91–100 of 134 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Undisclosed call recording is a really bad idea.
Depends on the state. Most states are "one party" where only one party (i.e. a person making or receiving a call has to know about it). http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-co... Federal law is "one party" as well.
Edit: Romania.
So, Apple wanted to secretly pay the developer (via removing a penalty they had imposed) to produce PR material regarding the trustworthiness of their actions in the Developer Program. That's pretty much the same thing they claimed was the basis of the account suspension, if you think about it. Guess it's a "good for me, but not for thee" kind of thing.
This is dumb. He's risking a significant amount of his livelyhood for a company that doesn't really care all that much about him and he's calling them out in public. Dumb move. Most people will forget about this in a week and his business will be affected for months (in the shortest possible time frame) and probably permanently. This is a dangerous bluff to make.
Dash is mostly a desktop app and he can keep on selling it outside the MAS.
If Apple is open to admit the dev back to the program means he didn't really commit fraud. And if he didn't commit fraud, why is Apple enforcing him to write a PR blog post in favor of Apple as a condition to get back into the program? Apple wants him to write fake review. Oh the irony.
Apple says his account was linked to the fraudulent account. They define "linked" as sharing test devices, and having been enrolled under the same credit card number. The accounts were linked.
They say to the developer that if he explains exactly the above then his account will be re-instated. It's not a "fake review" if it's stating the facts.
The part where we can assign blame to Apple is where they failed to notify all "linked accounts" when one of the accounts was engaged in fraudulent activity. They only notified the account engaged in the fraudulent activity, but went on to shut down that account and all linked accounts.
If they had notified all linked accounts then the developer claims he could have taken steps to resolve this much sooner. (But to argue for Apple's side here: Apple views all linked accounts as a singular "legal entity," and so assumed notifying one was the same as notifying them all.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think Apple's position is reasonable here. A second developer account, which is the account linked to fraudulent reviews, was opened using the same credit card, same bank account, and same test devices as the main Kapeli account. So it's reasonable that they would assume the same person was in control of both accounts. The developer claims this is not the case, however. Apple seems willing to accept that. All they…
Not at all. If Apple is ready to bring him back it's because he didn't commit fraud. And if he didn't commit fraud he shouldn't need to write a blog post as a condition to get back. Quite contrary, Apple owes him an apology.
If you open developer accounts that eventually engage in fraudulent activity you're not "owed" an apology. You should be on top of the things you open in your name and with your bank details.
Apple should have taken steps to notify all linked accounts. That's their mistake. But it was the developer's mistake to open an account for someone who would engage in fraud in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It matters what they think or believe because you said >Apple representative states there was no wrongdoing on Kapeli's side. which is a misrepresentation of what the Apple rep said on the call.
Alright, i worded that badly. They admit to there being no wrongdoing on Kapeli's side by giving the option to reopen his account at all . If they thought there were any wrongdoing they wouldn't even be talking to him, much less make him that offer.
The wrongdoing here is that he opened multiple accounts that could legally be linked to him and allowed one of them to be used to defraud the App Store. Apple could see that as wrongdoing while being sympathetic to his story that he forgot about it / lost control of it and so allow him to reinstate his account.
If Apple is open to admit the dev back to the program means he didn't really commit fraud. And if he didn't commit fraud, why is Apple enforcing him to write a PR blog post in favor of Apple as a condition to get back into the program? Apple wants him to write fake review. Oh the irony.
The phone call doesn't stipulate terms the way you describe. Apple says his account was linked to the fraudulent account. They define "linked" as sharing test devices, and having been enrolled under the same credit card number. The accounts were linked. They say to the developer that if he explains exactly the above then his account will be re-instated. It's not a "fake review" if it's stating the facts. The part whe…
Regardless of which side of the argument you lean towards, they can both legitimately believe they are 100% in the right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alright, i worded that badly. They admit to there being no wrongdoing on Kapeli's side by giving the option to reopen his account at all . If they thought there were any wrongdoing they wouldn't even be talking to him, much less make him that offer.
Why are you equating Apple's willingness reinstate his account with an admission that there was no wrongdoing? The wrongdoing here is that he opened multiple accounts that could legally be linked to him and allowed one of them to be used to defraud the App Store. Apple could see that as wrongdoing while being sympathetic to his story that he forgot about it / lost control of it and so allow him to reinstate his accou…
You got your facts wrong. He did not do that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The phone call doesn't stipulate terms the way you describe. Apple says his account was linked to the fraudulent account. They define "linked" as sharing test devices, and having been enrolled under the same credit card number. The accounts were linked. They say to the developer that if he explains exactly the above then his account will be re-instated. It's not a "fake review" if it's stating the facts. The part whe…
The gist of this point is the debate around banning guns from people on the terrorist watch list. One side insists that if they are bad enough to watch, we shouldn't let them buy guns (this is Apples stance that since our arbitrary system linked them, that suddenly makes him guilty.) and the people on the other side, insist that since there is no due process to being added to the terrorist watch list, it is a way to…
- Developer used his credit card to enrol in multiple accounts
- Developer had same test devices on both accounts
- One account engaged in fraud
- One account was notified of fraud
Apple's request is that the developer make these facts known and have his account reinstated. Because Apple doesn't want to be seen as arbitrarily shutting down developer accounts — they have reason in this case and want it known.
It seems like Apple was sympathetic to the claim that the developer lost control of / forgot about the account which had the fraudulent activity. But also wanted to be seen as having a reason for pulling Dash in the first place.
They weren't asking the dev to admit to fraud. They were asking him to admit to opening multiple developer accounts and losing control of one. Which both sides acknowledge he did. I'm not sure I understand why the developer thinks this would be an admission of wrongdoing on his part (unless the wrongdoing was opening multiple accounts and giving them to untrustworthy people, which he did).