[Crosseye_Jack]

Listening to the recording it seems that they do want to get the account reinstated but want Kapeli to release a statement on why the account was deactivated.

Which after reading the post and listening to the recording on why Apple hit the account it seems fair after all this has gone public. (Kapeli set up an account for a relative using his CC, gave them some of his old hardware and it's that account that was caught in the review fraud. So in Apples system the two accounts were linked so when they nuked one account, the other went along with it.)

A Blog posting from Kapeli explaining the cause of the account ban and that he has worked with Apple to unlink the two accounts and resolve the situation.

> What Apple has done: on Friday they told me they’d reactivate my account if I’d make a blog post admitting some wrongdoing.

I didn't get from the call that he would have to admit and wrong doing, just explain what had happened and he got hit in the crossfire. Heck if I was in his boat I would end the blog post with "I would like to thank Apple and Phil for working with me to get this sorted and thanks to the community at large for helping to get this resolved." Not that they asked for a thank you but because I can see it from Apple's POV from Kapeli's recent Blog post.

[Mithaldu]

It doesn't matter what he has to admit or not. The issue lies in this sentence:

> What Apple has done: on Friday they told me they’d reactivate my account if I’d make a blog post admitting some wrongdoing.

The "if" is the problem here. Had Apple said "we'll reinstate your account AND please make a blog post stating xyz" everything would be fine. Making it conditional on the post despite being their mistake is just reprehensible.

[galacticpony]

It wasn't their mistake, it was his mistake. You can't just register an account, then hand it off to someone else and not be at least partially responsible for what happens through that account.

If Apple didn't want to avoid the bad PR, they could just terminate their business relationship permanently, and they'd be in the right, even morally, since it was Kapeli who violated the trust.

[Mithaldu]

As i told you on your other post: He didn't register it. He only paid for the initial fee and donated hardware.

[galacticpony]

It's unclear whether he registered it himself, but it doesn't matter, since according to the terms of service:

"You can choose from the payment methods presented during your membership purchase. If you are paying by credit card and enrolling as an individual, you must use your own credit card to complete your purchase. If you do not, your enrollment will be delayed and you will be asked for a copy of your government-issued photo identification."

https://developer.apple.com/support/purchase-activation/

[Hadi_Asiaie]

At least he did not use the same name. The two accounts use different names, otherwise apple would mention it because it's a huge evidence that the accounts are linked :)

[Mithaldu]

That only says "if you use another's card we also want your photo id". It does not say "the card's holder will be responsible for your actions".

[galacticpony]

It says if you do not pay by credit card, we want your photo ID, or at least it's ambiguous.

Again, it's unclear under whose name the account really was registered, but if he went through the trouble of sending in photo ID, Kapeli would probably mention that as to further exonerate him of any mistakes.