot of them.
> This looks more like T1 support made a call that T2 reversed.
Given the fact that Apple had themselves featured the app, ISTM that T1 didn’t even do the most basic diligence before making this call.
I’d say that’s the problem more than anything. It seems like Apple takes a completely stateless approach to things.
It’s as if they have periodic scrubs of the app list based on some middle-manager defined predicate (in this case, “does app name potentially breach ToS?”) and then they do a mail merge of the results, without even looking at any other metric at all.
IMO that’s not remotely good enough.
It would cost Apple almost nothing to add some other predicates like “has app been around for >12 months? Has app previously been featured by Apple? Does app have more than 100K downloads?”.
If any of these are true, app should go to T2 or even T3 before any contact is made with the developer whatsoever.
I mean this is customer support 101. The stress this must have caused the Amphetamine team must have been huge. And for what? A bad user experience and yet another hit to the reputation of the App Store.
Given the fact that Apple had themselves featured the app, ISTM that T1 didn’t even do the most basic diligence before making this call.
I’d say that’s the problem more than anything. It seems like Apple takes a completely stateless approach to things.
It’s as if they have periodic scrubs of the app list based on some middle-manager defined predicate (in this case, “does app name potentially breach ToS?”) and then they do a mail merge of the results, without even looking at any other metric at all.
IMO that’s not remotely good enough.
It would cost Apple almost nothing to add some other predicates like “has app been around for >12 months? Has app previously been featured by Apple? Does app have more than 100K downloads?”.
If any of these are true, app should go to T2 or even T3 before any contact is made with the developer whatsoever.
I mean this is customer support 101. The stress this must have caused the Amphetamine team must have been huge. And for what? A bad user experience and yet another hit to the reputation of the App Store.
App removals are serious business that affects livelihoods.
If T1 support sometimes has poor judgement, it should be required to internally escalate to T2 before actually making a decision.
For apps with more than a certain number of users, it should require another layer of escalation and approval, including a review of other apps to make sure rules are enforced clearly, fairly, and reasonably.
Finally, non-security removals should have a grace period of 60 to 90 days.
If T1 support sometimes has poor judgement, it should be required to internally escalate to T2 before actually making a decision.
For apps with more than a certain number of users, it should require another layer of escalation and approval, including a review of other apps to make sure rules are enforced clearly, fairly, and reasonably.
Finally, non-security removals should have a grace period of 60 to 90 days.
> Finally, non-security removals should have a grace period of 60 to 90 days.
That was the part that seemed especially outrageous to me. 14 days to appeal or make changes, with no guarantee of response time?
Even if he imagined T2 might reverse the decision, hedging his bets by going public was only rational, given the ticking clock.
Apple could have avoided this whole circus with a more reasonable time frame.
That was the part that seemed especially outrageous to me. 14 days to appeal or make changes, with no guarantee of response time?
Even if he imagined T2 might reverse the decision, hedging his bets by going public was only rational, given the ticking clock.
Apple could have avoided this whole circus with a more reasonable time frame.
This is really poorly conveyed. Apparently when you appeal they are supposed to stop the clock, but we (iSH) were certainly not told that and we hear that this is the norm with many apps in this process. I don’t know if this is supposed to fuel compliance in desperation or what, but apps that have strong cases are just going to run the the press. Unfortunately, it doesn’t look like Apple is trying to improve here…
Isn't this what the appeal process is for though, at least in theory?
It is, but the appeal process is quite opaque and uncertain: after all, you’re asking the same people that rejected your app. And with no clear SLA and an apparent deadline, it’s pretty difficult to deal with.
An appeal which is reviewed by the same organization that made the original determination is theater. It does not conditute oversight, it never has and it never will.
I start to think maybe they should start to introduce "jury" system into this. I feel that app developers are on trial with their living at risk many times when dealing big platforms.
I'm simply suggesting that developers should expect treatment from Apple that they would expect from their employer/manager (as many devs rely on app sales for their livelihoods).
> pretty soon everyone wants a sit down with Tim Cook
Most managers would (except in extreme circumstances), talk to their employee at least once before raising the topic of being fired.
> This looks more like T1 support made a call that T2 reversed. Not unusual.
Most managers would confer with their boss / HR / etc. before making the decision to fire someone.
Devs should expect the same from Apple.
> pretty soon everyone wants a sit down with Tim Cook
Most managers would (except in extreme circumstances), talk to their employee at least once before raising the topic of being fired.
> This looks more like T1 support made a call that T2 reversed. Not unusual.
Most managers would confer with their boss / HR / etc. before making the decision to fire someone.
Devs should expect the same from Apple.
This is the developer version of the "gig economy". You're not an employee and don't have rights - indeed, you have to pay to be a developer! As in the gig economy, your income depends on ratings and your livelihood can be terminated by automated system.
Respect unfortunately has to be fought for, and going to the press to apply pressure is one channel for that.
Respect unfortunately has to be fought for, and going to the press to apply pressure is one channel for that.
Developers pay a lot of money to have the privilege to become a part of the Apple ecosystem.
The least they can expect is customer service and actual conversation with the people that decide about their livelihoods.
That may not have been the case here, but being forced to rebrand as an indie app developer can be pretty hard on your userbase/potential reach.
The least they can expect is customer service and actual conversation with the people that decide about their livelihoods.
That may not have been the case here, but being forced to rebrand as an indie app developer can be pretty hard on your userbase/potential reach.
They should probably have considered -not- featuring it on the App Store as they did, and then objecting to it.
This is the real kicker. It seems very reasonable that any app that's getting a "change or else" letter ought to be flagged if Apple has featured it. That's basically a brand-endorsement from Apple, and it's in their best interest to white glove those.
That assumes the people choosing apps to be featured are the same people doing the review process.
I hope Apple is not becoming a second Google in terms of customer and developer interaction.
Apple doesn't gain anything from those negotiations, and they have nothing to lose by just kicking apps off. The app developer's choice is to do as apple says, or be limited to less profitable android sales
People on HN are happy to say they agree with Apple banning names like this because it protects their experience and brand.
It's hard to use the iPhone as a status symbol when it's associated with meth
People on HN are happy to say they agree with Apple banning names like this because it protects their experience and brand.
It's hard to use the iPhone as a status symbol when it's associated with meth
Definitely casts a new light on the comments from yesterdays post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25605880
Especially interesting is all the people advocating backing down, and how heavily upvoted those comments must have been to be at the top.
Yeah just like that time everyone raged on about how Apple didn't refund the 30% it took when a customer got a refund on the App store. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23987584
[deleted]
It's Hacker News do you expect people to not compulsively bend the knee when a corporation is discussed?
I think you might be falling prey to the notice-dislike bias: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor....
People with views opposite to yours post things like this:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25615692 (beat you by 8 hours!)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25603650 (don't miss the replies)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23729568 (there are hundreds of these...)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23396632 (ok last one)
Same bias, opposite starting point.
People with views opposite to yours post things like this:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25615692 (beat you by 8 hours!)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25603650 (don't miss the replies)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23729568 (there are hundreds of these...)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23396632 (ok last one)
Same bias, opposite starting point.
I believe you're bias towards centrism and the belief that the truth is somewhere in the middle, the cited people are wrong, and their perception of this site having a socialist lean is precisely what demonstrates their own bias. Believing that other people disagree with me proves we must both be wrong is ridiculous, you can in fact be wrong along with the people you quoted, rather than the sole voice of reason in an irrational site.
I made that statement because I saw the thread the other day about the same topic and all the top posts were people who think any store owner should have a right to remove problematic references to medical drugs. Including many posts about how the person in question should just give in without protest. Because of strong tyranny of the majority effects intrinsic to systems like Hacker News, once an update put the view that the person should "just give in" in a bad light, the slim majority of posters stopped posting and the slim minority of posters who were critical of apple thereafter posted with confidence. The reason you see so many people with differing views is that the community actually has a great diversity in its views, but still has slight biases, which are amplified by the site format, not the fact that everybody who notices these slight biases are bias themselves.
I made that statement because I saw the thread the other day about the same topic and all the top posts were people who think any store owner should have a right to remove problematic references to medical drugs. Including many posts about how the person in question should just give in without protest. Because of strong tyranny of the majority effects intrinsic to systems like Hacker News, once an update put the view that the person should "just give in" in a bad light, the slim majority of posters stopped posting and the slim minority of posters who were critical of apple thereafter posted with confidence. The reason you see so many people with differing views is that the community actually has a great diversity in its views, but still has slight biases, which are amplified by the site format, not the fact that everybody who notices these slight biases are bias themselves.
The thing is, the people on the other side say identical things about HN, just with one bit flipped (which political side they identify with). The comments are otherwise so similar that I don't think it's plausible that one set is accurately analyzing HN while the other set is just wrong. Rather, some underlying phenomenon is giving rise to both sets.
You can not only predict people's politics from what they claim about HN bias, you can predict the level of intensity they feel about it. At scale, it's a mechanistic phenomenon. The question is what's the mechanism. What I call the notice-dislike bias is my attempt to explain the mechanism.
I'd be very interested in any other explanation, but it's not plausible to think that the answer is "one side is good and has good views and sees HN accurately, while the other side is bad and has bad views and sees HN completely the wrong way". Even though the commenters in question all seem to think that.
It's common for people to interpret the above argument as a defense of political centrism, but that's a non sequitur. You can't derive a centrist position or any other political position from what I'm saying here, which is an empirical observation about social psychology on the internet.
You can not only predict people's politics from what they claim about HN bias, you can predict the level of intensity they feel about it. At scale, it's a mechanistic phenomenon. The question is what's the mechanism. What I call the notice-dislike bias is my attempt to explain the mechanism.
I'd be very interested in any other explanation, but it's not plausible to think that the answer is "one side is good and has good views and sees HN accurately, while the other side is bad and has bad views and sees HN completely the wrong way". Even though the commenters in question all seem to think that.
It's common for people to interpret the above argument as a defense of political centrism, but that's a non sequitur. You can't derive a centrist position or any other political position from what I'm saying here, which is an empirical observation about social psychology on the internet.
lamontcg(1)
Yesterdays comments are understandable;
The only reason Apple is now slightly changing their attitude (in my humble opinion), is because they (and other big tech) are facing a lot of antitrust probes by European Commission and the like... finally! Hopefully the big-tech monopolies will end sometime soon.
To quote the top comment:
> You [Ametaphine] think the world should get behind you and change the corrupt system.
The mocking tone of these naysayers indicates not just acknowledgement of prevailing reality but also an attempt to rationalize their own weakness. By attacking others who dare to stand up, these commenters can comfort themselves about why they're sitting down.
It's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality in action.
> You [Ametaphine] think the world should get behind you and change the corrupt system.
The mocking tone of these naysayers indicates not just acknowledgement of prevailing reality but also an attempt to rationalize their own weakness. By attacking others who dare to stand up, these commenters can comfort themselves about why they're sitting down.
It's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality in action.
I thought this situation was a great example of the tools a developer can use to push back. Good for them.
Devs should not have to mount social media campaigns to get bad app store decisions reversed.
I'd like to see some regulation of all app stores that requires a formal appeals process for decisions to ban existing apps that also mandates that the app stays in the store until the appeal is resolved.
I'd like to see some regulation of all app stores that requires a formal appeals process for decisions to ban existing apps that also mandates that the app stays in the store until the appeal is resolved.
Even worse, the developer has to pay for the privilege of releasing software on Apple's store. So they're paying to be treated this poorly.
What I want to see is Apple broken up.
Split them into a hardware company, an OS company, an app store company, and an applications company, and permanently forbid those companies from collaborating or moving into new markets.
Split them into a hardware company, an OS company, an app store company, and an applications company, and permanently forbid those companies from collaborating or moving into new markets.
???
Well then I'm glad you're not in charge.
The best thing about my Mac is how well integrated the OS is with the hardware.
And from there how well the applications, which are well-integrated with the hardware, work alongside the corresponding applications on my iPhone.
Well then I'm glad you're not in charge.
The best thing about my Mac is how well integrated the OS is with the hardware.
And from there how well the applications, which are well-integrated with the hardware, work alongside the corresponding applications on my iPhone.
Not only is this completely ludicrous (the latter part of they can’t work together), I don’t think most Apple customers would want this, only its competition.
Making it illegal to be successful and give customers what they want sure seems to to be a winning economy policy?
Making it illegal to be successful and give customers what they want sure seems to to be a winning economy policy?
What a laughable opinion. Who would break up Apple? The U.S. gov't? Assume they do, what is to stop Apple from moving operations overseas to evade the breakup. That would be a huge loss to the engineering talent in Cupertino.
Also I have noticed this narrative increasing online. A size-able company/mega corp does something the public assumes is done with malice and the ONLY solution is to "break up" the company. I think this narrative is misguided.
Also I have noticed this narrative increasing online. A size-able company/mega corp does something the public assumes is done with malice and the ONLY solution is to "break up" the company. I think this narrative is misguided.
Is there any chance of this happening? Heck, even Facebook and Google are taking too long to be broken up. I'm expecting a minor antitrust fine in the order of 10s of millions.
Google has a slight possibility. Facebook larger.
Apple is not a monopoly and has not been anticompetitive by any historic or contemporary legal definition. So no, it won’t get broken up any time soon.
You might see markers get regulated (eg. Mobile app stores) but that’s not antitrust, that’s legislation.
Apple is not a monopoly and has not been anticompetitive by any historic or contemporary legal definition. So no, it won’t get broken up any time soon.
You might see markers get regulated (eg. Mobile app stores) but that’s not antitrust, that’s legislation.
Well, it's ambiguous whether the social media action was needed or helpful.
It sounds like this was resolved through the appeals process and may have had the same outcome regardless.
Unlike some other controversial cases, this one did seem like a basic misunderstanding on Apple's part (specifically the reviewer/reviewers), and not a tricky judgement call.
The social media probably didn't hurt though, because the OP was professional and persuasive.
It sounds like this was resolved through the appeals process and may have had the same outcome regardless.
Unlike some other controversial cases, this one did seem like a basic misunderstanding on Apple's part (specifically the reviewer/reviewers), and not a tricky judgement call.
The social media probably didn't hurt though, because the OP was professional and persuasive.
And if you don't care about the dev: what do the users do when the dev doesn't mount a social media campaign? Tough luck?
What an awful platform.
What an awful platform.
I agree with the sentiment, but I don't feel these are mutually exclusive methods. The techniques used by the developer in this case could easily be genericized and shared out as a useful framework for those who end up in this position. That's a big deal, even if it is a short-term benefit while longer-term solutions are designed and implemented.
There is no evidence that social media was involved in this decision.
Also, Government regulation of app stores would be fatal for software freedom.
If you want to guarantee that the Apple App Store is never assailed by a competitor, your suggestion is a good one.
Also, Government regulation of app stores would be fatal for software freedom.
If you want to guarantee that the Apple App Store is never assailed by a competitor, your suggestion is a good one.
[deleted]
What would constitute evidence in this case? Apple is not going to admit they were swayed by bad PR here.
The pedantry of HN really is tiresome sometimes.
The pedantry of HN really is tiresome sometimes.
It’s not pedantry.
My typical experience of stupid Apple rejections is this:
1. Stupid rejection.
2. File appeal.
3. The appeal result is to approve the application
In this case, it went like this:
1. Stupid rejection.
2. File appeal.
3. Don’t wait for the appeal result.
4. Run to the press.
5. The appeal result is to approve the application.
There’s no indication 3 & 4 were necessary here. This seems like a trigger-happy reviewer whose decision was always going to be reversed.
My typical experience of stupid Apple rejections is this:
1. Stupid rejection.
2. File appeal.
3. The appeal result is to approve the application
In this case, it went like this:
1. Stupid rejection.
2. File appeal.
3. Don’t wait for the appeal result.
4. Run to the press.
5. The appeal result is to approve the application.
There’s no indication 3 & 4 were necessary here. This seems like a trigger-happy reviewer whose decision was always going to be reversed.
The fact is we don’t and can’t know if bad press factored into Apple’s decision here so there won’t be any “evidence” unless Apple provides it, which they won’t.
Apple has relented on similar cases after getting a lot of bad press so it’s a reasonable hypothesis that they do care about looking bad in public.
Apple has relented on similar cases after getting a lot of bad press so it’s a reasonable hypothesis that they do care about looking bad in public.
What cases involve a name change like this?
The only recent relenting involving the press that I am aware of is ‘Hey!’, which required Basecamp to implement a feature to conform to Apple’s rules.
The only recent relenting involving the press that I am aware of is ‘Hey!’, which required Basecamp to implement a feature to conform to Apple’s rules.
It's interesting you gathered that much experience in 6 months. Before that, appeals were simply not an option.
Do you not think it's strange you had to go through this process multiple times in 6 months?
Do you not think it's strange you had to go through this process multiple times in 6 months?
This is not correct. You could raise objections through iTunes Connect for many years, and also respond to many rejections directly. I think the first time I did this was 2010. What happened six months ago was an improvement to these channels and an expansion to allow people to challenge guidelines directly.
A report of some kind could easily indicate more about what happened even if they don’t ‘admit’ anything.
Without that, you’re just making up an assumption based on nothing.
Without that, you’re just making up an assumption based on nothing.
Report written and published by whom?
Even a report of a statement from Apple would give us some indication.
Or a report from the developer detailing their interactions might tell us.
There isn’t guaranteed to be evidence, but there obviously could be.
The absence of evidence is clearly not justification for your interpretation.
At best you can say media pressure may have been an influence.
Asserting that it is the cause, is simply faulty logic.
Or a report from the developer detailing their interactions might tell us.
There isn’t guaranteed to be evidence, but there obviously could be.
The absence of evidence is clearly not justification for your interpretation.
At best you can say media pressure may have been an influence.
Asserting that it is the cause, is simply faulty logic.
It's a great counterpoint to the whole "reaching out to social media" won't help statement that some Apple execs have made.
Apple has shown several times recently that reaching out to social media is by far the best way to get them to back down, provided you have the following to make them sweat the bad PR a bit.
Sadly it is also a great example of Apple setting suddenly way too tight deadlines. Imagine rebranding Apple in a few days to Bananas.
It is also a case of disrespecting long term business relationships. It is one thing to demand name changes or functionality changes from a new product. It is quite another to do it with a long term partner. And these sort of things could be very, very easily avoided dimply by a few rules, may a few lines of code and more respectful and mature communication in these corner cases.
It is also a case of disrespecting long term business relationships. It is one thing to demand name changes or functionality changes from a new product. It is quite another to do it with a long term partner. And these sort of things could be very, very easily avoided dimply by a few rules, may a few lines of code and more respectful and mature communication in these corner cases.
Twitter is becoming the outsourced helpdesk of those poor, shoddy transnational corporations. Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc are too poor and incompetent to run a helpdesk that could actually help anybody, but Twitter can. Twitter should raise a fee from those companies for its services.
It's just insane that you need Amphetamine, homebrew, iStat menus, and a dozen other 3rd party tools to do what should be part of an operating system's job anyway.
It is part of the operating system. You can either disable various power-saving measures. Or use the built-in shell command caffeinate. Or run a muted video looping in the background.
I’ve been confused about why this app even exists, for this very reason. I use the built-in facilities to keep my Mac awake.
Thank you, I wasn't aware of these options.
As a teacher, I was often in situations where a lesson would go on for a while with no computer interaction, and another teacher recommended Amphetamine. It worked well and I never discovered the shell command. I actually tried for a bit and never discovered a GUI option. Do you have a link handy?
As a teacher, I was often in situations where a lesson would go on for a while with no computer interaction, and another teacher recommended Amphetamine. It worked well and I never discovered the shell command. I actually tried for a bit and never discovered a GUI option. Do you have a link handy?
System Preferences -> Battery
Select either Battery or Power Adapter to make changes to how the system will go to sleep/turn the display off after a certain amount of time.
Select either Battery or Power Adapter to make changes to how the system will go to sleep/turn the display off after a certain amount of time.
As opposed to KDE, where you click the battery icon and check off "keep my computer awake".
Sometimes Apple's design is so stuck in the 90s that I have a hard time wrapping my head around it.
Sometimes Apple's design is so stuck in the 90s that I have a hard time wrapping my head around it.
You’re being downvoted for oversimplifying what this app does as well as the combative tone. As GP said, on Mac you can turn off sleep timer permanently in the OS settings. The app in question let’s you keep awake for the next N minutes/hours so the “keep awake” setting change isn’t permanent. It makes sleep-settings workflow much easier. It’s simple but worthwhile.
IDK. Take Amphetamine for example. I've been using Macs for decades and have no use for it.
I don't doubt it has its uses, but is it really OS functionality?
I suspect the defaults cover 90% of cases and System Prefs/caffinate cover maybe 90% of what's left.
I don't doubt it has its uses, but is it really OS functionality?
I suspect the defaults cover 90% of cases and System Prefs/caffinate cover maybe 90% of what's left.
> I don't doubt it has its uses, but is it really OS functionality?
Example: Closed-lid Macbooks with external display will go to sleep without this tool.
Example: Closed-lid Macbooks with external display will go to sleep without this tool.
As someone that's used a close lid macbook as my work machine for 5+ years - I've never had an issue with this.
Apparently the Macbook will only experience this issue while running on battery.
A closed lid MacBook will sleep unless an external monitor is connected. Amphetamine/KeepingYouAwake/Caffeinate does not change that.
Closed-lid + External Monitor + Power Supply = awake
Closed-lid + External Monitor + Battery = sleep
Closed-lid + External Monitor + Battery + Amphetamine = awakeMine sleeps with the lid closed unless it’s plugged into power.
[deleted]
Mine doesn't.
My current necessity: Jettison, to flush and auto-unmount removable drives (including my PCIe SSD) on sleep and remount on wake.
Think the source is a better link:
https://twitter.com/x74353/status/1345421211677949957
https://twitter.com/x74353/status/1345421211677949957
Is twitter ever a better link?
Everything relevant to the reader is captured by the twitter post of the developer. What does macrumours, or the verge from an earlier post, add?
Twitter recently completely blocked js-free viewing, it's never ideal.
I just read the tweet with a text-only browser that does not process javascript, using an "approved" User-Agent string.
Really? Until a few months ago I used to visit twitter links in FF w/noscript blocking js, it would just divert me to "classic" mode.
This is what happens currently in FF:
https://pengaru.com/~vc/tmp/twitter.png
Maybe they've stopped supporting my version of FireFox on Linux, and I've wrongly assumed it's strictly the lack of js? I'm not sure if that's any better... since this browser is perfectly capable of everything needed to view tweets.
This is what happens currently in FF:
https://pengaru.com/~vc/tmp/twitter.png
Maybe they've stopped supporting my version of FireFox on Linux, and I've wrongly assumed it's strictly the lack of js? I'm not sure if that's any better... since this browser is perfectly capable of everything needed to view tweets.
I never used a popular browser to read tweets in the past. I was using mobile.twitter.com leading up to this change; this is no longer possible. AFAICT what has changed is that they are requiring an "approved" user-agent string. Someone here on HN tried Googlebot and it worked. I just tested it and it is still working. There are other strings that work. You definitely do not need javascript to read Twitter.
> Someone here on HN tried Googlebot and it worked. I just tested it and it is still working
Was there an HN thread regarding this change that I missed?
Was there an HN thread regarding this change that I missed?
Additional discussion from a little earlier today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25615186
Didn’t know this existed because I rely heavily on Caffeine when I am presenting or doing something that requires no interaction with the mac for long periods of time. And the caffeine app(also a shell command) has been since like forever!
I switched from Caffeine to Amphetamine many years ago because Caffeine wasn't updated and had issues working on newer OS X releases. Amphetamine provides the option to use the same coffee cup logo from Caffeine in the menu bar, which I use. Has Caffeine been updated recently, because I've found Amphetamine is now inconsistent in prevent sleep on a Mac on Big Sur?
I find both "caffeine" and "Amphetamine" difficult to spell. Any tips?
Textexpander and bind Amphetamine to the letter a. Win-win.
This will happen again for the devs sometime in the near future. The app developers should just pick a different name to create an easier life for themselves.
The app name is problematic if you're a bit puritanical about naming or saying certain things that are edgy, which infects most US megacorps such as Twitter, Facebook et al. I've been on the end of this because they force their puritanical cultural US standards across the world. For example, in a pub, in Scotland, I can quite comfortably tell someone to "go fuck themselves", or "don't be a cunt". The way we use language and profanity is not the same, intent-wise, as whatever internal guidelines Jack, Mark and friends arrived at from a US interpretation. Using language such as this as a Scot on Twitter, between Scots, will get you a suspension.
Personally I think it's a daft name, and couldn't recommend anyway. Not because I'm puritanical, but because it's just trying to be provocative. It's up there with GIMP which is a challenge to talk about in any human company without people sniggering.
It's Apple's store, you bought into it, you play by their Puritan corporate rules.
And sure I could stop using Twitter, FB et al, but I don't have a livelihood to protect by needing to being on these things.
The app name is problematic if you're a bit puritanical about naming or saying certain things that are edgy, which infects most US megacorps such as Twitter, Facebook et al. I've been on the end of this because they force their puritanical cultural US standards across the world. For example, in a pub, in Scotland, I can quite comfortably tell someone to "go fuck themselves", or "don't be a cunt". The way we use language and profanity is not the same, intent-wise, as whatever internal guidelines Jack, Mark and friends arrived at from a US interpretation. Using language such as this as a Scot on Twitter, between Scots, will get you a suspension.
Personally I think it's a daft name, and couldn't recommend anyway. Not because I'm puritanical, but because it's just trying to be provocative. It's up there with GIMP which is a challenge to talk about in any human company without people sniggering.
It's Apple's store, you bought into it, you play by their Puritan corporate rules.
And sure I could stop using Twitter, FB et al, but I don't have a livelihood to protect by needing to being on these things.
"Apps that encourage consumption of tobacco and vape products, illegal drugs, or excessive amounts of alcohol are not permitted on the App Store."
Amphetamine is not an illegal drug in the US. It is available by prescription. Does Apple's statement mean illegal in any jurisdiction in any country? If the app was named something like "methamphetamine" (a different drug, illegal in the US) then Apple might have grounds to remove it under their policy.
Amphetamine is not an illegal drug in the US. It is available by prescription. Does Apple's statement mean illegal in any jurisdiction in any country? If the app was named something like "methamphetamine" (a different drug, illegal in the US) then Apple might have grounds to remove it under their policy.
I’d argue that just naming your app after it doesn’t even encourage the use of those drugs. Might as well enact a word blacklist on the app names if that’s all it takes.
> illegal in the US
I hate to "uhm, ackshully" this thread, but methamphetamine is also available on prescription in the US as Desoxyn: https://www.rxlist.com/desoxyn-drug.htm - because of that the DEA can only list Meth as Schedule II (i.e. drugs with proven-harm, but also proven medicinal use), whereas Schedule I is for drugs that the DEA claim are harmful and have no medicinal use - and don't ask why they put Cannabis on Schedule I... but it strongly hints that their classification scheme is not evidence-based...).
</sidetrack>
I hate to "uhm, ackshully" this thread, but methamphetamine is also available on prescription in the US as Desoxyn: https://www.rxlist.com/desoxyn-drug.htm - because of that the DEA can only list Meth as Schedule II (i.e. drugs with proven-harm, but also proven medicinal use), whereas Schedule I is for drugs that the DEA claim are harmful and have no medicinal use - and don't ask why they put Cannabis on Schedule I... but it strongly hints that their classification scheme is not evidence-based...).
</sidetrack>
I prefer Apple's human touch over Google's automated approach to developer support. False positives occur, but at least you have a chance
A chance once you go public, sure. If you don’t it is quite literally like talking to a wall.
I‘ve never gone public with an appeal; in my experience they reverse course quickly once you get a chance to speak to them most of the time. Sometimes it is like talking to a wall, but that’s certainly not universally true.
If your case is a simple misunderstanding, sure, it's possible that they will reverse course. They aren't impossible to deal with, and if it's clear they have made some obvious mistake they will generally quickly resolve the issue. However, the moment ambiguity comes up I have found that the people they send to talk to you don't have the necessary context or authority to really tell you what is going on behind the scenes, and the process moves forward so slowly that you risk hitting the deadline they give you. At that point you have few options but to go public, after which they will get back to you immediately with a fairly sane explanation of what the actual problem was or perhaps an apology if they were wrong.
Apple is not the problem here, it’s our collective psychotic reaction to the existence of drugs in our societies.
Amphetamines are literally medication. Its negative connotation are purely a result of older generations freaking out and trying to control a future they inevitably will have no part of.
Why do we accept the fantasies of these old fanatics, who are demonstrably clueless about the most basic mechanisms of human society?
Amphetamines are literally medication. Its negative connotation are purely a result of older generations freaking out and trying to control a future they inevitably will have no part of.
Why do we accept the fantasies of these old fanatics, who are demonstrably clueless about the most basic mechanisms of human society?
This clearly demonstrates exactly why "vendor lock-in" and "walled gardens" and centralized mega-corp service providers for everything under the sun are maybe not always such a great thing after all…
Let this be a lesson to all those people who were in the previous thread, trying to claim that this developer should just give an and rename their app, instead of starting a media incident.
The media blitz worked. Giving up would be bad advice. Making social media posts, that go viral, fixed the problem.
The media blitz worked. Giving up would be bad advice. Making social media posts, that go viral, fixed the problem.
That advice was valid 99.9999% of the time prior to this outcome.
Now it's valid 99.99985% of the time.
Now it's valid 99.99985% of the time.
No, it is really not valid. If you are able to successfully cause a large amount of PR damage to a company, then it is one of the most effective ways to get them to change their mind on something.
PR damage is a big deal, and companies back down all the time, in situations like this, where they don't actually lose much by backing down.
Maybe a couple won't back from some system wide policy, that is some large initiative of the company.
But, if we are talking about a situation where some rando, singular app or user or whatever, gets blocked/banned/whatever, due to an ambiguous policy, likely made by a singular low level moderation employee? Yeah, absolutely a company could be willing to back down from such an insignificant decision, if the alternative is suffering bad PR.
PR damage is a big deal, and companies back down all the time, in situations like this, where they don't actually lose much by backing down.
Maybe a couple won't back from some system wide policy, that is some large initiative of the company.
But, if we are talking about a situation where some rando, singular app or user or whatever, gets blocked/banned/whatever, due to an ambiguous policy, likely made by a singular low level moderation employee? Yeah, absolutely a company could be willing to back down from such an insignificant decision, if the alternative is suffering bad PR.
I hate that the media blitz worked, now every developer with the slightest roadblock is going to mount annoying social media campaigns (tantrums really) until they get their way. Not sure if I like this.
How else would you have preferred this to play out, afaik Apple doesn't exactly have a responsive or sympathetic support hotline for stuff like this, perhaps the problem was that this was their only real option?
This wasn’t his only option. He’d already filed an appeal with Apple, this is the result of the appeal. This was the likely outcome without any “media blitz”.
Assuming it was the social media campaign, it clearly isn’t going to work with every issue.
Just come out and say you hate developers having any rights instead of dancing around the topic. This was inarguably a poor decision on Apple's part.
If Apple keeps this up, the developers will leave, and then you'll have nothing to rabidly fanboy over.
If Apple keeps this up, the developers will leave, and then you'll have nothing to rabidly fanboy over.
Bit unfortunate to me, I dislike the name given its drug connotation and don’t use it simply for that reason. I believe Apple should remove it without a name and icon change.
Amphetamines have documented and accepted medical value to individuals diagnosed with conditions such as sleep apnea, eating disorders and ADHD. Do you ascribe also these individuals and their practicioner with drug connotations, maybe you simply avoid them?
The name of the application seems appropriate for addressing common problmens described in ways like, > “sleep behavior [..] affecting several of my operations, I have been trying to use caffeinate ..”
The name of the application seems appropriate for addressing common problmens described in ways like, > “sleep behavior [..] affecting several of my operations, I have been trying to use caffeinate ..”
KeepingYouAwake is a nice open source alternative that you can find on GitHub
I don’t like your username. I believe HN mods should simply remove your account without a name change.
* Everything that's on the news, that is.