Every time I read some post by someone about how they were treated unfairly by some company or another, upon further inspection they are not telling the whole truth. (Usually not outright lies, just not the complete story.)
Every time.
Oh well. I like myself better when I believe people, so I'll continue to do that anyway despite logic saying not to.
> I like myself better when I believe people, so I'll continue to do that anyway despite logic saying not to.
Well put.
For what it's worth though, i tend to view cases like this with skepticism. I mainly think of it as, why believe PersonA over PersonB - it's a technical decision at that point, not a personal judgement. It's a little more difficult when it's John Doe vs Apple, ie a human vs a corporation, but ultimately i still don't picking sides without hard evidence. He said she saids rarely add up, regardless of guilt.
There's a weird power imbalance in these situations. The person reporting the problem is able to tell whatever story they want since they generally don't have a reputation to maintain (and will, if anything, likely improve their reputation), and the company has to be very careful - it's often better to not release any detail to avoid potentially worse fallout from releasing potentially private information (yes, the privacy of the person making the complaint).
This is especially bad when your company is on the receiving end, and you know the truth. For example, a previous company had someone making claims that some purchase was made on their credit card without their knowledge - but there was account email confirmation at account creation time, account email conversation with community support, actual logical proof from the post itself of something that required said purchase, and so forth. In another case, an account is closed due to some clearly provable illegal behaviour, but it was blamed on not paying to renewing something optional.
So since then I'm perfectly capable of neither believing nor disbelieving claims made by people, even when it happens to agree with what I was thinking already. It doesn't make me feel better or worse than believing them, I just assume I don't have the information necessary to make any real judgement about it. Life lesson, I guess, and useful to not get sucked into things like political theatre.
I don't know. I still think those crazy Verizon cancellation/customer support calls that were circulating a few years ago probably weren't hiding too much.
It fits a certain narrative that certain groups want to promote about apple. The story just became a vehicle to vent about preexisting gripes about them. Note how you see statements like walled garden etc, when this can also be couched as removing developers that game the system.
The only reason to inform both accounts is if you believe the developer's story about his relative using the account (which is a "my dog ate the homework" excuse) and that Apple needs to explore every possible edge case scenario that could explain the innocence of the developer. The credit card, the bank account, and the devices were all the same. That's more than enough for Apple to reasonably believe that the accounts belong to the same person and to shut him down.
Beside if the new elements are accurate it seems that the alleged "side-account" was actually the first he registered before creating the other one specifically for dash...
I agree that it's on everybody best interest that Apple in the futur shall contact all accounts potentially impacted by a ban. But according to new elements the way out by re-enrolment proposed by apple on phone was pretty kind.
No matter how skeezy the Dash developer is starting to look, I still I personally despise the reinstatement of the developer's account depending upon the developer posting a comment vindicating Apple on their blog.
It seems childish, like Apple feels the need to show "who's the bitch" by making the developer bow to their desires.
I don't see it as Apple doing any wrong here. They recently received a lot of bad press for terminating the Dash developer's account for some unknown reason. Turns out there was a good reason after all, and would like the originator of the bad press to now present the actual details of the "why". And he doesn't have to admit to any wrongdoing.
From the way I understood Dash and Apple's conversation, Kapeli helped another developer become a fully registered in Apple's dev program. He helped by paying the $99 on his own credit card and letting the new developer do testing with his hardware, thus "linking" the accounts in the eyes of Apple (same CC, same hardware devices). And it was actions by the new developer that appeared fraudulent.
Apple isn't asking him to admit involvement with the new developer. They just want to get the word out that it wasn't some blackbox heuristic that singled out Kapeli for some unknowable reason.
Basically a case of guilt-by-association. And because of that, I really think they should have contacted him about it before bringing out the ban hammer.
> They just want to get the word out that it wasn't some blackbox heuristic that singled out Kapeli for some unknowable reason.
So, why didn't they just do that? Instead of this roundabout "we screwed up and you screwed up, so you need publish our comment for us", why not just come out and comment on the circumstances, and reinstate the account. Boom. Whole thing is resolved, muck stops being slung, developers are happy because Apple appears responsive to problems, and customers can once again download Dash.
In retrospect, they did exactly the right thing. Consider the facts as we know them:
1) A developer appears to be manipulating reviews in direct violating of his developer agreement.
2) Apple attempts to reach out to developer, but receives no response.
3) Apple suspends account, and any linked accounts.
4) Said developer cries foul, lies through his teeth about having nothing to do with these reviews, accuses Apple of unfair treatment, and succeeds in getting major news outlets to pick up his story.
5) Apple's reputation is unjustly damaged due to the one-sided media attention.
6) Apple reaches out to developer directly, gives him a reasonable way out: Admit that Apple's actions were justified based on their best available knowledge, and further that they are willing to correct the situation and assist the developer with preventing it in the future. This protects the interests of both parties. Apple is vindicated. Developer is vindicated. Bad press goes away.
7) In the process of carrying out this agreement, Apple discovers said developer was lying to them. He was indeed guilty of exactly what Apple accused him of. The linked account contained his own products, as proven by archives of his website. Apple makes the ban permanent.
Now, if Apple had done what you suggest, this would be tantamount to saying, "Yep, that bad press was right. We screwed up. Sorry." This damages Apple's reputation, making developers wary of distributing products on the App Store. This has a financial impact on Apple. If I were still an Apple shareholder, I would expect my interests be protected in exactly the manner they were.
Whether one agrees with the walled garden of the App Store is not relevant to the facts of the case. Enforceable legal contracts between two parties is a key pillar of modern civilization. The parties in a contract must weigh their risks-rewards, and judge accordingly.
For better or worse, they silently shut down a clean account that was only tangentially (and invisibly) linked to a problem account, without notice, without appeal.
They admitted as much.
If you don't see that as being a problem, that's your choice.
Apple's demands have turned this into a dangerous PR situation. If Apple had simply reinstated the account with the brief explanation they've already given and without this silly demand, we would have all forgotten about it by now.
Developer (caught up in a mistaken fraud check|screwed up and purchased reviews) and his account was shut down; reinstated as a gesture of good will by Apple after explaining what happened. Developers in general are happy because Apple appears responsive to problems with fraud checks, original developer is properly chastized and can move on with life.
Contrast that with "Developer is still raising very public hell about their account being disabled; Apple fans digging up dirt on developer."
This isn't a deterrent, this is a PR nightmare. Apple fans are forced to dig up dirt on a developer to show how Apple is in the right, the developer is still raising very public hell about the whole situation, and consumers of Dash are stuck without access to a tool they need.
If you listen to the audio recording, it couldn't be more fair. His account was linked (same bank account and same test devices) to an account that was fraudulent. All he has to do is write a blog post that says that, not that he did anything wrong...but the facts. Simple. No character assassination, no accusations, just the truth.
Because Apple's position has been the same all along, that they detected fraudulent activity on his accounts. They just want him to confirm, publicly, that there was indeed fishy stuff going on with one of his accounts. Seems totally fair.
I half agree. They are definitely giving him an out, but I don't consider his recording the call as defiance, more like just being practical. I'd record the call, too.
I'd record the call for potential legal action -- if he was telling the truth the entire time, then he would likely have a reasonable court case for losing some income because of Apple's action. Releasing the edited call recording (it's clear that at least the beginning and ending of the call have been removed) outside of litigation is going nuclear.
Every time I read some post by someone about how they were treated unfairly by some company or another, upon further inspection they are not telling the whole truth. (Usually not outright lies, just not the complete story.)
Every time.
Oh well. I like myself better when I believe people, so I'll continue to do that anyway despite logic saying not to.