3 ms·

> Both were faulty and they obviously didn't come to an agreement. I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion. The developer offered to publish a blog pos

by pfg 10y ago

> Both were faulty and they obviously didn't come to an agreement. I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion. The developer offered to publish a blog post saying that the app was removed due to fraudulent activity on a linked account he was not aware of. Apple accepted and then went ahead and published a statement accusing him of engaging in fraudulent behaviour anyway, claiming they gave plenty of warning, but not mentioning that the activity was limited to the non-Dash account, that the developer claims to have been unaware of the connection, and that they did not inform him of the connection or give any warning on this account. That's just dishonest.

Twisell 10y ago
Well it's more like Apple asked him to post an explanation on his blog. As far as I know this asked blog post was never published and then Apple realease it's response. So again this might well remain unsolved because probably no one appart from the arguing parties can't tell why the agreement on the blog post in exchange for dev program re-enrollment wasn't fulfilled by either parties...
- pfg 10y ago
  > As far as I know this asked blog post was never published and then Apple realease it's response. From the blog post: > Update: Just to make it clear, I have complied with Apple’s request and have sent a blog post draft approximately 30 minutes after this phone call ended. I have since not received any contact from Apple in any way, and they did not respond to my calls. Their recent statements come as a shock as I thought we were working together to resolve this issue. Given that Apple's statement left out several important facts (arguably, to paint a rosy picture of their behavior), I'm inclined to believe the developer here.
  - Twisell 10y ago
    So maybe we can agree it relate to faith, not facts. I choose to focus more on the actual phone recording than to the dev post because at least you can hear both positions. Indeed something had gone wrong in the process they agreed on phone. But it's words against words. So I really think it's better not to chose to believe in one over another, because that would always be tainted by our own personal predisposition (which of course may differ).

by pfg 10y ago

Twisell 10y ago

Well it's more like Apple asked him to post an explanation on his blog. As far as I know this asked blog post was never published and then Apple realease it's response. So again this might well remain unsolved because probably no one appart from the arguing parties can't tell why the agreement on the blog post in exchange for dev program re-enrollment wasn't fulfilled by either parties...

pfg 10y ago
> As far as I know this asked blog post was never published and then Apple realease it's response. From the blog post: > Update: Just to make it clear, I have complied with Apple’s request and have sent a blog post draft approximately 30 minutes after this phone call ended. I have since not received any contact from Apple in any way, and they did not respond to my calls. Their recent statements come as a shock as I thought we were working together to resolve this issue. Given that Apple's statement left out several important facts (arguably, to paint a rosy picture of their behavior), I'm inclined to believe the developer here.
- Twisell 10y ago
  So maybe we can agree it relate to faith, not facts. I choose to focus more on the actual phone recording than to the dev post because at least you can hear both positions. Indeed something had gone wrong in the process they agreed on phone. But it's words against words. So I really think it's better not to chose to believe in one over another, because that would always be tainted by our own personal predisposition (which of course may differ).