5 ms·

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,

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
  - matt4077 10y ago
    I think when you sign-up, and the only ID they get is your credit card, it's pretty obvious that the account will be linked to you. From the call, it appears that Apple only wanted a clarification in that direction, i. e. "I should not have given my drunk little brother the car keys". They're not reacting from a "bruised ego", since a professional PR team doesn't get emotional in that sense. They feel that the initial accusations have created actual damage for Apple's image, and they want him to stop the pitchfork-wielding mob.
    - davemel37 10y ago
      I dont know who is dealing with this on Apples side...but its a mistake to think brands, executives, employees and even PR agencies dont get emotional and react from a bruised ego. I bet the PR costs exceed the actual damage in this case. If they were really afraid of damage, they wouldnt come out swinging, they would simply apologize for banning the account and the public would forgive them instantly. Both sides are acting against their own interests IMO.
  - vlozko 10y ago
    But what if the developer did do something wrong and the account is not so "good" as the developer is trying to make it out to be. There's too much that stinks about it: 1. Opened up a developer account for a relative 4 years ago. Relative. Yeah, ok. And 4 years ago... don't credit cards usually expire before then? 2. The same devices were being used on both accounts. While the info isn't available, I'm sure Apple can know if these same devices were still in active use by both accounts. 3. Dash isn't the problem. Too many people seem fixated on the notion of why the developer needed to do review manipulation on Dash when that's not at all the problem. It's the other apps on the other account that were the subject of App Store review manipulation. These apps contained descriptions that contained the developer's own email address in it: http://appshopper.com/search/?searchdev=603546869&sort=name&dir=asc http://appshopper.com/search/?searchdev=603546869&sort=name&...
    - carterehsmith 10y ago
- pier25 10y ago
  But if Apple is ready to admit him back into the dev program, then the anti fraud team didn't do the right thing.
matt4077 10y ago
Listening to the recording, the whole thing was basically over. Apple just wanted him to explain what happened and then they'd reinstate him, i. e. "I registered an account for someone else and when that account was involved in faking reviews, it was still tied to my credit card & name." They only wanted this because he chose to get everyone riled up about the perceived injustice, and it's causing Apple a PR headache. It could have been avoided if he had chosen to resolve this in private, or at least went with a bit more ambiguity instead of indignation. ...But I really don't get why this didn't end with the phone call. Write a post, be done with it. Instead, he's trying to escalate it further, breaking California law by publishing the phone call and making it basically impossible for Apple to accommodate him. Considering this is his livelihood, this post is a tragic mistake. Funny thing is that everyone seems to have agreed on a story... "My cousin did it". It seems quite natural that when that account is used for spam, it comes back to him. considering his credit card was the only ID that had been verified.

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
- matt4077 10y ago
  I think when you sign-up, and the only ID they get is your credit card, it's pretty obvious that the account will be linked to you. From the call, it appears that Apple only wanted a clarification in that direction, i. e. "I should not have given my drunk little brother the car keys". They're not reacting from a "bruised ego", since a professional PR team doesn't get emotional in that sense. They feel that the initial accusations have created actual damage for Apple's image, and they want him to stop the pitchfork-wielding mob.
  - davemel37 10y ago
    I dont know who is dealing with this on Apples side...but its a mistake to think brands, executives, employees and even PR agencies dont get emotional and react from a bruised ego. I bet the PR costs exceed the actual damage in this case. If they were really afraid of damage, they wouldnt come out swinging, they would simply apologize for banning the account and the public would forgive them instantly. Both sides are acting against their own interests IMO.
- vlozko 10y ago
  But what if the developer did do something wrong and the account is not so "good" as the developer is trying to make it out to be. There's too much that stinks about it: 1. Opened up a developer account for a relative 4 years ago. Relative. Yeah, ok. And 4 years ago... don't credit cards usually expire before then? 2. The same devices were being used on both accounts. While the info isn't available, I'm sure Apple can know if these same devices were still in active use by both accounts. 3. Dash isn't the problem. Too many people seem fixated on the notion of why the developer needed to do review manipulation on Dash when that's not at all the problem. It's the other apps on the other account that were the subject of App Store review manipulation. These apps contained descriptions that contained the developer's own email address in it: http://appshopper.com/search/?searchdev=603546869&sort=name&dir=asc http://appshopper.com/search/?searchdev=603546869&sort=name&...
  - carterehsmith 10y ago
pier25 10y ago
But if Apple is ready to admit him back into the dev program, then the anti fraud team didn't do the right thing.

matt4077 10y ago

Listening to the recording, the whole thing was basically over. Apple just wanted him to explain what happened and then they'd reinstate him, i. e. "I registered an account for someone else and when that account was involved in faking reviews, it was still tied to my credit card & name." They only wanted this because he chose to get everyone riled up about the perceived injustice, and it's causing Apple a PR headache. It could have been avoided if he had chosen to resolve this in private, or at least went with a bit more ambiguity instead of indignation. ...But I really don't get why this didn't end with the phone call. Write a post, be done with it. Instead, he's trying to escalate it further, breaking California law by publishing the phone call and making it basically impossible for Apple to accommodate him. Considering this is his livelihood, this post is a tragic mistake. Funny thing is that everyone seems to have agreed on a story... "My cousin did it". It seems quite natural that when that account is used for spam, it comes back to him. considering his credit card was the only ID that had been verified.