[davemel37]

>"We didn't just arbitrarily ban the account, it was involved in manipulating our reviews"

>anti-fraud team does the right thing

That's not what happened though. What happened is that Apple has their internal tools to link fraudulent accounts, to keep out bad actors, and this "good" account got caught in that web. You can just as easily argue that he didn't actually do anything wrong. After all, if he did Apple wouldn't even consider reinstating him. The fact that Apple linked the accounts internally doesn't actually point to any guilt or wrongdoing...It could even be pointed to Apple's policies arbitrarily hurting the little guy.

I can see both sides very clearly and I can see a middle ground very clearly. The only thing stopping this from being resolved is "bruised egos" on both sides.

Edit: Added in second quote

[vlozko]

But what if the developer did do something wrong and the account is not so "good" as the developer is trying to make it out to be. There's too much that stinks about it:

1. Opened up a developer account for a relative 4 years ago. Relative. Yeah, ok. And 4 years ago... don't credit cards usually expire before then?

2. The same devices were being used on both accounts. While the info isn't available, I'm sure Apple can know if these same devices were still in active use by both accounts.

3. Dash isn't the problem. Too many people seem fixated on the notion of why the developer needed to do review manipulation on Dash when that's not at all the problem. It's the other apps on the other account that were the subject of App Store review manipulation. These apps contained descriptions that contained the developer's own email address in it: http://appshopper.com/search/?searchdev=603546869&sort=name&...

[davemel37]

I do agree that he could totally be lying...but that doesn't seem to be Apples belief or they wouldn't reinstate him.

Also, if he really was guilty, why would he poke the bear after apple agreed to reinstate him...why not apologize and get off scott free.

It appears to me like both sides agreed to a set of facts and now its just a matter of setting the record straight. No one seems to want to admit fault and they are being childish about that since its in both of their interests to do so.

[carterehsmith]

Interesting... and this is com.kapeli - seems to be related:

https://software.com/publisher/kapeli

[matt4077]

I think when you sign-up, and the only ID they get is your credit card, it's pretty obvious that the account will be linked to you.

From the call, it appears that Apple only wanted a clarification in that direction, i. e. "I should not have given my drunk little brother the car keys".

They're not reacting from a "bruised ego", since a professional PR team doesn't get emotional in that sense.

They feel that the initial accusations have created actual damage for Apple's image, and they want him to stop the pitchfork-wielding mob.

[davemel37]

I dont know who is dealing with this on Apples side...but its a mistake to think brands, executives, employees and even PR agencies dont get emotional and react from a bruised ego.

I bet the PR costs exceed the actual damage in this case. If they were really afraid of damage, they wouldnt come out swinging, they would simply apologize for banning the account and the public would forgive them instantly.

Both sides are acting against their own interests IMO.

[trymas]

> That's not what happened though. What happened is that Apple has their internal tools to link fraudulent accounts, to keep out bad actors, and this "good" account got caught in that web.

Imagine a family account at the bank. Husband is committing fraud, bank closes the account to stop fraud and 'good' wife cannot use her credit card anymore.

EDIT: afaik, other account also used the same identifier for their apps. Apple sees that there is a person/company who has fraudulent activity in one of it's accounts and bans that person/company. Simple as that.