8 ms·

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

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.
        Mithaldu 10y ago
        > Are you saying that Apple admits to certain beliefs, and to certain facts that contradict those beliefs, in the same call? Yes, and it boils down to one thing: Either the termination of his account was correct, and should be upheld; or it was wrong, and should be rescinded. There are many times in life when things are in a range of grey between black and white, but this case is entirely black and white. Either they made an error with the termination or they didn't. If they made an error the account should be reinstated without question, delay or condition. If they did not make an error it needs to remain closed. By the very fact that they are willing to reinstate it, they admit to the fact that the termination was in error, regardless of what they believe of say they believe. Doublethink is real.
        eridius 10y ago
        This is nonsense. It was perfectly reasonable for Apple to terminate Bogdan's (the Kapeli dev) account. This doesn't mean Bogdan did something wrong. What it means is Bogdan's relative, who controls the second linked account, did something wrong. And Bogdan shares some responsibility because he set up that second account (Apple did not link the two accounts incorrectly). And the fact that Apple's willing to work with Bogdan to unlink and reinstate his account also does not mean Apple did anything wrong. If you actually listen to the phone call the Apple rep makes it very clear that Apple believes they were correct, but that Apple is willing to offer Bogdan a way to fix things.
        Mithaldu 10y ago
        > It was perfectly reasonable Well, we'll have to disagree. And i think Apple's actions, in giving the option of reinstatement, disagree as well, even though they claim to believe otherwise. Edit: Oh, and even if something were to appear reasonable to do, but turned out in hindsight to be wrong, then it would still be an error.
        Twisell 10y ago
        The fact that they are willing to reinstate him show only on thing, a good customer policy. And this is quite a similar to what you might experience if you ever go to a Genius Bar when you are somewhere in a range of grey as I once was.
  - moduspwnens14 10y ago
    Why is a random developer (out of millions who have not had this issue) immediately trustworthy, while Apple (who has no financial interest in banning him) is assumed to be untrustworthy?
- pier25 10y ago
  I agree. But then why force him to write a PR blog post in favor of Apple? That's what's really wrong here.
  - moduspwnens14 10y ago
    It was to give him an "out" to resolve the issue in a way that's positive to both of them. He didn't have to write a PR blog post. He just had to state the facts: His account was linked to one involved in fraudulent activity. He's working with Apple to get his account unlinked from the fraudulent one. That's it! He doesn't have to admit wrongdoing and Apple (despite being very confident they didn't make a mistake) gives him the benefit of the doubt and unlinks the account. Instead, he decided to dig his own App Store grave.
  - eridius 10y ago
    Because he wrote the blog post that started this whole thing and accused Apple of doing the wrong thing. Apple just wanted him to essentially post a correction.
metrognome 10y ago
The Apple representative also stated that the accounts were the same legal entity (due to the accounts being based on the same bank account). I don't think it's necessarily an error for them not to contact all involved accounts if they share something as private as a bank account.
- smackfu 10y ago
  In a lot of countries, bank account is just the standard way of paying for everything.
  - 0x0 10y ago
    It could be the bank account used for receiving proceeds from app store sales they are talking about.
- davrosthedalek 10y ago
  Them linking accounts by some heuristic does make them the same /legal/ entity. Shared bank accounts/accounts with multiple owners do exist. They bet that their heuristic is correct. In this case they might have gotten it wrong. That's their problem. Do they make people aware that the accounts are linked?
  - _pr 10y ago
    It's in the Apple Developer Program License Agreement. You're responsible for anything that happens with your stuff while it's enrolled under your name.
- vsl 10y ago
  It’s also possible he misspoke and was referring to the credit or debit card (and thus the account it was for) used to open the dev account.
IBM 10y ago
The Apple representative told him he doesn't need to admit to any wrongdoing which is different from saying they believe there was no wrongdoing on Kapeli's part.
- Mithaldu 10y ago
  It does not matter what they think or believe. They admit to certain facts being reality and that's all that matters.
  - IBM 10y ago
    It matters what they think or believe because you said >Apple representative states there was no wrongdoing on Kapeli's side. which is a misrepresentation of what the Apple rep said on the call.
    - Mithaldu 10y ago
      Alright, i worded that badly. They admit to there being no wrongdoing on Kapeli's side by giving the option to reopen his account at all. If they thought there were any wrongdoing they wouldn't even be talking to him, much less make him that offer.
      - interpol_p 10y ago
        Why are you equating Apple's willingness reinstate his account with an admission that there was no wrongdoing? The wrongdoing here is that he opened multiple accounts that could legally be linked to him and allowed one of them to be used to defraud the App Store. Apple could see that as wrongdoing while being sympathetic to his story that he forgot about it / lost control of it and so allow him to reinstate his account.
        Mithaldu 10y ago
        > he opened multiple accounts You got your facts wrong. He did not do that.

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.
      - Mithaldu 10y ago
        > Are you saying that Apple admits to certain beliefs, and to certain facts that contradict those beliefs, in the same call? Yes, and it boils down to one thing: Either the termination of his account was correct, and should be upheld; or it was wrong, and should be rescinded. There are many times in life when things are in a range of grey between black and white, but this case is entirely black and white. Either they made an error with the termination or they didn't. If they made an error the account should be reinstated without question, delay or condition. If they did not make an error it needs to remain closed. By the very fact that they are willing to reinstate it, they admit to the fact that the termination was in error, regardless of what they believe of say they believe. Doublethink is real.
        eridius 10y ago
        This is nonsense. It was perfectly reasonable for Apple to terminate Bogdan's (the Kapeli dev) account. This doesn't mean Bogdan did something wrong. What it means is Bogdan's relative, who controls the second linked account, did something wrong. And Bogdan shares some responsibility because he set up that second account (Apple did not link the two accounts incorrectly). And the fact that Apple's willing to work with Bogdan to unlink and reinstate his account also does not mean Apple did anything wrong. If you actually listen to the phone call the Apple rep makes it very clear that Apple believes they were correct, but that Apple is willing to offer Bogdan a way to fix things.
        Mithaldu 10y ago
        > It was perfectly reasonable Well, we'll have to disagree. And i think Apple's actions, in giving the option of reinstatement, disagree as well, even though they claim to believe otherwise. Edit: Oh, and even if something were to appear reasonable to do, but turned out in hindsight to be wrong, then it would still be an error.
        Twisell 10y ago
        The fact that they are willing to reinstate him show only on thing, a good customer policy. And this is quite a similar to what you might experience if you ever go to a Genius Bar when you are somewhere in a range of grey as I once was.
- moduspwnens14 10y ago
  Why is a random developer (out of millions who have not had this issue) immediately trustworthy, while Apple (who has no financial interest in banning him) is assumed to be untrustworthy?
pier25 10y ago
I agree. But then why force him to write a PR blog post in favor of Apple? That's what's really wrong here.
- moduspwnens14 10y ago
  It was to give him an "out" to resolve the issue in a way that's positive to both of them. He didn't have to write a PR blog post. He just had to state the facts: His account was linked to one involved in fraudulent activity. He's working with Apple to get his account unlinked from the fraudulent one. That's it! He doesn't have to admit wrongdoing and Apple (despite being very confident they didn't make a mistake) gives him the benefit of the doubt and unlinks the account. Instead, he decided to dig his own App Store grave.
- eridius 10y ago
  Because he wrote the blog post that started this whole thing and accused Apple of doing the wrong thing. Apple just wanted him to essentially post a correction.

metrognome 10y ago

The Apple representative also stated that the accounts were the same legal entity (due to the accounts being based on the same bank account). I don't think it's necessarily an error for them not to contact all involved accounts if they share something as private as a bank account.

smackfu 10y ago
In a lot of countries, bank account is just the standard way of paying for everything.
- 0x0 10y ago
  It could be the bank account used for receiving proceeds from app store sales they are talking about.
davrosthedalek 10y ago
Them linking accounts by some heuristic does make them the same /legal/ entity. Shared bank accounts/accounts with multiple owners do exist. They bet that their heuristic is correct. In this case they might have gotten it wrong. That's their problem. Do they make people aware that the accounts are linked?
- _pr 10y ago
  It's in the Apple Developer Program License Agreement. You're responsible for anything that happens with your stuff while it's enrolled under your name.
vsl 10y ago
It’s also possible he misspoke and was referring to the credit or debit card (and thus the account it was for) used to open the dev account.

IBM 10y ago

The Apple representative told him he doesn't need to admit to any wrongdoing which is different from saying they believe there was no wrongdoing on Kapeli's part.

Mithaldu 10y ago
It does not matter what they think or believe. They admit to certain facts being reality and that's all that matters.
- IBM 10y ago
  It matters what they think or believe because you said >Apple representative states there was no wrongdoing on Kapeli's side. which is a misrepresentation of what the Apple rep said on the call.
  - Mithaldu 10y ago
    Alright, i worded that badly. They admit to there being no wrongdoing on Kapeli's side by giving the option to reopen his account at all. If they thought there were any wrongdoing they wouldn't even be talking to him, much less make him that offer.
    - interpol_p 10y ago
      Why are you equating Apple's willingness reinstate his account with an admission that there was no wrongdoing? The wrongdoing here is that he opened multiple accounts that could legally be linked to him and allowed one of them to be used to defraud the App Store. Apple could see that as wrongdoing while being sympathetic to his story that he forgot about it / lost control of it and so allow him to reinstate his account.
      - Mithaldu 10y ago
        > he opened multiple accounts You got your facts wrong. He did not do that.