5 ms·

Actually, every time an app dev gets to the front page with a story like this, one of the top commenters has more info that paints them in a much more negative

by 205guy 7y ago

Actually, every time an app dev gets to the front page with a story like this, one of the top commenters has more info that paints them in a much more negative light. Which is exactly what happened in this case (using dev account to access inside information). It happens so often that I am beginning to trust Apple's judgement and reactions, not developers (fair disclosure: I am not an iOS or Android app dev, the shear crowdedness of the app store has discouraged me from getting started). Sure, some explanations from Apple would be ideal, but I think fuzzyZeus makes a good realpolitik argument for why that doesn't happen--and didn't deserve to get downvoted into oblivion for it. And speaking of explanations, why doesn't the OP give us more explanations? The OP details all the delays and non-comm of Apple without even mentioning his own activities--especially if they were as serious as alleged. If he did non-standard or gray-area activities, you'd think he'd explain them and how they should be considered legit. The fact that he does not mention them at all is very detrimental to his case, and will likely cause a Streisand effect. Yes, apps and devs are still critical to the iOS ecosystem, but fuzzyZeus is right that there is too much supply putting the balance of power on Apple's side.

chipotle_coyote 7y ago
With all respect, I don't think FussyZeus makes a convincing realpolitik argument for Apple's approach here. Rambo hasn't, AFAICT, even had it confirmed that his account is suspended at all. The argument isn't that Apple is obligated to spend hours of employee time in back-and-forth arguments with people they kick out of the developer program, merely that they should be clear that that's what they're actually doing and offer at least a sentence or two as to why. The argument that this just can't possibly scale is dubious, given that Amazon meets that standard when they take action against seller accounts. Even Twitter and Facebook, which are dealing with far more bad actors, don't just mysteriously disable your login with no explanation.
- 205guy 7y ago
  > Rambo hasn't, AFAICT, even had it confirmed that his account is suspended at all. In the original article, Rambo is complaining that his dev account has been limited in some way. Anyway, how is that relevant when no one in this thread is contesting that the OP's account was (or was not) suspended/disabled in some way? > they should be clear that that's what they're actually doing and offer at least a sentence or two as to why I pretty much said the same, but given all the missing information, it might be a case where they can't or don't want to. As other comments have pointed out, Apple has covered themselves legally with their TOS explicitly stating accounts could be terminated without notice for violations. Other comments have also pointed out that Apple might be in a legal situation where they were advised to not communicate (blame the corporate lawyers). > The argument that this just can't possibly scale is dubious Well FussyZeus had a whole explanation for his/her opinion backed by his/her experience and a certain attitude towards the whole situation. Your only argument is that Amazon, Twitter, and FB do manage to give explanations. Yes, but not always, and Google that you don't mention is notorious for not giving explanations and not being able to speak to a human about it. I have the feeling that this is not a minor violation and there is credible speculation the OP seems to have behaved in ways that might merit what happened. So I think it's premature to jump to the conclusion that Apple can and should be more forthcoming in this case.
  - chipotle_coyote 7y ago
    > FussyZeus had a whole explanation for his/her opinion backed by his/her experience and a certain attitude towards the whole situation. Your only argument is that Amazon, Twitter, and FB do manage to give explanations. Yes, but not always, and Google that you don't mention is notorious for not giving explanations and not being able to speak to a human about it. FZ's only cited experience is "I've done moderation for communities before." As I noted, I've done moderation for communities before. I've also worked closely with professional community managers in other positions. And as I noted elsewhere, I can't quite shake the feeling that neither FZ's experience nor mine is directly comparable to this -- being kicked off a forum is not generally going to destroy your business. "Other companies give explanations" isn't my only argument; my main argument, I'd say, is that when it's reasonable to assume cancelling someone's account will screw with their livelihood, a company should maintain a certain standard of care and communication that exceeds the standard of care a forum community manager has. Is that really such a crazy argument for me to make? (And, yes, I'll also stand by my assertion that even the forum community manager should probably meet the "we're telling you why you're banned" standard of care.) So, anyway, I guess I agree with this: > I have the feeling that this is not a minor violation and there is credible speculation the OP seems to have behaved in ways that might merit what happened. I just have trouble with this: > So I think it's premature to jump to the conclusion that Apple can and should be more forthcoming in this case. Unless saying "we've cancelled your development account because you keep digging through private frameworks and publishing crap you know we don't want revealed" would somehow compromise an ongoing investigation (unlikely, unless there's genuine criminal activity here), I just don't think getting to that conclusion requires much of a jump.
Razengan 7y ago
Also see the Dash debacle: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12680131 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12680131
- 205guy 7y ago
  To sum up: respected dev helped a relative in the past by setting up a second account with same credentials, this second account had thousands of review fraud, so Apple shut down both accounts without warning. Upon communication, Apple agreed to reinstate the respected person's account that had no fraud. Then there was a disagreement over who said what and when. Is Apple heavy-handed in this? Definitely, and that should be fixed. But like in the current situation, they had/have significant cause to initiate an action (that turned out to be heavy-handed).

by 205guy 7y ago

chipotle_coyote 7y ago

With all respect, I don't think FussyZeus makes a convincing realpolitik argument for Apple's approach here. Rambo hasn't, AFAICT, even had it confirmed that his account is suspended at all. The argument isn't that Apple is obligated to spend hours of employee time in back-and-forth arguments with people they kick out of the developer program, merely that they should be clear that that's what they're actually doing and offer at least a sentence or two as to why. The argument that this just can't possibly scale is dubious, given that Amazon meets that standard when they take action against seller accounts. Even Twitter and Facebook, which are dealing with far more bad actors, don't just mysteriously disable your login with no explanation.

205guy 7y ago
> Rambo hasn't, AFAICT, even had it confirmed that his account is suspended at all. In the original article, Rambo is complaining that his dev account has been limited in some way. Anyway, how is that relevant when no one in this thread is contesting that the OP's account was (or was not) suspended/disabled in some way? > they should be clear that that's what they're actually doing and offer at least a sentence or two as to why I pretty much said the same, but given all the missing information, it might be a case where they can't or don't want to. As other comments have pointed out, Apple has covered themselves legally with their TOS explicitly stating accounts could be terminated without notice for violations. Other comments have also pointed out that Apple might be in a legal situation where they were advised to not communicate (blame the corporate lawyers). > The argument that this just can't possibly scale is dubious Well FussyZeus had a whole explanation for his/her opinion backed by his/her experience and a certain attitude towards the whole situation. Your only argument is that Amazon, Twitter, and FB do manage to give explanations. Yes, but not always, and Google that you don't mention is notorious for not giving explanations and not being able to speak to a human about it. I have the feeling that this is not a minor violation and there is credible speculation the OP seems to have behaved in ways that might merit what happened. So I think it's premature to jump to the conclusion that Apple can and should be more forthcoming in this case.
- chipotle_coyote 7y ago
  > FussyZeus had a whole explanation for his/her opinion backed by his/her experience and a certain attitude towards the whole situation. Your only argument is that Amazon, Twitter, and FB do manage to give explanations. Yes, but not always, and Google that you don't mention is notorious for not giving explanations and not being able to speak to a human about it. FZ's only cited experience is "I've done moderation for communities before." As I noted, I've done moderation for communities before. I've also worked closely with professional community managers in other positions. And as I noted elsewhere, I can't quite shake the feeling that neither FZ's experience nor mine is directly comparable to this -- being kicked off a forum is not generally going to destroy your business. "Other companies give explanations" isn't my only argument; my main argument, I'd say, is that when it's reasonable to assume cancelling someone's account will screw with their livelihood, a company should maintain a certain standard of care and communication that exceeds the standard of care a forum community manager has. Is that really such a crazy argument for me to make? (And, yes, I'll also stand by my assertion that even the forum community manager should probably meet the "we're telling you why you're banned" standard of care.) So, anyway, I guess I agree with this: > I have the feeling that this is not a minor violation and there is credible speculation the OP seems to have behaved in ways that might merit what happened. I just have trouble with this: > So I think it's premature to jump to the conclusion that Apple can and should be more forthcoming in this case. Unless saying "we've cancelled your development account because you keep digging through private frameworks and publishing crap you know we don't want revealed" would somehow compromise an ongoing investigation (unlikely, unless there's genuine criminal activity here), I just don't think getting to that conclusion requires much of a jump.

Razengan 7y ago

Also see the Dash debacle: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12680131 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12680131

205guy 7y ago
To sum up: respected dev helped a relative in the past by setting up a second account with same credentials, this second account had thousands of review fraud, so Apple shut down both accounts without warning. Upon communication, Apple agreed to reinstate the respected person's account that had no fraud. Then there was a disagreement over who said what and when. Is Apple heavy-handed in this? Definitely, and that should be fixed. But like in the current situation, they had/have significant cause to initiate an action (that turned out to be heavy-handed).