13 ms·

Apple Responds to Dash Controversy

199 points by lazerwalker 10y ago

Cyph0n 10y ago
Well that's definitely strange. Why would the developer do such a thing when Dash is basically the best app of its kind out there? Edit: To other commenters, why would Apple accuse the dev of faking reviews if it wasn't true? I don't see Apple getting anything out of it.
- Lazare 10y ago
  As one of the other commenters, I wasn't suggesting that Apple is purposefully accusing innocent developers as part of a nefarious plot; I was suggesting that they might be mistaken, and obliquely hinting that it would be nice if they'd respond to the controversy with actual proof, as the article title (apparently falsely?) claimed they had. > I don't see Apple getting anything out of it. Refusing to admit innocent error is a very understandable course of action. If, of course, that's what they're doing. From where I stand the entire situation is completely muddy, and I don't think the linked article clarifies anything.
  - threeseed 10y ago
    Apple has often made mistakes in the removal of apps. Usually they just apologise and put it back up. It would be very uncharacteristic to stubbornly refuse to acknowledge and rectify the mistake.
  - CountSessine 10y ago
    I was suggesting that they might be mistaken, and obliquely hinting that it would be nice if they'd respond to the controversy with actual proof They'll never provide proof for the same reason that Google won't publicize the exact parameters behind search; it would provide bad actors with information on how to game their system.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >Well that's definitely strange. Why would the developer do such a thing when Dash is basically the best app of its kind out there? Because few people care to check it out / buy it? Being the "best of its kind", belonging to a popular app genre, and actually selling are three distinct things.
- Watabou 10y ago
  According to Gruber[1], it's not Dash itself, but it's the apps that the developer had created on his other accounts. [1]: http://daringfireball.net/2016/10/apple_dash_controversy http://daringfireball.net/2016/10/apple_dash_controversy
daeken 10y ago
There's proof, but we're not going to link it because ... reasons. Why would they not include any proof that might exist?
- xsmasher 10y ago
  Because they're in an arms race with review spammers, and telling the spammers how they were detected causes them to evolve new, undetected behaviors. It might not be fair, but it's logical.
  - x0x0 10y ago
    While Apple understandably may be very reluctant to disclose review validation / fraud detection methods, they could certainly show some trusted media figure -- Marco, some other popular ios developer, maybe even Gruber -- some detailed bit of proof and put this controversy to rest. If, indeed, they have any proof.
    - newscracker 10y ago
      That would be pointless because these people would be accused of being shills who would always sing praises of Apple. There's no easy way to handle giving away the proof and having an expectation that it would indeed help Apple. Depending on the material, there could be nuances that could be interpreted out of context…the context being the entire chain of events and internal and external communications that took place.
- shahzeb 10y ago
  I think a major reason is still probably customer confidentiality. They've got to play it on the defensive.
- tjohns 10y ago
  I suspect it's because that would reveal what signals their abuse detection system is looking at, making it easier for malicious actors to bypass those checks. It's very common with these types of systems to keep the details secret. Unfortunately, it does create a frustrating situation when you're on the other end of a complaint.
Lazare 10y ago
This is a very weird definition of "proof". A much more accurate headline might be "Apple responds to Dash controversy by insisting they were right all along and refusing to provide proof." Edit: The tone of the entire article rubs me the wrong way; it reads like a press release that nobody could be bothered to re-write. > The integrity of the App Store is as important to Apple as it is to consumers. Citation needed? Plus it immediately follows an unsubstantiated claim that Apple has been ignoring evidence of review manipulation for two years, so even if we take the article at face value...that doesn't sound like they think it's important? > This is part of the reason we trust Apple and the App Store. That's the most circular argument. "We trust Apple because they claim they're trustworthy!"
- threeseed 10y ago
  It seems like Apple was very reluctant to remove the account given the Dash is the sort of app they want people to make. So I am not surprised they gave a lot of leeway to the developer.
- jwilcoxson 10y ago
  Unfortunately The Loop isn't much of a news site, more of a controlled Apple leak blog. Dalrymple has gotten to the point of being a complete Apple shill. Edit: Compare the tone of the Loop article to Daring Fireballs: http://daringfireball.net/2016/10/apple_dash_controversy http://daringfireball.net/2016/10/apple_dash_controversy Gruber takes a much more unbiased approach, supported well. The Loop article reads like a statement from the Principal read by your teacher.
  - stouset 10y ago
    I'd like to think we can keep personal attacks like this off of HN without some sort of substantiation.
    - ixtli 10y ago
      How is this a personal attack? It simply acknowledges that both of these websites are written by individuals. Would the substance of the comment be different had he simply used the website's names?
forgottenpass 10y ago
App Store fraud cannot be tolerated. Really? The integrity of user feedback data, inside a tool for loading software onto a toy (that functions as a tool just often enough for users to convince themselves it's not a toy) is that sacrosanct? What is that data used for? Surely something more important to the world than helping people get find their next fix fastest? Seems kinda myopic on a grand scale. Has Apple has never done anything cheeky to help their business get ahead? They have a $1.8mm manipulation budget. But they know which toes not to step on, and which toes nobody will hear a scream from. So my use of "manipulation" instead of "marketing" sounds childish.
rythie 10y ago
What if the fake reviews were paid for by a competitor, so they would get banned?
- Bud 10y ago
  What if Apple just happened to be smart enough to think of the most obvious, very first question that would need to be asked in this situation?
  - coldtea 10y ago
    People do this thing with research papers ("the researchers were stupid and didn't think of <insert obvious thing here>") -- so they wouldn't think twice (pun intended) about doing it with a new story.
  - chc 10y ago
    That would be wonderful. Do you have any evidence that this is the case? I mean, we are talking about the same company that just a few years back subjected all iPhone developers to such a strict NDA that they were technically not allowed to discuss a WWDC panel they were watching with the person sitting next to them.
  - CamperBob2 10y ago
    What question is that? I'm apparently not smart enough to come up with a question that would enable me to distinguish between reviews from agents paid by competitors versus those paid by the original developer. Edit: Seriously, what question can I ask? This sounds like a fun brainteaser, like the one where half of the people on an island are liars and half are truth-tellers, and the explorer has to figure out which fork in the road leads to the village. If there's an answer, I'd genuinely like to hear it. Downvoting me is just a way to shrug your shoulders and admit your bluff has been called.
mmel 10y ago
So there's an incentive to write fraudulent, positive reviews for your competitors apps. Noted.
- stephen_g 10y ago
  No, you have to have an account that your competitor opened with their own credit card and gave to you, and then you publish an app for that account and buy fraudulent reviews for it. The account that the fraud happened on, and all the other accounts that appear 'linked' will be closed. The issue was with the account he gave to his relative, which Apple probably assumed was his account because it used the same credit card and test devices registered to both accounts.
  - FireBeyond 10y ago
    "No, you have to have an account that your competitor opened with their own credit card and gave to you, and then you publish an app for that account and buy fraudulent reviews for it." implying that this is the only way Apple would consider fraudulent positive reviews to be developer's fault? Unlikely.
newsat13 10y ago
Didn't the dash author say that it was inexplicably removed with no warning. Now this press release says otherwise... For people saying this was already in top of app store, well, there was rating manipulation. That's why it was on the top (?)
- ParadoxOryx 10y ago
  According to his blog post [1], it sounds like the other account that was engaged in fraudulent activity was notified, but "his" account was not. [1]: https://blog.kapeli.com/dash-and-apple-my-side-of-the-story https://blog.kapeli.com/dash-and-apple-my-side-of-the-story
  - newsat13 10y ago
    Can someone explain how 1 account can act "nefariously" ?
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
mhandley 10y ago
So if you want to get your competitor banned from the App store, just post lots of spammy positive reviews for their product? How would you defend your app against such an attack?
- abestic9 10y ago
  While I don't know how their rating system or detection works, I imagine it would be harder than just posting spammy positive reviews. They would have to have solid evidence that you're doing it to your own app, or paying someone to do it on your behalf.
  - Blaaguuu 10y ago
    I hope that's the case... It would make sense, since this doesn't appear to be an action Apple has taken on a regular basis.
  - lewisl9029 10y ago
    Genuinely curious: what are some heuristics that could be used to distinguish between fraudulent reviews paid for by the developer and those paid for by a malicious third party? Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems practically impossible to distinguish between the two unless there was a royal screw up somewhere along the line.
    - HappyTypist 10y ago
      Using freebie promo codes given by the developer
- skwirl 10y ago
  I would recommend responding to Apple when they attempt to contact you. It appears that this developer did not do that.
  - brazzledazzle 10y ago
    It also sounds like he didn't get those attempts. It's easy to assume good faith on the part of both parties here.
ben174 10y ago
So if I want to remove a competing app from the app store, all I have to do is buy them a bunch of fake reviews and Apple will ban them?
- sintaxi 10y ago
  yup.
- bobbyi_settv 10y ago
  Yes, but apparently you'll have to wait two years for Apple to do anything
- Bud 10y ago
  No. There is no evidence for this. You're assuming that Apple has no process to distinguish between intentional fraudulent reviews coming from the developer in question, and random fraudulent reviews from others. But that assumption is not supported by any facts.
  - macinjosh 10y ago
    There is no evidence it isn't this either. Detecting fake reviews is easy, detecting the source (probably a click farm) is probably pretty easy too but getting to the bottom of who hired the click farm would be extremely difficult. You'd probably need assistance from law enforcement or a court, probably in a developing country, to get that information from the click farm operators. I would think its pretty easy to hire a click farm to blatantly post fake reviews to the app store. The worse the click farm is at covering their tracks the better if you're trying to get a competitor banned by Apple. Dash was a popular app among developers who use Apple products I doubt the fake reviews would be needed. I wouldn't be surprised at all if this was caused by a third party.
  - westernmostcoy 10y ago
    Without some direct information from Apple, it's perfectly valid to wonder if they were manipulated in some way. There aren't any facts available to us that point in one direction or the other.
buckbova 10y ago
> Almost 1,000 fraudulent reviews were detected across two accounts and 25 apps for this developer so we removed their apps and accounts from the App Store Sounds damning. Was this a paid app? How many downloads did it have?
yladiz 10y ago
I'm willing to give Apple the benefit of the doubt here, because they are unlikely to release information as specific as this to the press unless it's been checked and vetted, even if they don't release the proof to the public. And without the proof, it's really their word against the developer's. Does Apple have a bad reputation when it comes to this kind of thing? If not, why are people so strongly on the developer's side?
0x0 10y ago
The root problem in this controversy, in my opinion, is that iOS offers no other way to install third party applications outside the appstore for the general public. If a blackmailing attacker hits your app with fraudulent reviews on purpose you have nowhere to go with your app. If you could at least host the .ipa for installation on your own web page, such tactics wouldn't necessarily turn into a death sentence, just a loss of access to an effective sales channel (the app store)
- Mao_Zedang 10y ago
  Platforms that dont support side loading need to be held to a higher standard than those that dont.
Mao_Zedang 10y ago
this is a new attack vector that will definitely start getting used against competitors.
fcoury 10y ago
This may sound stupid, and I am not by any means saying this is what happened here, but would it be possible for someone to maliciously buy fake reviews for a competitor app? What would happen in this scenario?
sintaxi 10y ago
Where does Apple respond? Or is this blog maintained by Apple?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
protomyth 10y ago
I get the feeling the bigger problem for Apple is the number of developers who really don't believe them.
sixhobbits 10y ago
I'm not familiar with this site, so this might be ignorant, but it seems strange. Bad copy on a wordpress site. At first is looks pretty official, but none of the "according to Apple" or "Apparently" quotes are cited or linked. Did Apple release a statement or press release about this? At the end it just says "it seems to me...". Who is this guy? Do we have a better source for this news?
- dangoor 10y ago
  This is Jim Dalrymple's site (I might have the spelling wrong). He is well-known among Apple bloggers to be well connected to Apple people. I've seen sites like MacRumors use a "Yep." confirmation from Dalrymple as evidence of a rumor, so I guess folks have some reason to believe he's connected.
codezero 10y ago
Having dealt with nefarious characters in a pretty active community that was quick to defend their own members (even when they were being very naughty) I'll give my guess as to what's happened, basically assuming good faith in Apple, mainly to counter a lot of the questions here around "what if a competitor bought these..." In cases where Apple is this certain (or seemingly certain) they usually have a smoking gun. That is, they have some kind of heuristic or action/event that is unquestionably tied to the developer. Perhaps a bunch of the positive reviews came from installs that used a developer freebie code, something only the developer could give out. Also, smoking guns, when you're dealing with fraud and systems that people can manipulate, are the kind of thing you don't share with others. I expect that Apple has seen _a lot_ of competitors trying to screw over other apps, and they would have exhausted that possibility before banning a popular app.
- kevin_nisbet 10y ago
  I think the difficult part is correctly attributing the behavior to the correct party. My knee jerk reaction to this article, is that if I were nefarious and I wanted to get a competitor off the appstore, than I would game the review system on their behalf. I didn't look at it too closely, but I think part of it they said was also creating negative reviews for competitors. Like you said, it depends on the smoking gun or the strength of evidence, but without knowing what criteria Apple uses I think it's difficult to say how prudent they might be. I of course have no indication that another party is involved in this case, I just imagine that it could, along with any number of other scenarios. Without knowing what evidence or criteria apple uses to make this determination, it's impossible to say as an external observer.
  - codezero 10y ago
    Yep. I look at it this way: Apple has a team, or teams, dedicated to detecting and stopping fraudulent behavior. People on these teams are very smart and are likely using very sophisticated methods for detecting fraudulent behavior and attributing it, and they are very sensitive to false positives. It's likely better to take no action than to take action, so when you take action, it is only when there is a very strong positive signal. Again, I'm making assumptions because this is how the work I did went. There are a lot of things that can be done before dropping an app from the store entirely, and Apple is incentivized to keep the apps in the store – they get paid when people buy them, so removing them is a last straw.
falcolas 10y ago
So, now we have a "He Said; She Said" situation. Who do we trust? Apple? They've made mistakes before, and need to protect their integrity. The Dash developer? It's in his best interests to paint himself in the best light. What's worse, by coming out, the Dash developer has forced Apple into a defensive position, ensuring that Dash will never appear on iOS again. Dash has now lost revenue and exposure opportunities, and Apple's consumers are reminded once again that they don't have the right to control their devices. Both sides want to come out of this looking good, and right now neither side does.
- falcolas 10y ago
  And hence comes the recordings. Dash developer caught up in an errant fraud check? Eh, it happens. At least this is Apple; were it Google, the developer would be right proper fucked (then again, his post made it to HN, so he might have gotten some special attention). However, making that resolution conditional on the developer making Apple look good in a blog post? That feels pretty scummy here again to me. The error seems innocent enough to me (though the party line of "we can't tell you why you were shut down" is the worst way to interact with your developers), but the conditional resolution is not making Apple look good.
Shivetya 10y ago
so was he migrating his account from type to another in an attempt to disrupt the investigation? Perhaps as a means to break connections between accounts , apps, and such?
robryk 10y ago
So, in order to punish the developer of an app Apple takes an action that significantly hurts the users of that app.
- ixtli 10y ago
  I know this doesn't treat the totality of what you're saying but in the past (and I assume it to be the case here) if you paid for the app on the app store it'll be available for download even if it's delisted. This was the case with the game Edge when they got targeted by a trademark troll for their name.
  - ParadoxOryx 10y ago
    I believe the app stays available in the Purchases section like you said if the developer "unpublishes" the app, but not if the account or app is "terminated" by Apple. In addition to Dash (which I'm not able to locate in my Purchases tab), I've noticed this to be the case with apps that violate Apple's rules, like those hidden proxies or emulators that have sprung up over the years and were later removed by Apple.
ropiku 10y ago
The Dash developer posted his side of the story including a recorded call with Apple: https://blog.kapeli.com/dash-and-apple-my-side-of-the-story https://blog.kapeli.com/dash-and-apple-my-side-of-the-story
- Steko 10y ago
  What I've done: 3-4 years ago I helped a relative get started by paying for her Apple's Developer Program Membership using my credit card. I also handded her test hardware that I no longer needed. From then on those accounts were linked in the eyes of Apple. Once that account was involved with review manipulation, my account was closed. I was not aware my account was linked to another until Apple contacted me Friday, 2 days after closing my account. I was never notified of any kind of wrongdoing before my account was terminated.
- guelo 10y ago
  For the conspiracy minded, HN quickly moved that story off the front page while this Apple press release remains. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12680597 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12680597
  - mintplant 10y ago
    I believe "one front page slot per story" is a matter of general policy.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ixtli 10y ago
Can anyone who bought Dash confirm or deny that you can still access it from the "purchased" tab in the app store? This used to be the behavior for paid apps that were delisted† and I assume it still is. † I remember it happening for the game Edge when it was taken down due to trademark trolling. It was later reinstated.
- matt4077 10y ago
  No, it's gone.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
hkjayakumar 10y ago
Here's the developer's side of the story (includes a recording of a phone call between him and Apple) https://blog.kapeli.com/dash-and-apple-my-side-of-the-story https://blog.kapeli.com/dash-and-apple-my-side-of-the-story
encoderer 10y ago
Sigh. Apple comes off very poorly when you listen to that audio recording. The rep on the phone seems clueless that he is possibly causing more damage with this posture than would've happened had they just explained their side of the story and re-enabled the account. Apple should have just told us that the account was linked to a fraudulent account so they were correct to pull the plug quickly to prevent add'l harm, and that on further review it was clear that the relationship between the accounts was not as close as the facts initially suggested. That would seem entirely reasonable to me. That said, by not notifying both accounts it seems that problems like this are totally foreseeable. It also suggests that if a malicious actor was able to get a developer's credit card he would have a fair shot at getting an app delisted.
jamesk_au 10y ago
In telling the other side of the story, the Dash developer published his (apparently secret) recording of a 7-minute long telephone call he had with a person at Apple who purports to be speaking on behalf of Phil Schiller.[1] Leaving aside whatever inferences might be drawn from the fact that the developer saw fit to record and publish the recording in the first place, here's a brief summary of what was said: - There was at least one other developer account "linked" to the Dash developer account. In this context, "linked" means that the accounts "shared the same details": they were enrolled in the Apple Developer Program "with the same credit card number", and "used the same test devices". - Apple says that at least one of those other developer accounts "definitely had fraudulent activity": "It was not your direct account but it was a linked account." Warnings about fraudulent activity were sent to the linked account. No warnings were sent to the Dash account. - The Dash developer asked: "Why didn't you notify me beforehand though, and let me know that an account that's linked to mine is doing fraudulent activity, so I can do something about it?" The answer is "because they were linked"; "we see them as the same entity". "If we have accounts that have enrolled in our program using the same credit card, they are the same legal entity; they are the same." So Apple believed they had notified the Dash developer because Apple believed the same person was behind the linked accounts. (Prudence would dictate notifying all accounts at risk of termination; we'll see what happens in future.) - Apple's position is that no mistakes were made. The Dash developer account was linked to an account with fraudulent activity based on the facts known to Apple. - The Dash developer says (in his blog post) that he "helped a relative get started by paying for her Apple's Developer Program Membership using my credit card" and "handed her test hardware that I no longer needed". - Apple says they are "working with" the Dash developer to "unlink the accounts", which (I speculate) may involve some attempt to verify the Dash developer's claim that the linked account was used only by a relative and not by him. If the accounts are unlinked, there would be no reason for the Dash account to remain closed. [1] https://blog.kapeli.com/dash-and-apple-my-side-of-the-story https://blog.kapeli.com/dash-and-apple-my-side-of-the-story
- Hadi_Asiaie 10y ago
  In one part of the conversation, they mentioned that the accounts used the same bank account(Not only credit card). I assume it means the bank account that the developers is get paid with. That's even more convincing that accounts were linked. Note that you can use "arbitrary" bank accounts to get paid with(Source: I'm an apple developer.) Also The apple guy said it uses same test devices. As usual the devil is in details, it's important if they still uses the same devices and in what extent.
matt4077 10y ago
California is two-party consent, so I hope that phone call starts with the consent of Apple's employee to be recorded. If it's not, it'd be quite a blow to the dev's credibility. (and a felony).
- ParadoxOryx 10y ago
  He's based in Romania, where (as best I can tell) one-party consent is legal [1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#Romania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#Roman...
  - matt4077 10y ago
    California doesn't care: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#One-party_consent_states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#One-p...) "he California Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that if a caller in a one-party state records a conversation with someone in California, that one-party state caller is subject to the stricter of the laws and must have consent from all callers (cf. Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc., 39 Cal. 4th 95[38]). " But it does make it less relevant at least practically. On another note, I tried to find out where he lives, but it's nowhere to be found on the website. I really prefer business websites that give me at least a full name and a city. I don't even know why – I'm not planning to write/stop by/sue – it just feels shady. (whois data is similarly anonymous – I'm starting to see Apple's point of view)
    - toyg 10y ago
      > California doesn't care Romania doesn't care either, considering how it is not subject to US law.
cyberferret 10y ago
From 3:52 on the recording with the Apple rep - "Because we see them as the same entity. If we have accounts that are enrolled in our programme using the same credit card, they are the SAME legal entity. They ARE the same..." Yikes, because I often put contractor developer subscriptions and other incidental expenses on my company credit card to facilitate turnaround. Now it looks like I can get black banned if one of my contractors on the other side of the world goes rogue?!?
- dpark 10y ago
  Yes. I'm not sure what the alternative would be. They let spammy app creators keep opening accounts indefinitely with no attempt to block them from repeat behavior? I would refrain from using your credit card for others' accounts without serious consideration. I definitely wouldn't do this frivolously or for people you don't have a real trust relationship with.
- jhanschoo 10y ago
  Yes. That is not unreasonable. This is the same reasoning as when a shareholder or employee uses a company card for personal transactions or uses a personal card for corporate transactions, and pierces the corporate veil.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
feelix 10y ago
What I dont understand is that if Apple are so vigilant in removing false reviews, and if they're so sensitive to fraudulent reviews (as I wish they would be), why is it that seemingly everywhere I look it is full of them. Take this app for example: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/disk-drill-media-recovery/id431224317?mt=12 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/disk-drill-media-recovery/id... (click on "All versions"). You'll see there's HUNDREDS of fake reviews, all giving it 5 stars, and in all cases it is the only review that account has ever made.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
davemel37 10y ago
The amount of power Companies like Apple, Google, Facebook and others have to completely destroy and make businesses, makes me wonder if there should be some internet arbitration court to at least let people present their case to a third party. I get the companies would never want to give up this power and I get that every country has their own court system and laws... This is more a middle ground, for people caught in the cross hairs to present their case. Maybe like WIPO arbitration for trademark domains.
davemel37 10y ago
This whole story just comes off as a bunch of bruised egos too proud to get out of their own way. They both agree in principle that DASH should be reinstated, and clearly it being reinstated is in both sides best interests. Why Does Apple NEED an acknowledgment that they didn't do anything wrong? What difference would it make? Why can't Kapeli just acknowledge that he was associated with a bad actor in Apple's system. I get the idea of integrity, but I get the idea of self-preservation a little more...Especially when reality is subjective and your perspective might not be the only sincerely held belief. I will never understand the people too principled to just SAY SORRY even if you believe you are in the right. Are you so principled that you can't even acknowledge the existence of a potential conflicting view point, at least enough to admit you might be wrong, when its clearly in your best interest to just own up, and move on...even if you aren't sincere in your apology! Edit: I can maybe understand a prisoner refusing to admit to a crime they didn't commit to a parole board despite contrition being a key to getting released...but at some point of serving a life sentence, you have to kick into self preservation mode and just admit to wrongdoing, and spend your free years atoning for your lie.
- ceor4 10y ago
  > Why Does Apple NEED an acknowledgment that they didn't do anything wrong? What difference would it make? I get what you're saying, but if Apples gets hammered with bad publicity every time their anti-fraud team does the right thing, they're going to stop doing the right thing. Especially as this case is going to be cited for years to come, it's important apple has something to point to and say: "We didn't just arbitrarily ban the account, it was involved in manipulating our reviews"
  - davemel37 10y ago
    >"We didn't just arbitrarily ban the account, it was involved in manipulating our reviews" >anti-fraud team does the right thing That's not what happened though. What happened is that Apple has their internal tools to link fraudulent accounts, to keep out bad actors, and this "good" account got caught in that web. You can just as easily argue that he didn't actually do anything wrong. After all, if he did Apple wouldn't even consider reinstating him. The fact that Apple linked the accounts internally doesn't actually point to any guilt or wrongdoing...It could even be pointed to Apple's policies arbitrarily hurting the little guy. I can see both sides very clearly and I can see a middle ground very clearly. The only thing stopping this from being resolved is "bruised egos" on both sides. Edit: Added in second quote
ceor4 10y ago
The guy has already admitted that the fraudulent account is from his "relative" who uses the same credit card and same test devices. It seems like Apple gave him a lot of leeway due him actually making a good app and being public. While I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt, the overwhelming most likely case is he was doing exactly what Apple thought he was doing. At the very least, he should take some responsibility for the fact he's paying for someones account who is actively trying to harm his competitors. Apple probably could've avoided a lot of this mess by not overtly banning his account, but doing the except opposite of what his manipulations intended and make the app almost impossible to find.
a-b 10y ago
Rotten fruit. I don’t give a shit about reviews, I’m using this app on daily basis and I’ve paid for this app so I want future updates!
fenomas 10y ago
Meta: at times like this Apple is hurt by its policy of doing zero Developer Relations. If there was somebody - anybody - in Apple who spoke with a voice developers trusted, right now they could be explaining what in hell's going on. Having Apple Marketing leak something to somebody who leaks it to Gruber, who then reports it as hearsay, is a damned shoddy substitute.
protomyth 10y ago
This is the part I'm unclear on: What Apple has done: on Friday they told me they’d reactivate my account if I’d make a blog post admitting some wrongdoing. I told them I can’t do that, because I did nothing wrong. On Saturday they told me that they are fine with me writing the truth about what happened, and that if I did that, my account would be restored. Saturday night I sent a blog post draft to Apple and have since waited for their approval. Tonight Apple decided to accuse me of manipulating the App Store in public via a spokesperson. That makes me wonder about what the heck happened?
some1else 10y ago
Why won't they admit their system was flawed? They may be right in considering accounts funded with the same payment source as linked accounts, but they never notified both accounts about the impending closure.

199 points by lazerwalker 10y ago

Well that's definitely strange. Why would the developer do such a thing when Dash is basically the best app of its kind out there? Edit: To other commenters, why would Apple accuse the dev of faking reviews if it wasn't true? I don't see Apple getting anything out of it.

Lazare 10y ago
As one of the other commenters, I wasn't suggesting that Apple is purposefully accusing innocent developers as part of a nefarious plot; I was suggesting that they might be mistaken, and obliquely hinting that it would be nice if they'd respond to the controversy with actual proof, as the article title (apparently falsely?) claimed they had. > I don't see Apple getting anything out of it. Refusing to admit innocent error is a very understandable course of action. If, of course, that's what they're doing. From where I stand the entire situation is completely muddy, and I don't think the linked article clarifies anything.
- threeseed 10y ago
  Apple has often made mistakes in the removal of apps. Usually they just apologise and put it back up. It would be very uncharacteristic to stubbornly refuse to acknowledge and rectify the mistake.
- CountSessine 10y ago
  I was suggesting that they might be mistaken, and obliquely hinting that it would be nice if they'd respond to the controversy with actual proof They'll never provide proof for the same reason that Google won't publicize the exact parameters behind search; it would provide bad actors with information on how to game their system.
coldtea 10y ago
>Well that's definitely strange. Why would the developer do such a thing when Dash is basically the best app of its kind out there? Because few people care to check it out / buy it? Being the "best of its kind", belonging to a popular app genre, and actually selling are three distinct things.
Watabou 10y ago
According to Gruber[1], it's not Dash itself, but it's the apps that the developer had created on his other accounts. [1]: http://daringfireball.net/2016/10/apple_dash_controversy http://daringfireball.net/2016/10/apple_dash_controversy

daeken 10y ago

There's proof, but we're not going to link it because ... reasons. Why would they not include any proof that might exist?

xsmasher 10y ago
Because they're in an arms race with review spammers, and telling the spammers how they were detected causes them to evolve new, undetected behaviors. It might not be fair, but it's logical.
- x0x0 10y ago
  While Apple understandably may be very reluctant to disclose review validation / fraud detection methods, they could certainly show some trusted media figure -- Marco, some other popular ios developer, maybe even Gruber -- some detailed bit of proof and put this controversy to rest. If, indeed, they have any proof.
  - newscracker 10y ago
    That would be pointless because these people would be accused of being shills who would always sing praises of Apple. There's no easy way to handle giving away the proof and having an expectation that it would indeed help Apple. Depending on the material, there could be nuances that could be interpreted out of context…the context being the entire chain of events and internal and external communications that took place.
shahzeb 10y ago
I think a major reason is still probably customer confidentiality. They've got to play it on the defensive.
tjohns 10y ago
I suspect it's because that would reveal what signals their abuse detection system is looking at, making it easier for malicious actors to bypass those checks. It's very common with these types of systems to keep the details secret. Unfortunately, it does create a frustrating situation when you're on the other end of a complaint.

Lazare 10y ago

This is a very weird definition of "proof". A much more accurate headline might be "Apple responds to Dash controversy by insisting they were right all along and refusing to provide proof." Edit: The tone of the entire article rubs me the wrong way; it reads like a press release that nobody could be bothered to re-write. > The integrity of the App Store is as important to Apple as it is to consumers. Citation needed? Plus it immediately follows an unsubstantiated claim that Apple has been ignoring evidence of review manipulation for two years, so even if we take the article at face value...that doesn't sound like they think it's important? > This is part of the reason we trust Apple and the App Store. That's the most circular argument. "We trust Apple because they claim they're trustworthy!"

threeseed 10y ago
It seems like Apple was very reluctant to remove the account given the Dash is the sort of app they want people to make. So I am not surprised they gave a lot of leeway to the developer.
jwilcoxson 10y ago
Unfortunately The Loop isn't much of a news site, more of a controlled Apple leak blog. Dalrymple has gotten to the point of being a complete Apple shill. Edit: Compare the tone of the Loop article to Daring Fireballs: http://daringfireball.net/2016/10/apple_dash_controversy http://daringfireball.net/2016/10/apple_dash_controversy Gruber takes a much more unbiased approach, supported well. The Loop article reads like a statement from the Principal read by your teacher.
- stouset 10y ago
  I'd like to think we can keep personal attacks like this off of HN without some sort of substantiation.
  - ixtli 10y ago
    How is this a personal attack? It simply acknowledges that both of these websites are written by individuals. Would the substance of the comment be different had he simply used the website's names?

forgottenpass 10y ago

App Store fraud cannot be tolerated. Really? The integrity of user feedback data, inside a tool for loading software onto a toy (that functions as a tool just often enough for users to convince themselves it's not a toy) is that sacrosanct? What is that data used for? Surely something more important to the world than helping people get find their next fix fastest? Seems kinda myopic on a grand scale. Has Apple has never done anything cheeky to help their business get ahead? They have a $1.8mm manipulation budget. But they know which toes not to step on, and which toes nobody will hear a scream from. So my use of "manipulation" instead of "marketing" sounds childish.

rythie 10y ago

What if the fake reviews were paid for by a competitor, so they would get banned?

Bud 10y ago
What if Apple just happened to be smart enough to think of the most obvious, very first question that would need to be asked in this situation?
- coldtea 10y ago
  People do this thing with research papers ("the researchers were stupid and didn't think of <insert obvious thing here>") -- so they wouldn't think twice (pun intended) about doing it with a new story.
- chc 10y ago
  That would be wonderful. Do you have any evidence that this is the case? I mean, we are talking about the same company that just a few years back subjected all iPhone developers to such a strict NDA that they were technically not allowed to discuss a WWDC panel they were watching with the person sitting next to them.
- CamperBob2 10y ago
  What question is that? I'm apparently not smart enough to come up with a question that would enable me to distinguish between reviews from agents paid by competitors versus those paid by the original developer. Edit: Seriously, what question can I ask? This sounds like a fun brainteaser, like the one where half of the people on an island are liars and half are truth-tellers, and the explorer has to figure out which fork in the road leads to the village. If there's an answer, I'd genuinely like to hear it. Downvoting me is just a way to shrug your shoulders and admit your bluff has been called.

mmel 10y ago

So there's an incentive to write fraudulent, positive reviews for your competitors apps. Noted.

stephen_g 10y ago
No, you have to have an account that your competitor opened with their own credit card and gave to you, and then you publish an app for that account and buy fraudulent reviews for it. The account that the fraud happened on, and all the other accounts that appear 'linked' will be closed. The issue was with the account he gave to his relative, which Apple probably assumed was his account because it used the same credit card and test devices registered to both accounts.
- FireBeyond 10y ago
  "No, you have to have an account that your competitor opened with their own credit card and gave to you, and then you publish an app for that account and buy fraudulent reviews for it." implying that this is the only way Apple would consider fraudulent positive reviews to be developer's fault? Unlikely.

newsat13 10y ago

Didn't the dash author say that it was inexplicably removed with no warning. Now this press release says otherwise... For people saying this was already in top of app store, well, there was rating manipulation. That's why it was on the top (?)

ParadoxOryx 10y ago
According to his blog post [1], it sounds like the other account that was engaged in fraudulent activity was notified, but "his" account was not. [1]: https://blog.kapeli.com/dash-and-apple-my-side-of-the-story https://blog.kapeli.com/dash-and-apple-my-side-of-the-story
- newsat13 10y ago
  Can someone explain how 1 account can act "nefariously" ?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

mhandley 10y ago

So if you want to get your competitor banned from the App store, just post lots of spammy positive reviews for their product? How would you defend your app against such an attack?

abestic9 10y ago
While I don't know how their rating system or detection works, I imagine it would be harder than just posting spammy positive reviews. They would have to have solid evidence that you're doing it to your own app, or paying someone to do it on your behalf.
- Blaaguuu 10y ago
  I hope that's the case... It would make sense, since this doesn't appear to be an action Apple has taken on a regular basis.
- lewisl9029 10y ago
  Genuinely curious: what are some heuristics that could be used to distinguish between fraudulent reviews paid for by the developer and those paid for by a malicious third party? Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems practically impossible to distinguish between the two unless there was a royal screw up somewhere along the line.
  - HappyTypist 10y ago
    Using freebie promo codes given by the developer
skwirl 10y ago
I would recommend responding to Apple when they attempt to contact you. It appears that this developer did not do that.
- brazzledazzle 10y ago
  It also sounds like he didn't get those attempts. It's easy to assume good faith on the part of both parties here.

ben174 10y ago

So if I want to remove a competing app from the app store, all I have to do is buy them a bunch of fake reviews and Apple will ban them?

sintaxi 10y ago
yup.
bobbyi_settv 10y ago
Yes, but apparently you'll have to wait two years for Apple to do anything
Bud 10y ago
No. There is no evidence for this. You're assuming that Apple has no process to distinguish between intentional fraudulent reviews coming from the developer in question, and random fraudulent reviews from others. But that assumption is not supported by any facts.
- macinjosh 10y ago
  There is no evidence it isn't this either. Detecting fake reviews is easy, detecting the source (probably a click farm) is probably pretty easy too but getting to the bottom of who hired the click farm would be extremely difficult. You'd probably need assistance from law enforcement or a court, probably in a developing country, to get that information from the click farm operators. I would think its pretty easy to hire a click farm to blatantly post fake reviews to the app store. The worse the click farm is at covering their tracks the better if you're trying to get a competitor banned by Apple. Dash was a popular app among developers who use Apple products I doubt the fake reviews would be needed. I wouldn't be surprised at all if this was caused by a third party.
- westernmostcoy 10y ago
  Without some direct information from Apple, it's perfectly valid to wonder if they were manipulated in some way. There aren't any facts available to us that point in one direction or the other.

buckbova 10y ago

> Almost 1,000 fraudulent reviews were detected across two accounts and 25 apps for this developer so we removed their apps and accounts from the App Store Sounds damning. Was this a paid app? How many downloads did it have?

yladiz 10y ago

I'm willing to give Apple the benefit of the doubt here, because they are unlikely to release information as specific as this to the press unless it's been checked and vetted, even if they don't release the proof to the public. And without the proof, it's really their word against the developer's. Does Apple have a bad reputation when it comes to this kind of thing? If not, why are people so strongly on the developer's side?

0x0 10y ago

The root problem in this controversy, in my opinion, is that iOS offers no other way to install third party applications outside the appstore for the general public. If a blackmailing attacker hits your app with fraudulent reviews on purpose you have nowhere to go with your app. If you could at least host the .ipa for installation on your own web page, such tactics wouldn't necessarily turn into a death sentence, just a loss of access to an effective sales channel (the app store)

Mao_Zedang 10y ago
Platforms that dont support side loading need to be held to a higher standard than those that dont.

Mao_Zedang 10y ago

this is a new attack vector that will definitely start getting used against competitors.

fcoury 10y ago

This may sound stupid, and I am not by any means saying this is what happened here, but would it be possible for someone to maliciously buy fake reviews for a competitor app? What would happen in this scenario?

sintaxi 10y ago

Where does Apple respond? Or is this blog maintained by Apple?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

protomyth 10y ago

I get the feeling the bigger problem for Apple is the number of developers who really don't believe them.

sixhobbits 10y ago

I'm not familiar with this site, so this might be ignorant, but it seems strange. Bad copy on a wordpress site. At first is looks pretty official, but none of the "according to Apple" or "Apparently" quotes are cited or linked. Did Apple release a statement or press release about this? At the end it just says "it seems to me...". Who is this guy? Do we have a better source for this news?

dangoor 10y ago
This is Jim Dalrymple's site (I might have the spelling wrong). He is well-known among Apple bloggers to be well connected to Apple people. I've seen sites like MacRumors use a "Yep." confirmation from Dalrymple as evidence of a rumor, so I guess folks have some reason to believe he's connected.

codezero 10y ago

Having dealt with nefarious characters in a pretty active community that was quick to defend their own members (even when they were being very naughty) I'll give my guess as to what's happened, basically assuming good faith in Apple, mainly to counter a lot of the questions here around "what if a competitor bought these..." In cases where Apple is this certain (or seemingly certain) they usually have a smoking gun. That is, they have some kind of heuristic or action/event that is unquestionably tied to the developer. Perhaps a bunch of the positive reviews came from installs that used a developer freebie code, something only the developer could give out. Also, smoking guns, when you're dealing with fraud and systems that people can manipulate, are the kind of thing you don't share with others. I expect that Apple has seen _a lot_ of competitors trying to screw over other apps, and they would have exhausted that possibility before banning a popular app.

kevin_nisbet 10y ago
I think the difficult part is correctly attributing the behavior to the correct party. My knee jerk reaction to this article, is that if I were nefarious and I wanted to get a competitor off the appstore, than I would game the review system on their behalf. I didn't look at it too closely, but I think part of it they said was also creating negative reviews for competitors. Like you said, it depends on the smoking gun or the strength of evidence, but without knowing what criteria Apple uses I think it's difficult to say how prudent they might be. I of course have no indication that another party is involved in this case, I just imagine that it could, along with any number of other scenarios. Without knowing what evidence or criteria apple uses to make this determination, it's impossible to say as an external observer.
- codezero 10y ago
  Yep. I look at it this way: Apple has a team, or teams, dedicated to detecting and stopping fraudulent behavior. People on these teams are very smart and are likely using very sophisticated methods for detecting fraudulent behavior and attributing it, and they are very sensitive to false positives. It's likely better to take no action than to take action, so when you take action, it is only when there is a very strong positive signal. Again, I'm making assumptions because this is how the work I did went. There are a lot of things that can be done before dropping an app from the store entirely, and Apple is incentivized to keep the apps in the store – they get paid when people buy them, so removing them is a last straw.

falcolas 10y ago

So, now we have a "He Said; She Said" situation. Who do we trust? Apple? They've made mistakes before, and need to protect their integrity. The Dash developer? It's in his best interests to paint himself in the best light. What's worse, by coming out, the Dash developer has forced Apple into a defensive position, ensuring that Dash will never appear on iOS again. Dash has now lost revenue and exposure opportunities, and Apple's consumers are reminded once again that they don't have the right to control their devices. Both sides want to come out of this looking good, and right now neither side does.

falcolas 10y ago
And hence comes the recordings. Dash developer caught up in an errant fraud check? Eh, it happens. At least this is Apple; were it Google, the developer would be right proper fucked (then again, his post made it to HN, so he might have gotten some special attention). However, making that resolution conditional on the developer making Apple look good in a blog post? That feels pretty scummy here again to me. The error seems innocent enough to me (though the party line of "we can't tell you why you were shut down" is the worst way to interact with your developers), but the conditional resolution is not making Apple look good.

Shivetya 10y ago

so was he migrating his account from type to another in an attempt to disrupt the investigation? Perhaps as a means to break connections between accounts , apps, and such?

robryk 10y ago

So, in order to punish the developer of an app Apple takes an action that significantly hurts the users of that app.

ixtli 10y ago
I know this doesn't treat the totality of what you're saying but in the past (and I assume it to be the case here) if you paid for the app on the app store it'll be available for download even if it's delisted. This was the case with the game Edge when they got targeted by a trademark troll for their name.
- ParadoxOryx 10y ago
  I believe the app stays available in the Purchases section like you said if the developer "unpublishes" the app, but not if the account or app is "terminated" by Apple. In addition to Dash (which I'm not able to locate in my Purchases tab), I've noticed this to be the case with apps that violate Apple's rules, like those hidden proxies or emulators that have sprung up over the years and were later removed by Apple.

ropiku 10y ago

The Dash developer posted his side of the story including a recorded call with Apple: https://blog.kapeli.com/dash-and-apple-my-side-of-the-story https://blog.kapeli.com/dash-and-apple-my-side-of-the-story

Steko 10y ago
What I've done: 3-4 years ago I helped a relative get started by paying for her Apple's Developer Program Membership using my credit card. I also handded her test hardware that I no longer needed. From then on those accounts were linked in the eyes of Apple. Once that account was involved with review manipulation, my account was closed. I was not aware my account was linked to another until Apple contacted me Friday, 2 days after closing my account. I was never notified of any kind of wrongdoing before my account was terminated.
guelo 10y ago
For the conspiracy minded, HN quickly moved that story off the front page while this Apple press release remains. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12680597 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12680597
- mintplant 10y ago
  I believe "one front page slot per story" is a matter of general policy.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

ixtli 10y ago

Can anyone who bought Dash confirm or deny that you can still access it from the "purchased" tab in the app store? This used to be the behavior for paid apps that were delisted† and I assume it still is. † I remember it happening for the game Edge when it was taken down due to trademark trolling. It was later reinstated.

matt4077 10y ago
No, it's gone.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

hkjayakumar 10y ago

Here's the developer's side of the story (includes a recording of a phone call between him and Apple) https://blog.kapeli.com/dash-and-apple-my-side-of-the-story https://blog.kapeli.com/dash-and-apple-my-side-of-the-story

encoderer 10y ago

Sigh. Apple comes off very poorly when you listen to that audio recording. The rep on the phone seems clueless that he is possibly causing more damage with this posture than would've happened had they just explained their side of the story and re-enabled the account. Apple should have just told us that the account was linked to a fraudulent account so they were correct to pull the plug quickly to prevent add'l harm, and that on further review it was clear that the relationship between the accounts was not as close as the facts initially suggested. That would seem entirely reasonable to me. That said, by not notifying both accounts it seems that problems like this are totally foreseeable. It also suggests that if a malicious actor was able to get a developer's credit card he would have a fair shot at getting an app delisted.

jamesk_au 10y ago

In telling the other side of the story, the Dash developer published his (apparently secret) recording of a 7-minute long telephone call he had with a person at Apple who purports to be speaking on behalf of Phil Schiller.[1] Leaving aside whatever inferences might be drawn from the fact that the developer saw fit to record and publish the recording in the first place, here's a brief summary of what was said: - There was at least one other developer account "linked" to the Dash developer account. In this context, "linked" means that the accounts "shared the same details": they were enrolled in the Apple Developer Program "with the same credit card number", and "used the same test devices". - Apple says that at least one of those other developer accounts "definitely had fraudulent activity": "It was not your direct account but it was a linked account." Warnings about fraudulent activity were sent to the linked account. No warnings were sent to the Dash account. - The Dash developer asked: "Why didn't you notify me beforehand though, and let me know that an account that's linked to mine is doing fraudulent activity, so I can do something about it?" The answer is "because they were linked"; "we see them as the same entity". "If we have accounts that have enrolled in our program using the same credit card, they are the same legal entity; they are the same." So Apple believed they had notified the Dash developer because Apple believed the same person was behind the linked accounts. (Prudence would dictate notifying all accounts at risk of termination; we'll see what happens in future.) - Apple's position is that no mistakes were made. The Dash developer account was linked to an account with fraudulent activity based on the facts known to Apple. - The Dash developer says (in his blog post) that he "helped a relative get started by paying for her Apple's Developer Program Membership using my credit card" and "handed her test hardware that I no longer needed". - Apple says they are "working with" the Dash developer to "unlink the accounts", which (I speculate) may involve some attempt to verify the Dash developer's claim that the linked account was used only by a relative and not by him. If the accounts are unlinked, there would be no reason for the Dash account to remain closed. [1] https://blog.kapeli.com/dash-and-apple-my-side-of-the-story https://blog.kapeli.com/dash-and-apple-my-side-of-the-story

Hadi_Asiaie 10y ago
In one part of the conversation, they mentioned that the accounts used the same bank account(Not only credit card). I assume it means the bank account that the developers is get paid with. That's even more convincing that accounts were linked. Note that you can use "arbitrary" bank accounts to get paid with(Source: I'm an apple developer.) Also The apple guy said it uses same test devices. As usual the devil is in details, it's important if they still uses the same devices and in what extent.

matt4077 10y ago

California is two-party consent, so I hope that phone call starts with the consent of Apple's employee to be recorded. If it's not, it'd be quite a blow to the dev's credibility. (and a felony).

ParadoxOryx 10y ago
He's based in Romania, where (as best I can tell) one-party consent is legal [1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#Romania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#Roman...
- matt4077 10y ago
  California doesn't care: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#One-party_consent_states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#One-p...) "he California Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that if a caller in a one-party state records a conversation with someone in California, that one-party state caller is subject to the stricter of the laws and must have consent from all callers (cf. Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc., 39 Cal. 4th 95[38]). " But it does make it less relevant at least practically. On another note, I tried to find out where he lives, but it's nowhere to be found on the website. I really prefer business websites that give me at least a full name and a city. I don't even know why – I'm not planning to write/stop by/sue – it just feels shady. (whois data is similarly anonymous – I'm starting to see Apple's point of view)
  - toyg 10y ago
    > California doesn't care Romania doesn't care either, considering how it is not subject to US law.

cyberferret 10y ago

From 3:52 on the recording with the Apple rep - "Because we see them as the same entity. If we have accounts that are enrolled in our programme using the same credit card, they are the SAME legal entity. They ARE the same..." Yikes, because I often put contractor developer subscriptions and other incidental expenses on my company credit card to facilitate turnaround. Now it looks like I can get black banned if one of my contractors on the other side of the world goes rogue?!?

dpark 10y ago
Yes. I'm not sure what the alternative would be. They let spammy app creators keep opening accounts indefinitely with no attempt to block them from repeat behavior? I would refrain from using your credit card for others' accounts without serious consideration. I definitely wouldn't do this frivolously or for people you don't have a real trust relationship with.
jhanschoo 10y ago
Yes. That is not unreasonable. This is the same reasoning as when a shareholder or employee uses a company card for personal transactions or uses a personal card for corporate transactions, and pierces the corporate veil.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

feelix 10y ago

What I dont understand is that if Apple are so vigilant in removing false reviews, and if they're so sensitive to fraudulent reviews (as I wish they would be), why is it that seemingly everywhere I look it is full of them. Take this app for example: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/disk-drill-media-recovery/id431224317?mt=12 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/disk-drill-media-recovery/id... (click on "All versions"). You'll see there's HUNDREDS of fake reviews, all giving it 5 stars, and in all cases it is the only review that account has ever made.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

davemel37 10y ago

The amount of power Companies like Apple, Google, Facebook and others have to completely destroy and make businesses, makes me wonder if there should be some internet arbitration court to at least let people present their case to a third party. I get the companies would never want to give up this power and I get that every country has their own court system and laws... This is more a middle ground, for people caught in the cross hairs to present their case. Maybe like WIPO arbitration for trademark domains.

davemel37 10y ago

This whole story just comes off as a bunch of bruised egos too proud to get out of their own way. They both agree in principle that DASH should be reinstated, and clearly it being reinstated is in both sides best interests. Why Does Apple NEED an acknowledgment that they didn't do anything wrong? What difference would it make? Why can't Kapeli just acknowledge that he was associated with a bad actor in Apple's system. I get the idea of integrity, but I get the idea of self-preservation a little more...Especially when reality is subjective and your perspective might not be the only sincerely held belief. I will never understand the people too principled to just SAY SORRY even if you believe you are in the right. Are you so principled that you can't even acknowledge the existence of a potential conflicting view point, at least enough to admit you might be wrong, when its clearly in your best interest to just own up, and move on...even if you aren't sincere in your apology! Edit: I can maybe understand a prisoner refusing to admit to a crime they didn't commit to a parole board despite contrition being a key to getting released...but at some point of serving a life sentence, you have to kick into self preservation mode and just admit to wrongdoing, and spend your free years atoning for your lie.

ceor4 10y ago
> Why Does Apple NEED an acknowledgment that they didn't do anything wrong? What difference would it make? I get what you're saying, but if Apples gets hammered with bad publicity every time their anti-fraud team does the right thing, they're going to stop doing the right thing. Especially as this case is going to be cited for years to come, it's important apple has something to point to and say: "We didn't just arbitrarily ban the account, it was involved in manipulating our reviews"
- davemel37 10y ago
  >"We didn't just arbitrarily ban the account, it was involved in manipulating our reviews" >anti-fraud team does the right thing That's not what happened though. What happened is that Apple has their internal tools to link fraudulent accounts, to keep out bad actors, and this "good" account got caught in that web. You can just as easily argue that he didn't actually do anything wrong. After all, if he did Apple wouldn't even consider reinstating him. The fact that Apple linked the accounts internally doesn't actually point to any guilt or wrongdoing...It could even be pointed to Apple's policies arbitrarily hurting the little guy. I can see both sides very clearly and I can see a middle ground very clearly. The only thing stopping this from being resolved is "bruised egos" on both sides. Edit: Added in second quote

ceor4 10y ago

The guy has already admitted that the fraudulent account is from his "relative" who uses the same credit card and same test devices. It seems like Apple gave him a lot of leeway due him actually making a good app and being public. While I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt, the overwhelming most likely case is he was doing exactly what Apple thought he was doing. At the very least, he should take some responsibility for the fact he's paying for someones account who is actively trying to harm his competitors. Apple probably could've avoided a lot of this mess by not overtly banning his account, but doing the except opposite of what his manipulations intended and make the app almost impossible to find.

a-b 10y ago

Rotten fruit. I don’t give a shit about reviews, I’m using this app on daily basis and I’ve paid for this app so I want future updates!

fenomas 10y ago

Meta: at times like this Apple is hurt by its policy of doing zero Developer Relations. If there was somebody - anybody - in Apple who spoke with a voice developers trusted, right now they could be explaining what in hell's going on. Having Apple Marketing leak something to somebody who leaks it to Gruber, who then reports it as hearsay, is a damned shoddy substitute.

protomyth 10y ago

This is the part I'm unclear on: What Apple has done: on Friday they told me they’d reactivate my account if I’d make a blog post admitting some wrongdoing. I told them I can’t do that, because I did nothing wrong. On Saturday they told me that they are fine with me writing the truth about what happened, and that if I did that, my account would be restored. Saturday night I sent a blog post draft to Apple and have since waited for their approval. Tonight Apple decided to accuse me of manipulating the App Store in public via a spokesperson. That makes me wonder about what the heck happened?

some1else 10y ago

Why won't they admit their system was flawed? They may be right in considering accounts funded with the same payment source as linked accounts, but they never notified both accounts about the impending closure.