Sure, but people aren’t dying from Pax vapes, they’re dying from black market cartridges that Pax doesn’t sell or design for.
[automerge]1574233985[/automerge]
Booze is far worse, and Pax products themselves aren’t the issue.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Vaporizer Manufacturer PAX Calls on Apple to Rethink Vaping-Related App Ban
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
[automerge]1574233985[/automerge]
I’m sure there is a bit of virtue signaling going on from Apple, but it seems to me that seeing the spike in deaths due to vaping and not knowing the true culprit, Apple is washing their hands and saying we want no part. I’m sure they’d get named in a lawsuit somehow just for the act of having the apps in their store. Their bank account is a lawsuit magnet.
Vaping is a dangerous, unhealthy habit. I don't care what anybody says. It's just bad for people.
well, you can't even set the temperature on my €300 Storz & Bickel Crafty Vaporizer without an app...
So is driving. I don't see apple banning car apps.
Apple really ought to have finer grained, more nuanced curation to resolve issues such as this one. My suggestion is to have App Store "tiers" differentiated according to the following App Store curation features:
1. Eligible for all privileges, including App Store promotion and popularity rankings. (Much as today.)
2. "White pages listing" in the App Store. Only shows up in App Store keyword searches.
3. Distributed by the App Store but unlisted. Does not show up in App Store keyword searches. It's up to app vendors to promote these apps with direct links (Web links, QR code links, etc.)
4. Device safety-related signing service only, to check and periodically recheck for revocation. Safeguards only basic, immediate, existential device integrity and an "emergency room" threshold for preventing human harm. (No apps promoting violent acts, for example.) May require special sandboxing in iOS/iPadOS that excludes particularly sensitive APIs from app use and would definitely require emphatic user prompts. ("Are you really, REALLY sure?") App vendors would provide distribution (file delivery) of these apps so that Apple would not be responsible for distributing them. This'd be the usual "red light district" for apps in categories such as pornography, gambling, vaping, marijuana, firearms, needle exchange programs, and Tor.
5. Development mode, with limited distribution. (Much as today.)
6. Geographic limits (limiting apps to certain country App Stores), although in a new development Apple would charge a modest fee for this "anti-service." There are way too many geographic limits on apps -- App 1 only available in Country 1's App Store. Adding a geolimit fee would wisely make developers and distributors think twice about geolimiting/geoblocking without some reason.
7. Age of majority limits. The upper limit would be age 21, although lower limits would also be available. There would be no higher limits available (to avoid age discrimination).
1. Eligible for all privileges, including App Store promotion and popularity rankings. (Much as today.)
2. "White pages listing" in the App Store. Only shows up in App Store keyword searches.
3. Distributed by the App Store but unlisted. Does not show up in App Store keyword searches. It's up to app vendors to promote these apps with direct links (Web links, QR code links, etc.)
4. Device safety-related signing service only, to check and periodically recheck for revocation. Safeguards only basic, immediate, existential device integrity and an "emergency room" threshold for preventing human harm. (No apps promoting violent acts, for example.) May require special sandboxing in iOS/iPadOS that excludes particularly sensitive APIs from app use and would definitely require emphatic user prompts. ("Are you really, REALLY sure?") App vendors would provide distribution (file delivery) of these apps so that Apple would not be responsible for distributing them. This'd be the usual "red light district" for apps in categories such as pornography, gambling, vaping, marijuana, firearms, needle exchange programs, and Tor.
5. Development mode, with limited distribution. (Much as today.)
6. Geographic limits (limiting apps to certain country App Stores), although in a new development Apple would charge a modest fee for this "anti-service." There are way too many geographic limits on apps -- App 1 only available in Country 1's App Store. Adding a geolimit fee would wisely make developers and distributors think twice about geolimiting/geoblocking without some reason.
7. Age of majority limits. The upper limit would be age 21, although lower limits would also be available. There would be no higher limits available (to avoid age discrimination).
How some human beings kill themselves consuming legal or illegal drugs is beyond understanding. Drugs - your’e as safe as you wanna be! Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the former. -- Albert Einstein.
Then that’s the onus on the manufacturer for making such design decision, not Apple’s fault.
Why hasn’t Apple banned all American football and boxing related apps after the mountain of evidence regarding concussions and brain damage?
Oh right, Tim likes money.
Oh right, Tim likes money.
I remember those first tacky apps, where people could like, see iPhone screen as a glass of beer and tilt it and pretend they drink beer out of iPhone 3G or something. Oh, how times have changed.
Any way, delete wine and beer emojis from keyboard, otherwise it encourages users to get drunk. Let's see, how far this approach of trying to please every one and avoiding anything some one could call controversial can go.
Any way, delete wine and beer emojis from keyboard, otherwise it encourages users to get drunk. Let's see, how far this approach of trying to please every one and avoiding anything some one could call controversial can go.
Fair enough Apple is a private company and doesn’t want to host these apps on its store.
Just download and install them yourself from the developer. It’s not like Apple is a monopoly...
[automerge]1574245261[/automerge]
I remember those first tacky apps, where people could like, see iPhone screen as a glass of beer and tilt it and pretend they drink beer out of iPhone 3G or something. Oh, how times have changed.
Any way, delete wine and beer emojis from keyboard, otherwise it encourages users to get drunk. Let's see, how far this approach of trying to please every one and avoiding anything some one could call controversial can go.
First Tim came for the Hong Kong protestors and I did not speak out because I was not a Hong Kong protestor.
Then Tim came for the vape users and I did not speak out because I was not a vape user.
Then Tim came for me...
Last edited:
Thanks Apple but grown adults don't need or want a nanny.
This is the exact reason why we need non-discrimination laws for store providers that have a significant market impact.
If it's not banned by law, there's no need to censor anything. If you like censorship don't praise the democrazy.
Decisions like these can easily drive people out of business if Apple and/or google decide that their app doesn't match their corporate policy anymore.
Apple is just jumping the current panic-train with this move... pathetic...
This is the exact reason why we need non-discrimination laws for store providers that have a significant market impact.
If it's not banned by law, there's no need to censor anything. If you like censorship don't praise the democrazy.
Decisions like these can easily drive people out of business if Apple and/or google decide that their app doesn't match their corporate policy anymore.
Apple is just jumping the current panic-train with this move... pathetic...
I am with Apple. For all of you saying you're adults, and can do whatever you want, well, you're right. But Apple is relying on public health concerns, not just about the particular horrors of multiple deaths and thousands of young people with severe damage to their lungs. This is not something, to my mind, that can be minimized. The illusion is that, if you don't inhale the tobacco products, just the nicotine, then it is not harmful. The problem is much worse than that. The fact is, after the tobacco lawsuit made cigarettes very expensive, and made the harm done by tobacco unquestionable, people looking for an oral fix decided to try vaping. How much of the problem was due just to some unsavory types putting bizarre chemicals in their mixtures without studying the possible effects? Some, but not all. In fact, vaping just took off, with little to no research about what was safe and what wasn't. What additives can be allowed, and which can't. How hot can this delivery system be? What fluids and oils are safe, when transported into the lungs.
In the old days, smoking for 20-30 years was common, and the deaths from lung cancer were predictable and grew every year. Maybe the CDC and the FDA should do some thorough research, so "adults" will have the information they need for a more informed choice. There's a lot of thinking being driven by addiction among vapers, it seems to me. As it happens, the first we found out about it was a number of sudden deaths among perfectly healthy young people. So now, the FDA will have to do research, and come out with regulations. This additive is safe, this is not. And I know that the culprit that you all mention is responsible for the most grisly of those deaths. In all of them?
I smoked for 25 years. I gave up almost 20 years ago, after a heart attack of which the doctors all said, "Your only risk factor is smoking."
I have a friend who stopped vaping as soon as the news spread. I'd call that a wise precaution, if you can do it. You're not likely to get cancer, true. But we need a lot more research to discover everything we need to know. I think Apple is, in part, a health company. I think it has decided it doesn't want to make it easier to vape until they're sure of the realities here, which aren't known yet.
In the old days, smoking for 20-30 years was common, and the deaths from lung cancer were predictable and grew every year. Maybe the CDC and the FDA should do some thorough research, so "adults" will have the information they need for a more informed choice. There's a lot of thinking being driven by addiction among vapers, it seems to me. As it happens, the first we found out about it was a number of sudden deaths among perfectly healthy young people. So now, the FDA will have to do research, and come out with regulations. This additive is safe, this is not. And I know that the culprit that you all mention is responsible for the most grisly of those deaths. In all of them?
I smoked for 25 years. I gave up almost 20 years ago, after a heart attack of which the doctors all said, "Your only risk factor is smoking."
I have a friend who stopped vaping as soon as the news spread. I'd call that a wise precaution, if you can do it. You're not likely to get cancer, true. But we need a lot more research to discover everything we need to know. I think Apple is, in part, a health company. I think it has decided it doesn't want to make it easier to vape until they're sure of the realities here, which aren't known yet.
Last edited:
You don't get it. Like so many here.
So, then your Hobby Lobby is closed for everyone. Not just a few.
Apple and goggle are in a Duopoly position. If they kick someone out of their store, a business can get bankrupt. That's a fact that we hopefully don't need to discuss here. Doing so is basicually abusing their dominant position on the market. And, no, you don't need 100% market share to be in a dominant position.
An, also no, a developer has no influence on which phones his customers own. So saying "buy another phone" is just saying you're not seing the big picture.
Also, owning a business doesn't doesn't mean you can do whatever you want.
The society requires non-discrimination. So you are not allowed to turn down a person because of their skin color
The market requires competition so there are anti-trust laws. Also, if you enforce a single store on your phone it's not your call to literally ban legitimate apps just because they don't align with your company policy. What's next? Apple & google banning apps that show food that could perhaps in some rare cases lead to diabetes? Because you shouldn't be tempted to eat sugar stuffed donuts? So, no Dunkin Donuts or McDonalds app anymore...
If you believe in democrazy and the free market then you should know that the rules that pave the way for this also need to be enforced on those who base their business on it. Saying you want a free market and then let those who profit from it enforce a closed/censored market is not how this is supposed to work.
The problem is that across America and in the UK, there are people dying and needing double lung transplants because of an unregulated market. Can you imagine if smoking tobacco was being introduced these days?! No way would it be allowed.
Until there is proper regulation and known health problems found, Apple should not facilitate anything to do with this.
Yay censorship! Thank you Apple, for protecting us from messages you don’t approve of.![]()
Apple last week removed all vaping-related apps from the App Store and updated App Store guidelines to prohibit apps that facilitate or encourage the use of vape-related devices.
Apple never allowed apps that sold vape cartridges, but it did allow apps that offered up vape-related news or provided controls for vape devices. Some companies, such as PAX, relied heavily on Apple's App Store to add technology to vaporizer devices and those companies are unhappy with Apple's recent ban.
![paxmobile-800x398.jpg]()
PAX today penned a missive calling on Apple to rethink its decision as PAX creates several vaporizers that are designed to be controlled and customized through iOS and Android apps. The now-banned PAX Mobile app, for example, let PAX vaporizer users do things like adjust the vaporizer temperature, set parental controls, verify the authenticity of cartridges, and change the colors of the lights on the devices.
PAX says that while it respects Apple's leadership, it is concerned with Apple's ban because it prevents consumers in legal stages from "having access to important information and the ability to better control their cannabis experience."
Apple decided to ban all vaping-related apps after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported 2,172 lung injury cases linked to e-cigarette or vape products containing vitamin E acetate, found primarily in products "informally" sourced from friends, family, or in-person or online dealers.
In a statement, Apple said that it agrees with the CDC's opinion that the spread of vaping devices is a "public health crisis and youth epidemic," which is why the apps were pulled.According to PAX, it aims to deliver technology to allow adults to make "educated, informed choices." The company cites its new PodID feature, which is designed to offer consumers "unprecedented access" to the information about what is in vape pods, including strain information, cannabinoid and terpene profiles, and access to state regulated test results, which could ultimately help vaporizer users avoid illicit and dangerous cartridges.
PAX says that it is hoping to work in partnership with Apple to reconsider the decision and make the PAX Mobile app available once again "in the interest of public health and safety."
Those who have already downloaded the PAX Mobile app on iOS can continue to use it for the time being, and it's still available on Android devices. PAX says that all PAX devices can be used without the app and temperature can be changed on the device alone.
Note: Due to the political nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.
Article Link: Vaporizer Manufacturer PAX Calls on Apple to Rethink Vaping-Related App Ban
Now... why is it that you can still access Faux “News” Channel from Safari? In fact, don’t they even have an APP on the APP STORE?
(Checks in app store...)
Yep. Why is THAT okay?
Also, there are apps on the App Store for beer related apps, (why the f is THAT OKAY?) as well as ones for tobacco.
This seems like unfair targeting of something that is suddenly unpopular. If they’re going to ban THAT, they really need to ban all the other apps that are related to, or promote, or serve as advertising demonstrably-harmful things... substances, activities, etc?
Just another thing Apple has done for me to grumble about while I contemplate replacing all my Apple products with products from other manufacturers so I no longer have to concern myself with all the BS they pull, like this.
You should have a locked fence to keep children out when there is no adult present. And when they're swimming, children need to be watched like a hawk.
Within certain boundaries, though!
Regarding iOS devices you could well argue that it actually is, as you can not simply download apps from the developer and install them on an iOS device (my apologies if I missed possible sarcasm tags). And even the advocators of a totally free market dislike monopolies (and for good reason).
q.f.t.!
