3 ms·
> It then turned out that the developer forgot to mention that originally he did upload an astrology app for review. Gruber felt duped, and noted that it's uncl
by Aurornis 3mo ago
> It then turned out that the developer forgot to mention that originally he did upload an astrology app for review. Gruber felt duped, and noted that it's unclear whether an updated build containing the new astronomy app was ever submitted to Apple for review
I think it’s shaping up like he didn’t “forget” to mention it. This looks like an intentional play for attention. It worked very well. Too well, in fact, which drew enough eyes on to the situation to start noticing the cracks in his story.
A key part of the Gruber retraction article is that Apple rejected a different app named Asterly. He then copied the Dark Hours app, including the name, from someone else and tried to imply that was the app at the center of the controversy.
If he had actually written his own astronomy app and swapped it into the story he may have gotten away with it. Doing the wholesale copying of someone else’s work, including the name of the project and stripping the license in the process, is what got him caught.
App Store rejection stories are always popular. I see at least one post a month on Hacker News from an app developer trying to get attention because their app was rejected and it usually receives moderate social media attention. I think this person saw an opportunity to ride that anger for some personal publicity and went for it. He flew too close to the sun and got too much attention, though, so his mistruths were revealed. Now he’s trying some CYA techniques because the original ruse backfired.
- qarl2 3mo ago[flagged]
- mtlynch 3mo agoHow is this Gruber's fault? What level of verification do you expect of a tech blog discussing the experience of another tech blogger?
- dewey 3mo agoThis has nothing to do with Gruber fans or not. Your take just isn't as smart as you thought it is. Highly regarded newspapers, tv programs or books have updates / retractions all the time as even with the best fact checking it's possible that something slips through.
- qarl2 3mo ago[flagged]
- dewey 3mo agoI've only changed "redactions" into "updates / retractions" as that was a typo. Please take a look at https://www.nytimes.com/international/section/corrections https://www.nytimes.com/international/section/corrections for a small selection of what slips through fact checking on a well established and reputable newspaper.
- qarl2 3mo agoI don't doubt that massive organizations make a lot of errors. I don't think it makes your point, tho. The question is error per volume. I seriously doubt Gruber does the same amount of fact checking as a serious publication. And that was my point above. But I could be wrong - if you actually know I'd love the answer.
- dewey 3mo agoIf your question is if a single person running a private blog has the same fact checking resources as a big news corporation, the answer is no but I'm not sure why you'd need me to tell you that. As mentioned in Gruber's retraction (https://daringfireball.net/2026/08/retraction_app_store_rejection_of_the_week https://daringfireball.net/2026/08/retraction_app_store_reje...) it's the first time he had to retract something in 24 years. It doesn't really make sense to compare the two in any case as the stakes and resources are very different.
- amazingman 3mo agoThis is a very strange take. We got a full-throated retraction. Error correction is a hallmark of trustworthiness.
- qarl2 3mo ago> We got a full-throated retraction. Not really. When he says "I was misled" he's passing the blame. Other statements are equally defensive. Notice how the retractions of larger publications do not make similar claims. They state the error and move on.
- qarl2 3mo ago[flagged]
- qarl2 3mo ago[flagged]
- qarl2 3mo agoHeh. The HN hivemind insists on censoring me without discussion. Does this seems like rational behavior, guys? Surely if I'm doing something wrong you can explain it to me with words, right? EDIT: WOW - the whole thread has been removed. Yikes guys - erasing the record is the opposite of transparency. You understand the value of transparency, right?
- minimaxir 3mo agoI did not flag you, but you clearly have a personal vendetta with Gruber that is best-case off-topic and nonconstructive, which is against HN guidelines.
- qarl2 2mo agoActually - I hardly know of Gruber - other than he's widely read. I recognize the layout of his blog, which means I must have seen it before. Is that what you mean? Wait - does this mean that HN censors people based on the hunches of its popular readers?
- qarl2 2mo agoI mean that question seriously. I barely know who Gruber is. Do you guys just make shit up as you go along? And then delete people for it? Really?
- qarl2 2mo ago"I did not flag you, but..." "I am not racist, but..."