8 ms·

Apple can terminate developer account without a reason by mistake

195 points by sv_lastname 4y ago

pfoof 4y ago
Google is not saint with this as well. My Admob account was blocked twice for 30 days because of "suspicious traffic" and the second time I didn't even turn on any Android device or emulator, not to mention any of my apps.
GekkePrutser 4y ago
In other news, grass is green! Just saying this is nothing new, they've been banning developers and apps for no reason since the beginning of the app store.
ajsnigrutin 4y ago
I don't like (government) regulation, but I feel that this should be regulated... If you're banned from a nightclub, it sucks.. but there are many, many other nightclubs (unless you live in a place small enough to have only one... then it sucks too). If you're banned from apple, you basically have only google play left, and considering that most people specifically develop for one platform or another, it's usually not just losing half your customer base, but sometimes losing all of it. Imagine having a potato farm, being able to sell potatos only to walmart, and walmart baning you from selling via them...
- scarface74 4y ago
  I’m usually opposed to government regulation in tech or giving the government power more in general. But I don’t see any negative consequences of passing a law saying a platform must provide a reason with documentation if a paying user is banned. There also must be an independent review board that is answerable to the board of directors. But not the CEO. On the other hand, it came out in the Epic case that there is “no duty to deal”. Meaning you can’t force a company to do business with anyone as long as it isn’t for a protected reason. The government can’t and shouldn’t force a company to do business with someone as in the Walmart case. Would you want the government to force a health or drug store to sell cigarettes?
  - prvit 4y ago
    What's special about paying users? You could just refund them when you ban them.
    - viraptor 4y ago
      A refund does not make you a non paying customer. In the same way getting injured by a faulty product can't be resolved with "fully refunded, they're not our customer anymore". Accepting payment makes some obligations more real. As a free user you accept whatever tos apple throws at you and that's it. As a paying customer you buy a service, with many protections that includes. (depending on your country)
      - prvit 4y ago
        >A refund does not make you a non paying customer. In the same way getting injured by a faulty product can't be resolved with "fully refunded, they're not our customer anymore". A faulty product that simply doesn't work can totally be resolved with "fully refunded, they're not our customer anymore".
        viraptor 4y ago
        Technically true, but missing the context. What happens is regulated by applicable local law: if both sides are happy with that solution and it's legal to do so, the issue may be resolved with a refund. For example in Australia ACCC says that sure, you're entitled to a refund as one of the options when a product/service fails. But that doesn't stop you from being able to claim damages or losses even if you're fully refunded. https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees/compensation-for-damages-loss https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees... Actually I'd love to see the result of involving ACCC in this situation if someone in Oz gets terminated. They can be very detailed in their analysis if they're interested.
        prvit 4y ago
        I don't know how things work in Australia, but I'd be really surprised if someone signing up to sell apps on the app store would be treated as a consumer. Also, paying for the right to develop on Apple platforms is hardly a service.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- raverbashing 4y ago
  Companies hate regulation but they love to give plenty of reasons why regulation is needed.
  - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
    They love regulation when it favours them :)
  - chrischattin 4y ago
    It’s the opposite. Large companies love regulation as it creates extra costs and hurdles for smaller startups that might out-compete them otherwise. Regulation secures incumbent power.
- amelius 4y ago
  I feel that the App Store is really a monopoly since the Play Store is something else (it uses your personal data to sell ads, something I want to stay far away from). Also, competition law seems to be way too simple. We should have at least 10 similar-sized competitors in this field, yet we are stuck with this duopoly.
  - that_guy_iain 4y ago
    The problem is no one wants to invest into making an mobile OS that OEMs will use. Nearly every alt mobile OS I've seen feels like it's coupled to the hardware and meant to be unique or super privacy focused which is a turn off for OEMs. OEMs have already been burnt by creating their own OS so none of them are getting in the mix. Microsoft screwed up too badly to come back. And Blackberry just staginated.
    - fezfight 4y ago
      Pinephone uses Linux. Pretty straight forward.
      - amelius 4y ago
        The one thing Linux seems to lack is good tried and tested sandboxing of untrusted applications. And of course an ecosystem of developers (e.g. why I can't run my bank app on Linux).
        AnthonyMouse 4y ago
        The traditional way to bootstrap this is to support existing apps. Which in theory for Android is easy -- getting Android apps to run on Linux is what they already do. But then they weaponize inconvenience. You can run the app, but if you want Google Play, they stick you with their terms. SafetyNet blah blah. If you don't, the bank owns the copyright on the bank app so third party devs can't give ordinary users a convenient legal way to install it. So third party alternatives get friction on purpose and can't gain users. And without users people don't develop native apps.
- mistrial9 4y ago
  I was approached by a mid-level exec from Intel about participating in their 'app store' years ago. It was obvious that the middle-management was salivating at the idea of running a "store" with absolute control. No deal happened, that I know of..
- pier25 4y ago
  And losing all the work you've put into code that only runs on Apple devices. Apple can decide to throw all that investment down the drain.
  - bryan_w 4y ago
    At least with android, you can release the raw .apk so that your existing users aren't left with nothing.
  - sv_lastname 4y ago
    Exactly, but I published one of my projects on GitHub, at least its source code can useful for someone else.
    - wahnfrieden 4y ago
      never mind
      - pier25 4y ago
        Is it? Do you have a source?
      - lapcat 4y ago
        The App Store accepts stolen open source projects that violate the project's licensing. App review has no knowledge of that whatsoever. Review is incredibly superficial.
- FollowingTheDao 4y ago
  > I don't like (government) regulation, but I feel that this should be regulated... Ha, wow. "I do not like regulation, until it affects me, then I love it." > Imagine having a potato farm, being able to sell potatos only to walmart, and walmart baning you from selling via them... What you are talking about here is the dream of Libertarians.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    It doesn’t affect me at all either way. I’m all for government regulation that forces a company to be transparent where customers can make informed decisions. It’s not some ignorant government officials trying to establish technical standards. It’s a very Libertarian stance that give consumers the power to make informed decisions. Notice I did not say that the government should have oversight on the process that private companies are allowed to ban users. I said the independent review board should be answerable to the board of directors not the CEO.
    - DaiPlusPlus 4y ago
      > I’m all for government regulation that forces a company to be transparent where customers can make informed decisions. What is your standard for judging where transparency should be legally required or not?
      - scarface74 4y ago
        Transparency should always be required to allow intelligent individuals to make informed decisions about how they spend their money.
        FollowingTheDao 4y ago
        How much transparency? Can I walk into any corporations office and go through their file cabinets?
        4y ago
- yosito 4y ago
  IIRC, it IS regulated. GDPR and American equivalents have provisions that require companies to provide all of the data they have about you, and forbid companies from disabling accounts with automated systems without manual review. You may have to contact data protection authorities in your jurisdiction and file a report, then contact Apple's data protection officers and reference the report you made. I've had luck doing this with other tech companies in the past. It should be something that a person could manage themselves with a few days of persistence, but I suspect there are lawyers who would help with this as well. IMHO, the legal team at a big tech company would rather manually review an account and reinstate it, than take on the potential liability of having violated data protection laws. You just have to convince them that you know your rights and how to assert them, and there's a good chance they'll quickly comply with the law.
  - AlphaWeaver 4y ago
    Could you cite the American equivalent legislation that protects those rights? Specifically the right to manual review?
    - yosito 4y ago
      As an EU citizen, I'm more familiar with GDPR. I recall seeing that there were similar requirements in the US, but it may have just been California's CCPA.
      - scarface74 4y ago
        The GDPR says no such thing. I can guarantee you that if the bank or any institution that has any financial dealings with you suspects you’re doing something illegal based on an automated system. They are going to lock you out first and then investigate.
        yosito 4y ago
        Article 15 and article 22. Look it up if you're interested. They can automatically lock you out, but they are obligated to send you all the data they have about you, including whatever data caused their automated system to lock you out, and they are obligated to manually review automated lockouts. Edit: Here's the intro to article 22: > The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her.
gary_0 4y ago
All this hand-wringing over a troll site losing its DDoS protection, and meanwhile Apple and Google blow away people's entire livelihoods at random and everyone hardly even blinks.
- lapcat 4y ago
  > everyone hardly even blinks The story is on the front page of Hacker News and also getting spread on Twitter.
  - gary_0 4y ago
    And a similar story will be on the front page next month, too. Apple and Google will shrug it off. Dog bites man.
    - lapcat 4y ago
      > Apple and Google will shrug it off. Yes, because they are a powerful duopoly. Also why world governments are considering and/or passing antitrust regulations. Mobilizing against $2 trillion corporations is a years long struggle, and those corporations fight back with all of their resources. People do care, but there's a massive power imbalance.
      - pessimizer 4y ago
        > Also why world governments are considering and/or passing antitrust regulations. They're a powerful duopoly because of their wealth and deep connections to world governments.
- OrangeMonkey 4y ago
  The hand-wringing is because folks were smiling and winking at each other while trying to convince a fire department to stop protecting a house, all while holding cans of gas and matches. Its horrible for Apple/Google to have this much power - I agree 100%. I don't know a solution. Its likely this was an algorithm gone crazy and not malicious. The removal of ddos protection all the while smiling cause you know what will happen right after it gets removed is 100% malicious. And we, the tech community, appear completely ok with it. You have to admit it feels hypocritic.
absentmoon 4y ago
With the upcoming Apple event, I wonder if this is another case of crushing the competition before Apple releases its own app?
- yreg 4y ago
  I really doubt Apple is afraid of competition from "Reflex Camera App".
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
fweimer 4y ago
Why isn't it possible to resolve such business disputes through the courts? For example, Epic's suit wasn't thrown out of court immediately, so I just don't see how other decisions could not be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- dannyw 4y ago
  Contractual disputes show up in courts all the time. However, the contract you have with Apple is very one-sided.
- lapcat 4y ago
  It's possible, but it's very expensive and time consuming. Also, Epic lost, though the case is still out on appeal.
6c737133 4y ago
- OrangeMonkey 4y ago
  Oh, we are here but what can we say. I don't want to copy/paste another comment I made here so instead I will paraphrase: HN is getting upset (and likely should) about apple banning a guys account (likely algorithm) and last night HN was getting upset because CF wasn't banning another persons account. The free speech the internet promised us appears to be eroded daily by well meaning fools begging for their government or corporations to ban people they don't like. I miss the period before everyone suddenly loved censorship. What can I say - I've stayed the same but everyone else has changed.
  - josephd79 4y ago
    What period are you talking about?
- cowtools 4y ago
  I don't know what you want us to say. If you're worried about censorship, you shouldn't work with apple as proven time and time again. Apple users are the most willing to trade their freedom for convenience. We have no sway there. Cloudflare users are another story.
mindaslab 4y ago
I really have wondered all these years why anyone who claims to be sane trusts and uses any Apple products.
- FollowingTheDao 4y ago
  I know how this comes about, because it happened to me. I was all in Apple in the early days when their machines were easy to work on and they were focused on trapping you in an ecosystem be good design rather than by App Store lock in and manipulation. I woke up, many people did not. I still use apple products, but I do not trust them one bit, so my use of their products look much different than the average user.
  - hammyhavoc 4y ago
    What does your use of their products look like? I abandoned ship with the lack of focus on enterprise following Jobs passing, but always curious to see how others juggle having one foot in Apple-land.
    - FollowingTheDao 4y ago
      I just don’t use their iCloud services for anything but getting to the App Store. I have a throw email that I use for my iCloud account that I’m OK with losing if I need to.
- kredd 4y ago
  Honestly? Most people (including me) don’t care. I’ve had variety of iOS and Android devices, and something that affects only 1% of the users of either side is basically noise to me. Currently using an iPhone because it integrates really well with my devices at home, no problems with upgrades (had a Samsung previously), apps work find and etc. My evaluation of the products when I buy them: - has a decent customer base, proven track record and reliable? - accomplishes what i want it to do? - don’t cross extreme personal ethical borders? (think of actively funding conversion therapies kinda extreme)
trollied 4y ago
> "I still didn’t get an answer for my appeal so I hope there is a chance they decide to reinstate it" This is not news then! We don't even know whether or not it was a mistake.
- qwertox 4y ago
  The account should be terminated if and only if it is clear that there was a violation of the rules. Afterwards it turned out that it was a mistake, but what about all the problems this has caused the developer?
- josephcsible 4y ago
  It is news. Guilty until proven innocent is a bad system.
hammyhavoc 4y ago
Side-loading and alternative app stores via EU order can't come soon enough. Too many digital eggs in one digital basket, too much control by a corp for something that is so influential on society.
- Terretta 4y ago
  Devil’s advocate take: The nanosecond bad actors (e.g., mega corps) can have apps exclusively in these alt stores, that’s when those corps will move, reinsert their anti-consumer code that Apple makes them take out, and have that be the only choice. And these mega corps will tell consumers about what’s in there as much as they used to before Apple added the mandatory disclosures which is — not disclose at all. Also, it’s much easier to make peace with Apple choosing what can be snapped into a modular PDA (personal digital assistant) if you stop distinguishing between hardware and software as if that distinction matters for an appliance, and consider it all firmware and all part of a singular trusted digital experience: “Don’t make me think.” Today, consumers can choose trusted curation and full integration (iDevices), or non-curated and unbundled (countless brand + Android OS options). If alt app stores happen, consumers will lose this choice, because nobody will be left counter balancing the exploiting corporations’ power. The race to monetizing exploitation happening before Apple stepped in will continue apace.
  - hammyhavoc 4y ago
    Quite possibly, mate! I don't have any skin in the game in terms of Apple anymore. I use Android these days, and I use F-Droid, and all the apps on it are FOSS and possible to audit. If privacy/security is a concern, the only winning move is not to play with closed source OS and firmware on devices. Side-loading and installing from binary blobs is the counter-balancing choice: don't use any third-party app store, pick-and-choose what you run. Not to do any disservice to F-Droid, it's an excellent option, but only doing what you could do by hand.
  - wartijn_ 4y ago
    If that's the case, shouldn't we have seen this behavior on Android? The Play Store has all kind of restrictions and it has always been possible to create you own store and only offer your apps in that store. Yet you can download apps from every mega corp in the Play store. > Today, consumers can choose trusted curation and full integration (iDevices), or non-curated and unbundled (countless brand + Android OS options). Or option 3: curated and integrated by buying an Android phone that comes bundled with all kinds of Google applications.
girishso 4y ago
All these big corporates with monopolies are acting exactly like the ruthless kings of yesteryears. Things are not going to change unless there’s some kind of a revolt. And I consider myself Apple fanboy.
viktorcode 4y ago
I remember a similar story floating around few years ago. Developer went public with unfair account termination story, but then Apple went public with their side of the story: if I remember correctly the developer was using other account(s) to inflate their app rating.
- lapcat 4y ago
  I suspect that you're referring to Dash/Kapeli. The story is very long, and it's covered comprehensively here: https://mjtsai.com/blog/2016/10/10/apple-and-kapeli-respond/ https://mjtsai.com/blog/2016/10/10/apple-and-kapeli-respond/ I would recommend reading everything before making a judgment. The developer (not a US citizen) did record a phone call he had with Apple, and the recording did seem to contradict some things Apple told the press. Anyway, the ultimate outcome of this story is that the developer does still have an Apple account (not sure if it's the same one or a newly created one) and continues to sell his app Dash for Mac to this day, code signed with an Apple Developer ID certificate and notarized by Apple. Also, Dash returned to the iOS App Store for a period of time after this story, though the developer eventually decided to retire that version. I don't think anyone blames Apple for investigating the situation, because the good account and bad accounts did use the same credit card. The problem is that the investigation seems to have been rather superficial, and they terminated the Dash account without giving the Dash developer a chance to respond first. And the people in charge of terminating accounts (if there were even people involved, as opposed to automation) apparently had zero knowledge that Dash was a well-known and well-respected app in the Apple developer community. Also, there appears to be no evidence that the review fraud was related to Dash specifically (does that app even have any competitors?) as opposed to the apps published by the non-Dash account. And there is evidence that the apps for the other account were written by a different person. (The Dash developer say he helped a relative pay for an Apple developer account with his card.)
- veeti 4y ago
  Even if these stories turn out to be completely false I will always give the benefit of the doubt and upvote. Because it's the only way to get support from Apple or Google.
butz 4y ago
And that's why it is important to push PWAs forward, to be first class citizens on mobile devices. No developer account requirements - no worries about terminations or worse (e.g. Google disables your whole account, including emails and everything else).
_8j50 4y ago
I am of the opinion that account terminations in general for any service (including free) that provides commercial value to users should be regulated by commerce regulators like FTC. So, my HN account would be exempt but people who hire and self-promote on HN could appeal, but not for any ban, only ones done without cause or where the cause is eithet not a violation of ToS or when it is false and the banned user can prove it. After all, commerce is regulated and allowing users to derive commercial value from a service is providing a commercial sevice. This will allow service providers to define ToS and ban users who are in violation while allowing the public to engage in commerce and be treated fairly. This includes brick and mortar businesses who refuse service, instead of banning service refusal on discrimination of protected categories, require explicit and demonstrable violations of ToS which can be criticized for violation of other laws.

195 points by sv_lastname 4y ago

Google is not saint with this as well. My Admob account was blocked twice for 30 days because of "suspicious traffic" and the second time I didn't even turn on any Android device or emulator, not to mention any of my apps.

GekkePrutser 4y ago

In other news, grass is green! Just saying this is nothing new, they've been banning developers and apps for no reason since the beginning of the app store.

ajsnigrutin 4y ago

I don't like (government) regulation, but I feel that this should be regulated... If you're banned from a nightclub, it sucks.. but there are many, many other nightclubs (unless you live in a place small enough to have only one... then it sucks too). If you're banned from apple, you basically have only google play left, and considering that most people specifically develop for one platform or another, it's usually not just losing half your customer base, but sometimes losing all of it. Imagine having a potato farm, being able to sell potatos only to walmart, and walmart baning you from selling via them...

scarface74 4y ago
I’m usually opposed to government regulation in tech or giving the government power more in general. But I don’t see any negative consequences of passing a law saying a platform must provide a reason with documentation if a paying user is banned. There also must be an independent review board that is answerable to the board of directors. But not the CEO. On the other hand, it came out in the Epic case that there is “no duty to deal”. Meaning you can’t force a company to do business with anyone as long as it isn’t for a protected reason. The government can’t and shouldn’t force a company to do business with someone as in the Walmart case. Would you want the government to force a health or drug store to sell cigarettes?
- prvit 4y ago
  What's special about paying users? You could just refund them when you ban them.
  - viraptor 4y ago
    A refund does not make you a non paying customer. In the same way getting injured by a faulty product can't be resolved with "fully refunded, they're not our customer anymore". Accepting payment makes some obligations more real. As a free user you accept whatever tos apple throws at you and that's it. As a paying customer you buy a service, with many protections that includes. (depending on your country)
    - prvit 4y ago
      >A refund does not make you a non paying customer. In the same way getting injured by a faulty product can't be resolved with "fully refunded, they're not our customer anymore". A faulty product that simply doesn't work can totally be resolved with "fully refunded, they're not our customer anymore".
      - viraptor 4y ago
        Technically true, but missing the context. What happens is regulated by applicable local law: if both sides are happy with that solution and it's legal to do so, the issue may be resolved with a refund. For example in Australia ACCC says that sure, you're entitled to a refund as one of the options when a product/service fails. But that doesn't stop you from being able to claim damages or losses even if you're fully refunded. https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees/compensation-for-damages-loss https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees... Actually I'd love to see the result of involving ACCC in this situation if someone in Oz gets terminated. They can be very detailed in their analysis if they're interested.
        prvit 4y ago
        I don't know how things work in Australia, but I'd be really surprised if someone signing up to sell apps on the app store would be treated as a consumer. Also, paying for the right to develop on Apple platforms is hardly a service.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
raverbashing 4y ago
Companies hate regulation but they love to give plenty of reasons why regulation is needed.
- ajsnigrutin 4y ago
  They love regulation when it favours them :)
- chrischattin 4y ago
  It’s the opposite. Large companies love regulation as it creates extra costs and hurdles for smaller startups that might out-compete them otherwise. Regulation secures incumbent power.
amelius 4y ago
I feel that the App Store is really a monopoly since the Play Store is something else (it uses your personal data to sell ads, something I want to stay far away from). Also, competition law seems to be way too simple. We should have at least 10 similar-sized competitors in this field, yet we are stuck with this duopoly.
- that_guy_iain 4y ago
  The problem is no one wants to invest into making an mobile OS that OEMs will use. Nearly every alt mobile OS I've seen feels like it's coupled to the hardware and meant to be unique or super privacy focused which is a turn off for OEMs. OEMs have already been burnt by creating their own OS so none of them are getting in the mix. Microsoft screwed up too badly to come back. And Blackberry just staginated.
  - fezfight 4y ago
    Pinephone uses Linux. Pretty straight forward.
    - amelius 4y ago
      The one thing Linux seems to lack is good tried and tested sandboxing of untrusted applications. And of course an ecosystem of developers (e.g. why I can't run my bank app on Linux).
      - AnthonyMouse 4y ago
        The traditional way to bootstrap this is to support existing apps. Which in theory for Android is easy -- getting Android apps to run on Linux is what they already do. But then they weaponize inconvenience. You can run the app, but if you want Google Play, they stick you with their terms. SafetyNet blah blah. If you don't, the bank owns the copyright on the bank app so third party devs can't give ordinary users a convenient legal way to install it. So third party alternatives get friction on purpose and can't gain users. And without users people don't develop native apps.
mistrial9 4y ago
I was approached by a mid-level exec from Intel about participating in their 'app store' years ago. It was obvious that the middle-management was salivating at the idea of running a "store" with absolute control. No deal happened, that I know of..
pier25 4y ago
And losing all the work you've put into code that only runs on Apple devices. Apple can decide to throw all that investment down the drain.
- bryan_w 4y ago
  At least with android, you can release the raw .apk so that your existing users aren't left with nothing.
- sv_lastname 4y ago
  Exactly, but I published one of my projects on GitHub, at least its source code can useful for someone else.
  - wahnfrieden 4y ago
    never mind
    - pier25 4y ago
      Is it? Do you have a source?
    - lapcat 4y ago
      The App Store accepts stolen open source projects that violate the project's licensing. App review has no knowledge of that whatsoever. Review is incredibly superficial.
FollowingTheDao 4y ago
> I don't like (government) regulation, but I feel that this should be regulated... Ha, wow. "I do not like regulation, until it affects me, then I love it." > Imagine having a potato farm, being able to sell potatos only to walmart, and walmart baning you from selling via them... What you are talking about here is the dream of Libertarians.
- scarface74 4y ago
  It doesn’t affect me at all either way. I’m all for government regulation that forces a company to be transparent where customers can make informed decisions. It’s not some ignorant government officials trying to establish technical standards. It’s a very Libertarian stance that give consumers the power to make informed decisions. Notice I did not say that the government should have oversight on the process that private companies are allowed to ban users. I said the independent review board should be answerable to the board of directors not the CEO.
  - DaiPlusPlus 4y ago
    > I’m all for government regulation that forces a company to be transparent where customers can make informed decisions. What is your standard for judging where transparency should be legally required or not?
    - scarface74 4y ago
      Transparency should always be required to allow intelligent individuals to make informed decisions about how they spend their money.
      - FollowingTheDao 4y ago
        How much transparency? Can I walk into any corporations office and go through their file cabinets?
        4y ago
yosito 4y ago
IIRC, it IS regulated. GDPR and American equivalents have provisions that require companies to provide all of the data they have about you, and forbid companies from disabling accounts with automated systems without manual review. You may have to contact data protection authorities in your jurisdiction and file a report, then contact Apple's data protection officers and reference the report you made. I've had luck doing this with other tech companies in the past. It should be something that a person could manage themselves with a few days of persistence, but I suspect there are lawyers who would help with this as well. IMHO, the legal team at a big tech company would rather manually review an account and reinstate it, than take on the potential liability of having violated data protection laws. You just have to convince them that you know your rights and how to assert them, and there's a good chance they'll quickly comply with the law.
- AlphaWeaver 4y ago
  Could you cite the American equivalent legislation that protects those rights? Specifically the right to manual review?
  - yosito 4y ago
    As an EU citizen, I'm more familiar with GDPR. I recall seeing that there were similar requirements in the US, but it may have just been California's CCPA.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      The GDPR says no such thing. I can guarantee you that if the bank or any institution that has any financial dealings with you suspects you’re doing something illegal based on an automated system. They are going to lock you out first and then investigate.
      - yosito 4y ago
        Article 15 and article 22. Look it up if you're interested. They can automatically lock you out, but they are obligated to send you all the data they have about you, including whatever data caused their automated system to lock you out, and they are obligated to manually review automated lockouts. Edit: Here's the intro to article 22: > The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her.

gary_0 4y ago

All this hand-wringing over a troll site losing its DDoS protection, and meanwhile Apple and Google blow away people's entire livelihoods at random and everyone hardly even blinks.

lapcat 4y ago
> everyone hardly even blinks The story is on the front page of Hacker News and also getting spread on Twitter.
- gary_0 4y ago
  And a similar story will be on the front page next month, too. Apple and Google will shrug it off. Dog bites man.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > Apple and Google will shrug it off. Yes, because they are a powerful duopoly. Also why world governments are considering and/or passing antitrust regulations. Mobilizing against $2 trillion corporations is a years long struggle, and those corporations fight back with all of their resources. People do care, but there's a massive power imbalance.
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      > Also why world governments are considering and/or passing antitrust regulations. They're a powerful duopoly because of their wealth and deep connections to world governments.
OrangeMonkey 4y ago
The hand-wringing is because folks were smiling and winking at each other while trying to convince a fire department to stop protecting a house, all while holding cans of gas and matches. Its horrible for Apple/Google to have this much power - I agree 100%. I don't know a solution. Its likely this was an algorithm gone crazy and not malicious. The removal of ddos protection all the while smiling cause you know what will happen right after it gets removed is 100% malicious. And we, the tech community, appear completely ok with it. You have to admit it feels hypocritic.

absentmoon 4y ago

With the upcoming Apple event, I wonder if this is another case of crushing the competition before Apple releases its own app?

yreg 4y ago
I really doubt Apple is afraid of competition from "Reflex Camera App".

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

fweimer 4y ago

Why isn't it possible to resolve such business disputes through the courts? For example, Epic's suit wasn't thrown out of court immediately, so I just don't see how other decisions could not be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dannyw 4y ago
Contractual disputes show up in courts all the time. However, the contract you have with Apple is very one-sided.
lapcat 4y ago
It's possible, but it's very expensive and time consuming. Also, Epic lost, though the case is still out on appeal.

6c737133 4y ago

OrangeMonkey 4y ago
Oh, we are here but what can we say. I don't want to copy/paste another comment I made here so instead I will paraphrase: HN is getting upset (and likely should) about apple banning a guys account (likely algorithm) and last night HN was getting upset because CF wasn't banning another persons account. The free speech the internet promised us appears to be eroded daily by well meaning fools begging for their government or corporations to ban people they don't like. I miss the period before everyone suddenly loved censorship. What can I say - I've stayed the same but everyone else has changed.
- josephd79 4y ago
  What period are you talking about?
cowtools 4y ago
I don't know what you want us to say. If you're worried about censorship, you shouldn't work with apple as proven time and time again. Apple users are the most willing to trade their freedom for convenience. We have no sway there. Cloudflare users are another story.

mindaslab 4y ago

I really have wondered all these years why anyone who claims to be sane trusts and uses any Apple products.

FollowingTheDao 4y ago
I know how this comes about, because it happened to me. I was all in Apple in the early days when their machines were easy to work on and they were focused on trapping you in an ecosystem be good design rather than by App Store lock in and manipulation. I woke up, many people did not. I still use apple products, but I do not trust them one bit, so my use of their products look much different than the average user.
- hammyhavoc 4y ago
  What does your use of their products look like? I abandoned ship with the lack of focus on enterprise following Jobs passing, but always curious to see how others juggle having one foot in Apple-land.
  - FollowingTheDao 4y ago
    I just don’t use their iCloud services for anything but getting to the App Store. I have a throw email that I use for my iCloud account that I’m OK with losing if I need to.
kredd 4y ago
Honestly? Most people (including me) don’t care. I’ve had variety of iOS and Android devices, and something that affects only 1% of the users of either side is basically noise to me. Currently using an iPhone because it integrates really well with my devices at home, no problems with upgrades (had a Samsung previously), apps work find and etc. My evaluation of the products when I buy them: - has a decent customer base, proven track record and reliable? - accomplishes what i want it to do? - don’t cross extreme personal ethical borders? (think of actively funding conversion therapies kinda extreme)

trollied 4y ago

> "I still didn’t get an answer for my appeal so I hope there is a chance they decide to reinstate it" This is not news then! We don't even know whether or not it was a mistake.

qwertox 4y ago
The account should be terminated if and only if it is clear that there was a violation of the rules. Afterwards it turned out that it was a mistake, but what about all the problems this has caused the developer?
josephcsible 4y ago
It is news. Guilty until proven innocent is a bad system.

hammyhavoc 4y ago

Side-loading and alternative app stores via EU order can't come soon enough. Too many digital eggs in one digital basket, too much control by a corp for something that is so influential on society.

Terretta 4y ago
Devil’s advocate take: The nanosecond bad actors (e.g., mega corps) can have apps exclusively in these alt stores, that’s when those corps will move, reinsert their anti-consumer code that Apple makes them take out, and have that be the only choice. And these mega corps will tell consumers about what’s in there as much as they used to before Apple added the mandatory disclosures which is — not disclose at all. Also, it’s much easier to make peace with Apple choosing what can be snapped into a modular PDA (personal digital assistant) if you stop distinguishing between hardware and software as if that distinction matters for an appliance, and consider it all firmware and all part of a singular trusted digital experience: “Don’t make me think.” Today, consumers can choose trusted curation and full integration (iDevices), or non-curated and unbundled (countless brand + Android OS options). If alt app stores happen, consumers will lose this choice, because nobody will be left counter balancing the exploiting corporations’ power. The race to monetizing exploitation happening before Apple stepped in will continue apace.
- hammyhavoc 4y ago
  Quite possibly, mate! I don't have any skin in the game in terms of Apple anymore. I use Android these days, and I use F-Droid, and all the apps on it are FOSS and possible to audit. If privacy/security is a concern, the only winning move is not to play with closed source OS and firmware on devices. Side-loading and installing from binary blobs is the counter-balancing choice: don't use any third-party app store, pick-and-choose what you run. Not to do any disservice to F-Droid, it's an excellent option, but only doing what you could do by hand.
- wartijn_ 4y ago
  If that's the case, shouldn't we have seen this behavior on Android? The Play Store has all kind of restrictions and it has always been possible to create you own store and only offer your apps in that store. Yet you can download apps from every mega corp in the Play store. > Today, consumers can choose trusted curation and full integration (iDevices), or non-curated and unbundled (countless brand + Android OS options). Or option 3: curated and integrated by buying an Android phone that comes bundled with all kinds of Google applications.

girishso 4y ago

All these big corporates with monopolies are acting exactly like the ruthless kings of yesteryears. Things are not going to change unless there’s some kind of a revolt. And I consider myself Apple fanboy.

viktorcode 4y ago

I remember a similar story floating around few years ago. Developer went public with unfair account termination story, but then Apple went public with their side of the story: if I remember correctly the developer was using other account(s) to inflate their app rating.

lapcat 4y ago
I suspect that you're referring to Dash/Kapeli. The story is very long, and it's covered comprehensively here: https://mjtsai.com/blog/2016/10/10/apple-and-kapeli-respond/ https://mjtsai.com/blog/2016/10/10/apple-and-kapeli-respond/ I would recommend reading everything before making a judgment. The developer (not a US citizen) did record a phone call he had with Apple, and the recording did seem to contradict some things Apple told the press. Anyway, the ultimate outcome of this story is that the developer does still have an Apple account (not sure if it's the same one or a newly created one) and continues to sell his app Dash for Mac to this day, code signed with an Apple Developer ID certificate and notarized by Apple. Also, Dash returned to the iOS App Store for a period of time after this story, though the developer eventually decided to retire that version. I don't think anyone blames Apple for investigating the situation, because the good account and bad accounts did use the same credit card. The problem is that the investigation seems to have been rather superficial, and they terminated the Dash account without giving the Dash developer a chance to respond first. And the people in charge of terminating accounts (if there were even people involved, as opposed to automation) apparently had zero knowledge that Dash was a well-known and well-respected app in the Apple developer community. Also, there appears to be no evidence that the review fraud was related to Dash specifically (does that app even have any competitors?) as opposed to the apps published by the non-Dash account. And there is evidence that the apps for the other account were written by a different person. (The Dash developer say he helped a relative pay for an Apple developer account with his card.)
veeti 4y ago
Even if these stories turn out to be completely false I will always give the benefit of the doubt and upvote. Because it's the only way to get support from Apple or Google.

butz 4y ago

And that's why it is important to push PWAs forward, to be first class citizens on mobile devices. No developer account requirements - no worries about terminations or worse (e.g. Google disables your whole account, including emails and everything else).

_8j50 4y ago

I am of the opinion that account terminations in general for any service (including free) that provides commercial value to users should be regulated by commerce regulators like FTC. So, my HN account would be exempt but people who hire and self-promote on HN could appeal, but not for any ban, only ones done without cause or where the cause is eithet not a violation of ToS or when it is false and the banned user can prove it. After all, commerce is regulated and allowing users to derive commercial value from a service is providing a commercial sevice. This will allow service providers to define ToS and ban users who are in violation while allowing the public to engage in commerce and be treated fairly. This includes brick and mortar businesses who refuse service, instead of banning service refusal on discrimination of protected categories, require explicit and demonstrable violations of ToS which can be criticized for violation of other laws.