9 ms·

After listening to the first 2 minutes of the call, i can say with absolute confidence that Apple is straight-up blackmailing him.* I would love to hear opinion

After listening to the first 2 minutes of the call, i can say with absolute confidence that Apple is straight-up blackmailing him.* I would love to hear opinions on whether this is something that could be taken to court. * They did make a mistake in not verifying whether the second account activity was actually done by Kapeli, yet they want him to claim they made no mistake, otherwise they won't reinstate Dash.

Reason077 10y ago
I think Apple's position is reasonable here. A second developer account, which is the account linked to fraudulent reviews, was opened using the same credit card, same bank account, and same test devices as the main Kapeli account. So it's reasonable that they would assume the same person was in control of both accounts. The developer claims this is not the case, however. Apple seems willing to accept that. All they are asking is for him to write a blog post stating these facts.
- Mithaldu 10y ago
  The unreasonable parts are: - Apple assumed, and let these assumptions stay untested, and particularly failed to reach out to the different contact details on all involved accounts. - Apple admits they terminated his account in error, yet blackmail him in refusing to reinstate unless he makes a blog post. (Actual contents of the post irrelevant to the point at hand.)
  - eridius 10y ago
    Where did they say they terminated his account in error? On the recorded call they made it very clear that the accounts were linked and that Apple believes that to be accurate. The fact that they're willing to provide Kapeli with a way to get his account unlinked and reinstated does not mean they were incorrect in the first place.
    - Mithaldu 10y ago
      Apple representative states there was no wrongdoing on Kapeli's side. Absent any wrongdoing on his side the termination is in error. Additionally they made the error of not contacting the holders of all accounts involved.
      - eridius 10y ago
        Kapeli did not commit fraud. But that does not mean Apple was incorrect in linking the two accounts. In fact, 20 seconds into the call, the Apple rep says > We don't believe that there was a mistake here, right. We don't think that we made a mistake. So no, Apple is very explicitly saying they were not in error.
        Mithaldu 10y ago
        They're saying they think they did not make an error. That's entirely separate from what happened in reality. Besides, even if they say they think it, that might just as well be rethoric.
        eridius 10y ago
        Rhetoric? They make it very clear in the call that they believe their view is an accurate representation of reality. Maybe you should actually listen to the call.
        Mithaldu 10y ago
        It's rethoric because their stated beliefs clash with the facts of reality they admit to in that call.
        eridius 10y ago
        That doesn't make any sense. Are you saying that Apple admits to certain beliefs, and to certain facts that contradict those beliefs, in the same call? Because I'm pretty sure they don't. They explain that the accounts were linked and that they don't think they made a mistake in linking those accounts. And they offered the developer a way to unlink the accounts and restore his account without the developer having to admit to wrongdoing. But nobody seems to be disputing that the second account was engaged in fraud, and Apple gave some perfectly reasonable reasons for the two accounts to have been linked.
- wvenable 10y ago
  Apple is reasonable but they should probably change their policy to notify all "linked" accounts when one of these accounts might end up being responsible for closing them all.
- pier25 10y ago
  Not at all. If Apple is ready to bring him back it's because he didn't commit fraud. And if he didn't commit fraud he shouldn't need to write a blog post as a condition to get back. Quite contrary, Apple owes him an apology.
  - interpol_p 10y ago
    The blog post request is to make it clear that his account was linked to an account engaged in fraudulent activity. Apple wanted him to post it because it would make clear that he opened both developer accounts with his credit card, even if he eventually lost control of one. If you open developer accounts that eventually engage in fraudulent activity you're not "owed" an apology. You should be on top of the things you open in your name and with your bank details. Apple should have taken steps to notify all linked accounts. That's their mistake. But it was the developer's mistake to open an account for someone who would engage in fraud in the first place.
joshdickson 10y ago
No, there is absolutely no legal case here whatsoever. Apple's developer program terms grant them virtually unbridled power to do whatever they want with your developer account no matter how fair or how unfair. You have no legal right to have a developer account. Normal business contractual negotiations (as these are) are not blackmail.
- Mithaldu 10y ago
  Alright. I can go along with it not being blackmail from a legal perspective. Morally it absolutely does remain blackmail.
- madeofpalk 10y ago
  I thought it's been proven that terms of service can't override or be a substitute for like... other laws. It's possible to find the terms of service invalid. Apple's warranty policy that users 'agree with' has been over turned in many many countries.
eridius 10y ago
Apple's not blackmailing him. That's ridiculous. Apple was entirely within its rights to suspend the account. Apple's offering the developer an easy way to get his account back that doesn't even require buying a new one.
oldmanjay 10y ago
They blackmailed him into writing a blog post detailing his actions. That's pretty thin soup.

Reason077 10y ago

I think Apple's position is reasonable here. A second developer account, which is the account linked to fraudulent reviews, was opened using the same credit card, same bank account, and same test devices as the main Kapeli account. So it's reasonable that they would assume the same person was in control of both accounts. The developer claims this is not the case, however. Apple seems willing to accept that. All they are asking is for him to write a blog post stating these facts.

Mithaldu 10y ago
The unreasonable parts are: - Apple assumed, and let these assumptions stay untested, and particularly failed to reach out to the different contact details on all involved accounts. - Apple admits they terminated his account in error, yet blackmail him in refusing to reinstate unless he makes a blog post. (Actual contents of the post irrelevant to the point at hand.)
- eridius 10y ago
  Where did they say they terminated his account in error? On the recorded call they made it very clear that the accounts were linked and that Apple believes that to be accurate. The fact that they're willing to provide Kapeli with a way to get his account unlinked and reinstated does not mean they were incorrect in the first place.
  - Mithaldu 10y ago
    Apple representative states there was no wrongdoing on Kapeli's side. Absent any wrongdoing on his side the termination is in error. Additionally they made the error of not contacting the holders of all accounts involved.
    - eridius 10y ago
      Kapeli did not commit fraud. But that does not mean Apple was incorrect in linking the two accounts. In fact, 20 seconds into the call, the Apple rep says > We don't believe that there was a mistake here, right. We don't think that we made a mistake. So no, Apple is very explicitly saying they were not in error.
      - Mithaldu 10y ago
        They're saying they think they did not make an error. That's entirely separate from what happened in reality. Besides, even if they say they think it, that might just as well be rethoric.
        eridius 10y ago
        Rhetoric? They make it very clear in the call that they believe their view is an accurate representation of reality. Maybe you should actually listen to the call.
        Mithaldu 10y ago
        It's rethoric because their stated beliefs clash with the facts of reality they admit to in that call.
        eridius 10y ago
        That doesn't make any sense. Are you saying that Apple admits to certain beliefs, and to certain facts that contradict those beliefs, in the same call? Because I'm pretty sure they don't. They explain that the accounts were linked and that they don't think they made a mistake in linking those accounts. And they offered the developer a way to unlink the accounts and restore his account without the developer having to admit to wrongdoing. But nobody seems to be disputing that the second account was engaged in fraud, and Apple gave some perfectly reasonable reasons for the two accounts to have been linked.
wvenable 10y ago
Apple is reasonable but they should probably change their policy to notify all "linked" accounts when one of these accounts might end up being responsible for closing them all.
pier25 10y ago
Not at all. If Apple is ready to bring him back it's because he didn't commit fraud. And if he didn't commit fraud he shouldn't need to write a blog post as a condition to get back. Quite contrary, Apple owes him an apology.
- interpol_p 10y ago
  The blog post request is to make it clear that his account was linked to an account engaged in fraudulent activity. Apple wanted him to post it because it would make clear that he opened both developer accounts with his credit card, even if he eventually lost control of one. If you open developer accounts that eventually engage in fraudulent activity you're not "owed" an apology. You should be on top of the things you open in your name and with your bank details. Apple should have taken steps to notify all linked accounts. That's their mistake. But it was the developer's mistake to open an account for someone who would engage in fraud in the first place.

joshdickson 10y ago

No, there is absolutely no legal case here whatsoever. Apple's developer program terms grant them virtually unbridled power to do whatever they want with your developer account no matter how fair or how unfair. You have no legal right to have a developer account. Normal business contractual negotiations (as these are) are not blackmail.

Mithaldu 10y ago
Alright. I can go along with it not being blackmail from a legal perspective. Morally it absolutely does remain blackmail.
madeofpalk 10y ago
I thought it's been proven that terms of service can't override or be a substitute for like... other laws. It's possible to find the terms of service invalid. Apple's warranty policy that users 'agree with' has been over turned in many many countries.

eridius 10y ago

Apple's not blackmailing him. That's ridiculous. Apple was entirely within its rights to suspend the account. Apple's offering the developer an easy way to get his account back that doesn't even require buying a new one.

oldmanjay 10y ago

They blackmailed him into writing a blog post detailing his actions. That's pretty thin soup.