[bnycum]

There feels like no right side in this story.

* Apple terminated both accounts because of fraudulent activity, but only one account was contacted to let them know of this activity.

* Kapeli shared financial information and test devices with this other account, whether it was a relative or not.

* Apple said "Hey, write a post telling the whole story and all will be cleared. Just don't say we were at fault."

* Kapeli agreed he would draft and send. Kapeli apparently did but never heard back.

* Apple had a spokesperson come out that painted a different a picture that basically seem to throw Kapeli under the bus.

[gshulegaard]

Generally, I don't get this:

* Kapeli shared financial information and test devices with this other account, whether it was a relative or not.

The assumption here is that for some reason a credit card number and device identifiers (unclear where they come from...but maybe mac address?) are enough for Apple to "link" accounts. I contest this for the same reason I think someone knowing my birthday and social security number is _not_ enough for them to be confirmed as "me".

While I don't think Apple is wrong to use this as a psuedo-identifier, I do think it is wrong for them to insist that, "we did nothing wrong" and fail to reinstate the pseudo-linked account immediately after being contacted.

I don't know if Kapeli is telling the truth about the situation...and his reputation is tarnished my eyes, but I definitely don't think Apple should insist that the accounts _must_ (with 100% certainty) be linked based off of the circumstantial credit card and test devices registered to them.

At this point Apple should either reinstate the account or come out with all the information they have to justify their actions. But having "closed door" conversations and throwing allegations at one another without proof and documentation is ridiculous.

[mikeash]

Seems to me that everything up to (and including) the initial ban was relatively sensible. You don't need absolute proof that the two accounts really are linked, it's reasonable enough to see something that indicates they likely are and then take action based on that.

Where it fell apart was failing to account for the possibility that they got it wrong. They should have notified both accounts and explained why both were being banned for the actions of one, then allowed a way to demonstrate than the two weren't really linked in order to reinstate the other account.

Unfortunately, this is pretty typical for how Apple operates the App Store. "We're never wrong, get lost" seems to be their motto. For example, for a long time you couldn't even appeal when your app was rejected. If it was rejected incorrectly, then all you could do is try to submit again and hope you got a different reviewer that time.

The App Store is a direct descendant of the iTunes Music Store, which originally existed to serve a handful of big music publishers. In many ways, it hasn't adapted well to serving a million small developers.

[gshulegaard]

This hits the nail on the head for what I am trying to communicate. Thanks!

Basically, CC + registered devices are fine pseudo-identifiers. But they aren't guaranteed unique and therefore edge cases do exist.

So if an edge case manifests, it seems that recourse is limited and at this point Apple basically is leveraging reinstating Kapeli's account to extort some sort of PR gain.

Again, I personally don't think Kapeli is without fault here...but it's possible what he is saying is _true_, so given that he _might_ have limited connection to the fraudulent behavior and has gone out of his way to try and reinstate Dash, why continue to deny reinstatement?

Apple might have more information, but until I see it its still a question.

[nodamage]

There are actually four different items linked between the two accounts:

1. Credit card used to pay the annual developer fee.

2. Test devices.

3. Bank account used to receive payments from Apple.

4. Bundle identifiers used to uniquely identify each app. (http://i.imgur.com/NljOzF4.jpg)

Even if (1) and (2) could be explained by the Dash developer helping someone else get started, (3) and (4) are more difficult to justify. Especially (4) because the bundle identifier is an arbitrary string and there's no real reason for different people to use the same one. But also (3) because it means the Dash developer was receiving payments for the apps being sold by the fraudulent account (i.e he was financially benefiting from the fraudulent activity).

Based on these factors I think it's entirely reasonable for Apple to conclude that both accounts were being controlled by the same person.

[IBM]

What makes you think they've shared all the ways that they were linked? The guy on the phone call may have just listed a couple of them when he was trying to establish with Kapeli what the ground truth was, that these accounts were linked.

[gshulegaard]

> What makes you think they've shared all the ways that they were linked?

I don't think this. But then again I can only have an informed opinion based on the information available (to me).

[Hydraulix989]

Even though I disagree with your post, I upvoted it to counter the people on this site who downvote merely because they disagree with somebody's comment.

[gshulegaard]

Haha thanks.

[st3v3r]

If it's his credit card, then the account is his responsibility. And it's not a stretch to link accounts that are the responsibility of the same person.

[ap3]

>Apple said "Hey, write a post telling the whole story and all will be cleared. Just don't say we were at fault."

Why should Apple tell devs what to publish on their blogs? That does seem like blackmail: say you are sorry and we will let you back in.

[eridius]

Why do people keep saying that Apple's completely voluntary gesture of goodwill (there's no reason at all why Apple has to offer this) is blackmail? If that's blackmail, then every transaction ever is blackmail. "Oh, you want to buy that eggbeater? That's $10" "blackmail!"

[Hydraulix989]

Well, Kapeli recorded and uploaded the phone call, shooting himself in the foot.

[bnycum]

Call it what you will, but it's the only time in this whole story that hasn't been "he said, she said."

[Hydraulix989]

And given that nugget of actual evidence, I can decisively say that he definitely screwed himself over.

This is how the business world works. Sometimes you can't get the best deal, but it's still in your best interest to accept it regardless. You have to act rationally; you can't just defect (to borrow some game theory parlance -- this literally resembles Prisoner's Dilemma) in the name of "principles."

One moderately-crafted blog post later (saying Apple wasn't at fault, and he wasn't either -- his account was "only" linked to the other one), this guy would have been back in business. It's no surprise that this guy hasn't ever worked at a big company before, if you don't swallow your pride every so often and keep your mouth shut, you get kicked to the curb, and it's surreal that he was a self-professed businessman because of how often this happens in the game.

He WAS winning, and he would've won (nobody would've taken his PR damage control post seriously, and initially everyone believed his fabricated narrative of innocence), but he royally #$!@ed up because he thought he could've had his cake and eaten it too.

I can't under any circumstances imagine any possible outcome to this scenario where Apple would've both admitted wrongdoing AND reinstated his app. Let's not get too greedy here...

[TheCowboy]

It's not a fact that had he written a blog post admitting guilt that his account would have been reinstated. That's just a carrot dangled by Apple, without a hard contractual obligation to follow through.

If anything, actually writing that something wrong happened would make it easier for them to justify their decision. It could be a trick representatives sometimes use when they assume the party they are dealing with is guilty. It's admitting to fraud and can hurt him more, especially if it didn't work out. And they can always reverse their decision.

[eridius]

That's nonsense. Even if Apple was trying to trick him (which they definitely were not), his blog post didn't have to admit any wrongdoing. Nothing he needed to say in there would have been admitting to fraud. It merely would have admitted that his account was linked to one with fraud (which nobody is disputing) and that he's working with Apple to unlink it and restore his account.

[TheCowboy]

I thought his post fulfilled that criteria, which I do agree is reasonable for Apple to request, so I was under the impression that OP was arguing he didn't go far enough.

If his post is not enough, then Apple should consider just sending him a statement including the correct wording for him to use.

[Hydraulix989]

Okay, then you release your recorded call AFTER they defect (I'm not saying he shouldn't have covered his ass by recording the call, that's the smart thing I would've also done). Imagine how bad that would look for Apple.

If I had to guess, Phil & co. wouldn't want to risk that nuclear scenario (and they are definitely smart enough to know better).

[spacehunt]

> Okay, then you release your recorded call AFTER they defect

Isn't this essentially what happened (at least according to Kapeli)? He wrote the blog post, sent Apple a draft, then Apple went to the press.