Advertisement
Australia markets closed
  • ALL ORDS

    8,022.70
    +28.50 (+0.36%)
     
  • ASX 200

    7,749.00
    +27.40 (+0.35%)
     
  • AUD/USD

    0.6604
    -0.0017 (-0.26%)
     
  • OIL

    78.20
    -1.06 (-1.34%)
     
  • GOLD

    2,366.90
    +26.60 (+1.14%)
     
  • Bitcoin AUD

    92,059.37
    -2,995.88 (-3.15%)
     
  • CMC Crypto 200

    1,260.04
    -97.97 (-7.21%)
     
  • AUD/EUR

    0.6128
    -0.0010 (-0.16%)
     
  • AUD/NZD

    1.0963
    -0.0006 (-0.05%)
     
  • NZX 50

    11,755.17
    +8.59 (+0.07%)
     
  • NASDAQ

    18,161.18
    +47.72 (+0.26%)
     
  • FTSE

    8,433.76
    +52.41 (+0.63%)
     
  • Dow Jones

    39,512.84
    +125.08 (+0.32%)
     
  • DAX

    18,772.85
    +86.25 (+0.46%)
     
  • Hang Seng

    18,963.68
    +425.87 (+2.30%)
     
  • NIKKEI 225

    38,229.11
    +155.13 (+0.41%)
     
Engadget
Why you can trust us

Engadget has been testing and reviewing consumer tech since 2004. Our stories may include affiliate links; if you buy something through a link, we may earn a commission. Read more about how we evaluate products.

Apple reconsiders banning Mac app Amphetamine over its drug-inspired name

The row highlights inconsistent app approval policies.

Devindra Hardawar/Engadget

Apple is once again facing scrutiny over the consistency of its app policies. As MacRumors reports, the company has reversed a decision that would have removed William Gustafson’s keep-awake utility Amphetamine from the Mac App Store on January 12th. Apple had claimed the name violates policies forbidding the encouragement of some drug use despite the app being available since 2014 and even promoted in the store.

Gustafson had stressed that amphetamines were legal in the US (with a prescription) and that there was no attempt to glorify the medication — the name was the only real reference. The developer took advantage of Apple’s appeals process to win the reversal, with Apple recognizing that Gustafson was referencing amphetamine “metaphorically” and in a “medical sense.”

The dispute was over in a matter of days after the December 29th warning, but it still highlights the issues with App Store guidelines. While a focus on human reviewers reduces the chances of malware and other dodgy content sneaking through the review process, it also increases the chances of inconsistencies where a reviewer might interpret rules differently.

ADVERTISEMENT

This isn’t as much of an issue on the Mac as on the iPhone, as developers can easily offer apps outside of the App Store. Still, a removal could have dealt a serious blow. The Mac App Store offers significant exposure, and it would be that much harder to attract new users by pitching them through other channels.