3 ms·

> And readers can draw the obvious conclusion from your failure to do so. People all over the internet today in various discussion forums, including on HN in m

by lapcat 3y ago

> And readers can draw the obvious conclusion from your failure to do so. People all over the internet today in various discussion forums, including on HN in multiple submissions, have already drawn the obvious conclusion, without having read my comments, and their conclusion is almost universally the opposite of yours. > To prevent further bad publicity, obviously. It prevents any sales, which is the point of selling in the App Store. But why do you think there's so much bad publicity, if there's nothing wrong with the app? It's unclear why it even matters who exactly removed the app from the App Store, because Apple's rules do not allow developers to deceive App Store users, and you've already more or less admitted that the app is deceptive. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39308175 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39308175 Although I don't know how you can justify saying that it's "at most" deception rather than "at least" deception, because "Trusted by over 1+ million users and 10,000+ businesses" is a flat out lie. Thus, even if the developer refused to remove the app, Apple should have anyway.

chrisjj 3y ago
> But why do you think there's so much bad publicity The LastPass claims. > if there's nothing wrong with the app? I didn't say there's nothing wrong with the app. > It's unclear why it even matters who exactly removed the app from the App Store Then I wonder why you are insisting it was Apple.
- lapcat 3y ago
  > Then I wonder why you are insisting it was Apple. As I already said, "somehow magically every single time a scam app makes the news media, the app disappears from the App Store." Also, self-removal "prevents any sales, which is the point of selling in the App Store." > I didn't say there's nothing wrong with the app. Then I wonder why you are insisting it wasn't Apple. It appears your view is that it's "unsubstantiated" unless Apple comments, but as I already said, Apple never comments about this, so apparently there's never any substantiation according to you, and it's just a giant coincidence that every single time a scam app makes the news media, the app disappears quickly from the store, even when the app's developer may be asleep due to living on the other side of the Earth. It's a very convenient way of sticking your head in the sand and refusing to make the most logical inference.
  - chrisjj 3y ago
    > As I already said, "somehow magically every single time a scam app makes the news media, the app disappears from the App Store." Even if true, that doesn't mean removal was by Apple rather than dev. > self-removal "prevents any sales, which is the point of selling in the App Store." Ditto. Self-removal reduces further rep damage that cold impact other sales inc. of a future remedied version. >> I didn't say there's nothing wrong with the app. >Then I wonder why you are insisting it wasn't Apple. I am not. I am insisting we don't know. > It appears your view is that it's "unsubstantiated" unless Apple comments No. You've shown no substantiation from /any/ source. Just supposition. > but as I already said, Apple never comments about this, so apparently there's never any substantiation according to you, Wrong. Often devs announce removal by Apple. > a very convenient way of sticking your head in the sand and refusing to make the most logical inference. Inference requires evidence. None has yet been shown. I agree with the Techdirt article that you misrepped as saying removal was by Apple. "whether by Apple or the fake app’s developer is yet unclear".
    - lapcat 3y ago
      > Self-removal reduces further rep damage that cold impact other sales inc. of a future remedied version. I eagerly await the return of the app. That's the thing: these scam removals never return. New scams arise, but the specific removed apps don't. You speak of evidence, so show me even one example of a publicized scam app that was removed (by "someone") and then returned triumphantly. > Wrong. Often devs announce removal by Apple. Wrong. Legitimate developers announce removal by Apple. Scam developers never announce removal by Apple. In fact, scam developers are almost always anonymous, so where would you even find their announcements? Go ahead and find the announcements of "Parvati Patel". I'll wait here. > Inference requires evidence. None has yet been shown. Wrong. We have plenty of evidence. You're requiring a very specific piece of evidence, an official announcement from someone, but that's never going to occur. It's weird to even call it "inference" when your evidence for X is simply someone asserting X. (Moreover, theoretically, either Apple or the developer could be lying, so where's your evidence that they're not?)
      - 3y ago

by lapcat 3y ago

chrisjj 3y ago

> But why do you think there's so much bad publicity The LastPass claims. > if there's nothing wrong with the app? I didn't say there's nothing wrong with the app. > It's unclear why it even matters who exactly removed the app from the App Store Then I wonder why you are insisting it was Apple.

lapcat 3y ago
> Then I wonder why you are insisting it was Apple. As I already said, "somehow magically every single time a scam app makes the news media, the app disappears from the App Store." Also, self-removal "prevents any sales, which is the point of selling in the App Store." > I didn't say there's nothing wrong with the app. Then I wonder why you are insisting it wasn't Apple. It appears your view is that it's "unsubstantiated" unless Apple comments, but as I already said, Apple never comments about this, so apparently there's never any substantiation according to you, and it's just a giant coincidence that every single time a scam app makes the news media, the app disappears quickly from the store, even when the app's developer may be asleep due to living on the other side of the Earth. It's a very convenient way of sticking your head in the sand and refusing to make the most logical inference.
- chrisjj 3y ago
  > As I already said, "somehow magically every single time a scam app makes the news media, the app disappears from the App Store." Even if true, that doesn't mean removal was by Apple rather than dev. > self-removal "prevents any sales, which is the point of selling in the App Store." Ditto. Self-removal reduces further rep damage that cold impact other sales inc. of a future remedied version. >> I didn't say there's nothing wrong with the app. >Then I wonder why you are insisting it wasn't Apple. I am not. I am insisting we don't know. > It appears your view is that it's "unsubstantiated" unless Apple comments No. You've shown no substantiation from /any/ source. Just supposition. > but as I already said, Apple never comments about this, so apparently there's never any substantiation according to you, Wrong. Often devs announce removal by Apple. > a very convenient way of sticking your head in the sand and refusing to make the most logical inference. Inference requires evidence. None has yet been shown. I agree with the Techdirt article that you misrepped as saying removal was by Apple. "whether by Apple or the fake app’s developer is yet unclear".
  - lapcat 3y ago
    > Self-removal reduces further rep damage that cold impact other sales inc. of a future remedied version. I eagerly await the return of the app. That's the thing: these scam removals never return. New scams arise, but the specific removed apps don't. You speak of evidence, so show me even one example of a publicized scam app that was removed (by "someone") and then returned triumphantly. > Wrong. Often devs announce removal by Apple. Wrong. Legitimate developers announce removal by Apple. Scam developers never announce removal by Apple. In fact, scam developers are almost always anonymous, so where would you even find their announcements? Go ahead and find the announcements of "Parvati Patel". I'll wait here. > Inference requires evidence. None has yet been shown. Wrong. We have plenty of evidence. You're requiring a very specific piece of evidence, an official announcement from someone, but that's never going to occur. It's weird to even call it "inference" when your evidence for X is simply someone asserting X. (Moreover, theoretically, either Apple or the developer could be lying, so where's your evidence that they're not?)
    - 3y ago