[bdfh42]

Think of it the other way around.

Fred is an employee of your company that builds an iPhone app. Fred is responsible for registering it but decides to use his personal account details. If Apple paid the money into Fred's account you would be reasonably aggrieved

So there is nothing wrong here - well after your rather odd decision to register as one legal entity (a UK Limited Company) but provide the bank account details of another legal entity (yourself).

I suspect that the money is effectively lost to you. and that you should withdraw the app (if you can) and re-register honestly and clearly as yourself.

[antonovka]

I suspect that the money is effectively lost to you. and that you should withdraw the app (if you can) and re-register honestly and clearly as yourself.

Are you seriously claiming that -- if they were so inclined -- Apple couldn't safely resolve this issue within an hour or two?

[vessenes]

The problem is that this issue is indistinguishable from the following scenario from Apple's point of view:

Corporation Makes Application

Programmer has control of communication with Apple Store

Programmer leaves Corporation aggrieved

Programmer asks Apple to personally wire him the Corporation's Money

Corporation is f-ed.

That is the fundamental problem he has getting this issue solved, and I'm guessing that from his story that his communication skills aren't helping people at Apple get in a place to help him.

[jacquesm]

Exactly.

From Apples point of view it would be very hard to see the difference between the two.

[aaronblohowiak]

Thats why notorized articles of incorporation &c. should be sufficient.

[tptacek]

He's not incorporated though, is he? Isn't that his problem? He (for some reason) made up a fake company in a country he doesn't even live in.

[zoomboy]

You misunderstand. The company is a real UK limited. They can be setup over the internet. It's registered and real. I can setup a company over the internet, but not a bank account.

[tptacek]

Sorry. Real company. It just apparently can't transact any business, right?

[antonovka]

He (for some reason) made up a fake company in a country he doesn't even live in.

Which, if true, Apple never actually verified existed in the first place. Seems a bit odd to be pushing for it now.

I can't really blame him, either. The sign-up is confusing, the legal requirements are often poorly specified, and it's to do something that seems to makes sense (I want a fictitious name, I'll create the company later) that's actually a really bad idea given Apple's requirements.

[tptacek]

I don't think there's any ambiguity here about whether the author made a mistake. He knew he didn't have the company when he started. He just didn't expect that mistake to cost him so much. I sympathize, but his mistake involves both taxes and accounting, and I'm having a hard time blaming Apple for the fact that it's a debacle.

[jacquesm]

The onus is not on Apple to verify it to that extent up front, but if they suspect fraud or tax evasion they'll go by the book on it. That will take time.

[jsz0]

I think it would take a bit more than an hour or two. It would require a full investigation: copies of relevant documents, approval from their accounting department, approval from the App Store management at some level, consulting with their legal department and probably an affidavit from the developer too.

It's a bad situation for both parties. It sounds like he's doing the right thing trying to make it public and get advice. If the media does some of the vetting of his story Apple will take him much more seriously and perhaps not view him as a fraudster.

[tptacek]

If they were so inclined, they could simply give him an 11k loan until the situation resolved itself. What's your point, though?

[antonovka]

The two resolutions -- verifying him as a suitable corporate officer, versus floating him a personal 11k loan -- are so widely different, I can't even begin to fathom what your point is?

[tptacek]

At this point I have nothing to say that jacquesm and vessenes haven't already said, so I'll spare you the long-winded response and just say this doesn't look like Apple's problem.

[antonovka]

Since Apple isn't at fault for the original mixup, they have no responsibility to help resolve their outstanding debt in a reasonably timely manner? It has been months.

[tptacek]

So what I'm getting from this conversation is that you don't own a business, or if you do, you don't invoice. Months is a blink of an eye in receivables/payables terms. Here's a startup lesson for you: if you deal with big companies, factor in enough buffer to survive 6-9 months before getting paid, even when you do things by the book.

[jacquesm]

I'm sure they can't, actually.

As long as you stick to the form and procedure in place things will run smoothly and you'll be fine.

If you start making exceptions people higher up will have to get involved to authorize the exception, that will take a lot of time because they really won't want to do that without making sure they're not setting themselves up for a problem.

OP was doing something not 100% on the up-and-up imho and that is the prime cause of all this trouble.

[antonovka]

I'm sure they can't, actually.

All that's necessary is verifying that the individual in question is an suitable officer of the corporation.

As long as you stick to the form and procedure in place things will run smoothly and you'll be fine.

Unless Apple decides otherwise. We've had payments come in months late for no apparent reason, and didn't see resolution until Apple received a spate of bad press.

[jacquesm]

But I'm assuming here that you didn't do anything 'strange' yourself.

The 'for no apparent reason' sort of proves that already. So if you had would you blame apple ?

[antonovka]

The 'for no apparent reason' sort of proves that already. So if you had would you blame apple ?

If Apple put up their usual bureaucratic wall, ignored our requests, or required multi-week/month turnaround times to resolve the issue -- then yes, I would blame Apple.