5 ms·

There feels like no right side in this story. * Apple terminated both accounts because of fraudulent activity, but only one account was contacted to let them k

by bnycum 10y ago

There feels like no right side in this story. * Apple terminated both accounts because of fraudulent activity, but only one account was contacted to let them know of this activity. * Kapeli shared financial information and test devices with this other account, whether it was a relative or not. * Apple said "Hey, write a post telling the whole story and all will be cleared. Just don't say we were at fault." * Kapeli agreed he would draft and send. Kapeli apparently did but never heard back. * Apple had a spokesperson come out that painted a different a picture that basically seem to throw Kapeli under the bus.

Hydraulix989 10y ago
Well, Kapeli recorded and uploaded the phone call, shooting himself in the foot.
- bnycum 10y ago
  Call it what you will, but it's the only time in this whole story that hasn't been "he said, she said."
  - Hydraulix989 10y ago
    And given that nugget of actual evidence, I can decisively say that he definitely screwed himself over. This is how the business world works. Sometimes you can't get the best deal, but it's still in your best interest to accept it regardless. You have to act rationally; you can't just defect (to borrow some game theory parlance -- this literally resembles Prisoner's Dilemma) in the name of "principles." One moderately-crafted blog post later (saying Apple wasn't at fault, and he wasn't either -- his account was "only" linked to the other one), this guy would have been back in business. It's no surprise that this guy hasn't ever worked at a big company before, if you don't swallow your pride every so often and keep your mouth shut, you get kicked to the curb, and it's surreal that he was a self-professed businessman because of how often this happens in the game. He WAS winning, and he would've won (nobody would've taken his PR damage control post seriously, and initially everyone believed his fabricated narrative of innocence), but he royally #$!@ed up because he thought he could've had his cake and eaten it too. I can't under any circumstances imagine any possible outcome to this scenario where Apple would've both admitted wrongdoing AND reinstated his app. Let's not get too greedy here...
    - TheCowboy 10y ago
      It's not a fact that had he written a blog post admitting guilt that his account would have been reinstated. That's just a carrot dangled by Apple, without a hard contractual obligation to follow through. If anything, actually writing that something wrong happened would make it easier for them to justify their decision. It could be a trick representatives sometimes use when they assume the party they are dealing with is guilty. It's admitting to fraud and can hurt him more, especially if it didn't work out. And they can always reverse their decision.
      - Hydraulix989 10y ago
        Okay, then you release your recorded call AFTER they defect (I'm not saying he shouldn't have covered his ass by recording the call, that's the smart thing I would've also done). Imagine how bad that would look for Apple. If I had to guess, Phil & co. wouldn't want to risk that nuclear scenario (and they are definitely smart enough to know better).
        spacehunt 10y ago
        > Okay, then you release your recorded call AFTER they defect Isn't this essentially what happened (at least according to Kapeli)? He wrote the blog post, sent Apple a draft, then Apple went to the press.
        eridius 10y ago
        Not at all. Apple released a PR statement about what led up to the termination. And nothing they said in there was incorrect, and nothing they said in there would have contradicted his blog post. The PR statement explained that the fraud was detected across 2 linked accounts and from the way it was written it was obvious that Apple was treating both accounts as being a single developer. The blog post would have explained that his account was linked to another one with fraud, and that he's working with Apple to unlink it. Everybody who reads both posts would understand that his account didn't have any fraud on it directly, but was linked to an account with fraud.
gshulegaard 10y ago
Generally, I don't get this: * Kapeli shared financial information and test devices with this other account, whether it was a relative or not. The assumption here is that for some reason a credit card number and device identifiers (unclear where they come from...but maybe mac address?) are enough for Apple to "link" accounts. I contest this for the same reason I think someone knowing my birthday and social security number is _not_ enough for them to be confirmed as "me". While I don't think Apple is wrong to use this as a psuedo-identifier, I do think it is wrong for them to insist that, "we did nothing wrong" and fail to reinstate the pseudo-linked account immediately after being contacted. I don't know if Kapeli is telling the truth about the situation...and his reputation is tarnished my eyes, but I definitely don't think Apple should insist that the accounts _must_ (with 100% certainty) be linked based off of the circumstantial credit card and test devices registered to them. At this point Apple should either reinstate the account or come out with all the information they have to justify their actions. But having "closed door" conversations and throwing allegations at one another without proof and documentation is ridiculous.
- Hydraulix989 10y ago
  Even though I disagree with your post, I upvoted it to counter the people on this site who downvote merely because they disagree with somebody's comment.
  - gshulegaard 10y ago
    Haha thanks.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  If it's his credit card, then the account is his responsibility. And it's not a stretch to link accounts that are the responsibility of the same person.
- IBM 10y ago
  What makes you think they've shared all the ways that they were linked? The guy on the phone call may have just listed a couple of them when he was trying to establish with Kapeli what the ground truth was, that these accounts were linked.
ap3 10y ago
>Apple said "Hey, write a post telling the whole story and all will be cleared. Just don't say we were at fault." Why should Apple tell devs what to publish on their blogs? That does seem like blackmail: say you are sorry and we will let you back in.
- eridius 10y ago
  Why do people keep saying that Apple's completely voluntary gesture of goodwill (there's no reason at all why Apple has to offer this) is blackmail? If that's blackmail, then every transaction ever is blackmail. "Oh, you want to buy that eggbeater? That's $10" "blackmail!"

by bnycum 10y ago

Hydraulix989 10y ago

Well, Kapeli recorded and uploaded the phone call, shooting himself in the foot.

bnycum 10y ago
Call it what you will, but it's the only time in this whole story that hasn't been "he said, she said."
- Hydraulix989 10y ago
  And given that nugget of actual evidence, I can decisively say that he definitely screwed himself over. This is how the business world works. Sometimes you can't get the best deal, but it's still in your best interest to accept it regardless. You have to act rationally; you can't just defect (to borrow some game theory parlance -- this literally resembles Prisoner's Dilemma) in the name of "principles." One moderately-crafted blog post later (saying Apple wasn't at fault, and he wasn't either -- his account was "only" linked to the other one), this guy would have been back in business. It's no surprise that this guy hasn't ever worked at a big company before, if you don't swallow your pride every so often and keep your mouth shut, you get kicked to the curb, and it's surreal that he was a self-professed businessman because of how often this happens in the game. He WAS winning, and he would've won (nobody would've taken his PR damage control post seriously, and initially everyone believed his fabricated narrative of innocence), but he royally #$!@ed up because he thought he could've had his cake and eaten it too. I can't under any circumstances imagine any possible outcome to this scenario where Apple would've both admitted wrongdoing AND reinstated his app. Let's not get too greedy here...
  - TheCowboy 10y ago
    It's not a fact that had he written a blog post admitting guilt that his account would have been reinstated. That's just a carrot dangled by Apple, without a hard contractual obligation to follow through. If anything, actually writing that something wrong happened would make it easier for them to justify their decision. It could be a trick representatives sometimes use when they assume the party they are dealing with is guilty. It's admitting to fraud and can hurt him more, especially if it didn't work out. And they can always reverse their decision.
    - Hydraulix989 10y ago
      Okay, then you release your recorded call AFTER they defect (I'm not saying he shouldn't have covered his ass by recording the call, that's the smart thing I would've also done). Imagine how bad that would look for Apple. If I had to guess, Phil & co. wouldn't want to risk that nuclear scenario (and they are definitely smart enough to know better).
      - spacehunt 10y ago
        > Okay, then you release your recorded call AFTER they defect Isn't this essentially what happened (at least according to Kapeli)? He wrote the blog post, sent Apple a draft, then Apple went to the press.
        eridius 10y ago
        Not at all. Apple released a PR statement about what led up to the termination. And nothing they said in there was incorrect, and nothing they said in there would have contradicted his blog post. The PR statement explained that the fraud was detected across 2 linked accounts and from the way it was written it was obvious that Apple was treating both accounts as being a single developer. The blog post would have explained that his account was linked to another one with fraud, and that he's working with Apple to unlink it. Everybody who reads both posts would understand that his account didn't have any fraud on it directly, but was linked to an account with fraud.

gshulegaard 10y ago

Generally, I don't get this: * Kapeli shared financial information and test devices with this other account, whether it was a relative or not. The assumption here is that for some reason a credit card number and device identifiers (unclear where they come from...but maybe mac address?) are enough for Apple to "link" accounts. I contest this for the same reason I think someone knowing my birthday and social security number is _not_ enough for them to be confirmed as "me". While I don't think Apple is wrong to use this as a psuedo-identifier, I do think it is wrong for them to insist that, "we did nothing wrong" and fail to reinstate the pseudo-linked account immediately after being contacted. I don't know if Kapeli is telling the truth about the situation...and his reputation is tarnished my eyes, but I definitely don't think Apple should insist that the accounts _must_ (with 100% certainty) be linked based off of the circumstantial credit card and test devices registered to them. At this point Apple should either reinstate the account or come out with all the information they have to justify their actions. But having "closed door" conversations and throwing allegations at one another without proof and documentation is ridiculous.

Hydraulix989 10y ago
Even though I disagree with your post, I upvoted it to counter the people on this site who downvote merely because they disagree with somebody's comment.
- gshulegaard 10y ago
  Haha thanks.
st3v3r 10y ago
If it's his credit card, then the account is his responsibility. And it's not a stretch to link accounts that are the responsibility of the same person.
IBM 10y ago
What makes you think they've shared all the ways that they were linked? The guy on the phone call may have just listed a couple of them when he was trying to establish with Kapeli what the ground truth was, that these accounts were linked.

ap3 10y ago

>Apple said "Hey, write a post telling the whole story and all will be cleared. Just don't say we were at fault." Why should Apple tell devs what to publish on their blogs? That does seem like blackmail: say you are sorry and we will let you back in.

eridius 10y ago
Why do people keep saying that Apple's completely voluntary gesture of goodwill (there's no reason at all why Apple has to offer this) is blackmail? If that's blackmail, then every transaction ever is blackmail. "Oh, you want to buy that eggbeater? That's $10" "blackmail!"