4 ms·

What's the issue here? Seriously..... So this guy has a lot of suspicious activity on accounts linked to him. Apple have done what they believe is the right th

What's the issue here? Seriously..... So this guy has a lot of suspicious activity on accounts linked to him. Apple have done what they believe is the right thing to protect the integrity of the app store, in line with there own terms and conditions which the developer has agreed too. Said developer has published blog posts online that give Apple very bad publicity over this, making them look like the bad guy for trying to protect users and maintain quality (What does apple have to gain by randomly disabling this guys account?) Apple have reached out to him and offered to sort the issue out as long as he posts the facts in a blog post, which is fair after his previous posts have outright caused Apple PR issues for something that is his own fault. Apple have also got top execs dealing with this issue, trying to make things right. Developer doesn't release said blog post, so Apple releases statement with said facts to protect themselves for further incorrect accusations. Developer then gets but hurt and releases the conversation that does nothing to help there situation. What is the developer trying to achieve here exactly? Sounds like the developer is guilty as sin for this fraud and is more interested in accusing apple and covering themselves.

markbao 10y ago
> which is fair after his previous posts have outright caused Apple PR issues for something that is his own fault 1. That it's his fault isn't so clear. The developer claims he was not notified that there was a linked account until two days after a ban. If you listen to the recording, he asks why he was not notified, and the representative does not give a good answer. > Developer doesn't release said blog post, so Apple releases statement with said facts to protect themselves for further incorrect accusations. 2. If we are to believe the developer, then he actually sent a draft of the blog post to Apple, then Apple doesn't respond and instead posts a public statement. > What is the developer trying to achieve here exactly? 3. Telling his side of the story and what happened. If we just heard the Apple side of the story and that was it, then we would assume, as many did, that the developer did do review manipulation. If we didn't hear about his side, we would have had no idea that Apple discovered the fraud on a linked account and wanted a blog post explanation to reinstate the account. Apple's statement was incomplete given everything they knew; there was no talk of "linked" accounts or anything of that sort. > Sounds like the developer is guilty as sin for this fraud 4. Again, if we are to believe the developer, there was no intent to defraud anyone, so I think it's a stretch to say that he's "guilty as sin" for it. The only fraud would be his cousin's fraud that his account is connected to, which Apple failed to notify the developer about until two days after closing his account and after the blog post.

markbao 10y ago

> which is fair after his previous posts have outright caused Apple PR issues for something that is his own fault 1. That it's his fault isn't so clear. The developer claims he was not notified that there was a linked account until two days after a ban. If you listen to the recording, he asks why he was not notified, and the representative does not give a good answer. > Developer doesn't release said blog post, so Apple releases statement with said facts to protect themselves for further incorrect accusations. 2. If we are to believe the developer, then he actually sent a draft of the blog post to Apple, then Apple doesn't respond and instead posts a public statement. > What is the developer trying to achieve here exactly? 3. Telling his side of the story and what happened. If we just heard the Apple side of the story and that was it, then we would assume, as many did, that the developer did do review manipulation. If we didn't hear about his side, we would have had no idea that Apple discovered the fraud on a linked account and wanted a blog post explanation to reinstate the account. Apple's statement was incomplete given everything they knew; there was no talk of "linked" accounts or anything of that sort. > Sounds like the developer is guilty as sin for this fraud 4. Again, if we are to believe the developer, there was no intent to defraud anyone, so I think it's a stretch to say that he's "guilty as sin" for it. The only fraud would be his cousin's fraud that his account is connected to, which Apple failed to notify the developer about until two days after closing his account and after the blog post.