[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.