Hacker News Reader

Comment by Lazare | Hacker News Reader

This is a very weird definition of "proof".

A much more accurate headline might be "Apple responds to Dash controversy by insisting they were right all along and refusing to provide proof."

Edit: The tone of the entire article rubs me the wrong way; it reads like a press release that nobody could be bothered to re-write.

> The integrity of the App Store is as important to Apple as it is to consumers.

Citation needed? Plus it immediately follows an unsubstantiated claim that Apple has been ignoring evidence of review manipulation for two years, so even if we take the article at face value...that doesn't sound like they think it's important?

> This is part of the reason we trust Apple and the App Store.

That's the most circular argument. "We trust Apple because they claim they're trustworthy!"

View on HN

Unfortunately The Loop isn't much of a news site, more of a controlled Apple leak blog. Dalrymple has gotten to the point of being a complete Apple shill.

Edit: Compare the tone of the Loop article to Daring Fireballs:

http://daringfireball.net/2016/10/apple_dash_controversy

Gruber takes a much more unbiased approach, supported well. The Loop article reads like a statement from the Principal read by your teacher.

And here's Kapeli's explanation of what happened:

https://blog.kapeli.com/dash-and-apple-my-side-of-the-story

!!! it includes a recording of a phone call with Apple !!!

Edit: After listening to the first 2 minutes of the call, i can say with absolute confidence that Apple is straight-up blackmailing him. I would love to hear opinions on whether this is something that could be taken to court.

Here's the HN submission of the link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12680597

Listening to the recording it seems that they do want to get the account reinstated but want Kapeli to release a statement on why the account was deactivated.

Which after reading the post and listening to the recording on why Apple hit the account it seems fair after all this has gone public. (Kapeli set up an account for a relative using his CC, gave them some of his old hardware and it's that account that was caught in the review fraud. So in Apples system the two accounts were linked so when they nuked one account, the other went along with it.)

A Blog posting from Kapeli explaining the cause of the account ban and that he has worked with Apple to unlink the two accounts and resolve the situation.

> What Apple has done: on Friday they told me they’d reactivate my account if I’d make a blog post admitting some wrongdoing.

I didn't get from the call that he would have to admit and wrong doing, just explain what had happened and he got hit in the crossfire. Heck if I was in his boat I would end the blog post with "I would like to thank Apple and Phil for working with me to get this sorted and thanks to the community at large for helping to get this resolved." Not that they asked for a thank you but because I can see it from Apple's POV from Kapeli's recent Blog post.

It doesn't matter what he has to admit or not. The issue lies in this sentence:

> What Apple has done: on Friday they told me they’d reactivate my account if I’d make a blog post admitting some wrongdoing.

The "if" is the problem here. Had Apple said "we'll reinstate your account AND please make a blog post stating xyz" everything would be fine. Making it conditional on the post despite being their mistake is just reprehensible.

It wasn't their mistake, it was his mistake. You can't just register an account, then hand it off to someone else and not be at least partially responsible for what happens through that account.

If Apple didn't want to avoid the bad PR, they could just terminate their business relationship permanently, and they'd be in the right, even morally, since it was Kapeli who violated the trust.

As i told you on your other post: He didn't register it. He only paid for the initial fee and donated hardware.

It's unclear whether he registered it himself, but it doesn't matter, since according to the terms of service:

"You can choose from the payment methods presented during your membership purchase. If you are paying by credit card and enrolling as an individual, you must use your own credit card to complete your purchase. If you do not, your enrollment will be delayed and you will be asked for a copy of your government-issued photo identification."

https://developer.apple.com/support/purchase-activation/

At least he did not use the same name. The two accounts use different names, otherwise apple would mention it because it's a huge evidence that the accounts are linked :)

That only says "if you use another's card we also want your photo id". It does not say "the card's holder will be responsible for your actions".

It says if you do not pay by credit card, we want your photo ID, or at least it's ambiguous.

Again, it's unclear under whose name the account really was registered, but if he went through the trouble of sending in photo ID, Kapeli would probably mention that as to further exonerate him of any mistakes.

They're be asking for photo id of the actual account holder, i.e. the relative, in lieu of id via CC account. And given that Apple was willing to reinstate his account, Kapeli is already exonerated.

Apple was willing to reinstate the account only under the condition that Kapeli admits there was a mistake on his part, so clearly that doesn't exonerate him from having signed up for an account for a third party under his identity. This is Apple's position and I would expect they have designed their terms so that this position holds up.

It sure sounds like Schiller's team screwed up here and should reinstate his account forthwith.

In short, Kapeli helped a relative open an account years ago but has otherwise been unassociated with that account. He technically shouldn't have used his credit card to help his relative, but this is Romania and it's just a nominal $99 fee, so he probably didn't think much of it. Apple's stance is they now look at them as "linked" accounts due to the use of his credit card and old devices, so they were justified in shutting down his account for fraudulent activity on the other one.

Problem is Apple never contacted Kapeli's account before shutting both of them down. They didn't do any extra due diligence for a top developer. Their notices only went to the other account, apparently, and Kapeli never had a chance to see them. He just woke up one day and his account was banned.

Now, that's just dumb. If the accounts are linked, why not notify both accounts?

Kapeli's an extremely well-respected app and has oodles of credibility. That alone should have triggered a deeper investigation before shutting him down. That fact that they know what happened here and still refuse to reinstate the account is shameful.

> "In short, Kapeli helped a relative open an account years ago but has otherwise been unassociated with that account."

That's what Kapeli claims. How exactly do you know that the above is true? As opposed to, you know, himself creating two accounts.

Logic. Apple called him and conceded that the reason they thought they were the same "entity" is simply because both used the same credit card number. If Kapeli wanted to be deceptive and create another account to commit a bunch of fraud on that appeared unassociated with him, he'd use another credit card, bundle ID, etc.

Of course, because no one committing fraud ever makes mistakes.

I have no idea if Popescu was really involved in the fraudulent activity or not. But dismissing it as too dumb to be possible is no better than dismissing the possibility of Apple making a detection mistake as too dumb to be possible.

I didn't say it was dumb to think it "possible" for him to be the culprit. I said it was dumb to shut down a top developer account without warning.

I'm referring to your claim that he would have used a different credit card and ID as if this is obviously true. It's neither true nor obvious since he didn't realize by his own admission that the accounts were linked.

Even that doesn't make much sense. It is obvious that Apple would know that the accounts are linked.

You're misunderstanding the entire point of my comment. I was specifically addressing the assertion that Popescu would have used a different card for the other account if he were trying to commit fraud: "If Kapeli wanted to be deceptive and create another account to commit a bunch of fraud on that appeared unassociated with him, he'd use another credit card, bundle ID, etc."

This claim is untrue. Per Popescu's blog, he didn't know using the same bank/CC info would link the accounts. So no, he likely wouldn't have used a different card. So the implication that because he didn't use a different card, he therefore wasn't trying to commit fraud is invalid.

The reference to Apple being dumb was merely for comparison.

I get what you're saying, but it still doesn't make sense. It is obvious that providing bank information will tie your identity to both accounts. That is utterly obvious. Ergo, by "linking" what he is referring to is being personally responsible for the behavior of the other person, even though they have a different name etc., not that Apple would be unable to see the common bank info.

> It is obvious that providing bank information will tie your identity to both accounts. That is utterly obvious.

It's clearly not obvious to Popescu per his own statement on the matter. Asserting repeatedly that it's obvious doesn't make it so.

> Ergo, by "linking" what he is referring to is being personally responsible for the behavior of the other person

This is a distinction without a difference. "Linking" the accounts is pointless unless it creates a meaningful relationship between them. The only reason to link accounts is to establish that they be somehow treated as a unit.

You are claiming that Popescu does not understand that handing his credit card info over to Apple for the other account, amongst other things, would reveal to Apple that he has a connection with it. That is an absurd claim.

Your evidence is his statement, which refers to a more specific technical use of the term "linking", namely responsibility for fraud as a combined "legal entity", the phrase that is used in the cited phone call. I will let the downvotes on your comment speak for themselves here.

I'm making the much more charitable claim that he didn't realize Apple would track the connection between the accounts. This is in line with both his actions and his statements. Your continued attempts to force your specific narrow interpretation onto his statement is absurd.

Your appeal to downvotes as some form of proof that your interpretation is correct is also absurd, partly because downvotes don't mean that much in general, but mostly because I have exactly one in total. So as with the rest of the thread your self-satisfaction seems rather unjustified.

wiretapping apple? yeah, good move.

Call recording != wire tapping. Not that Apple will take kindly to it either way...

Call recording is not illegal in every state.

Isn't Kapeli from Romania? In which case - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#Roman...

I believe it is in California without their permission, not 100% sure.

I'd be willing to bet that Apple's call start with a statement that they are recording the call, that means you can record the call to because they know it's being recorded.

When a call starts with "this call may be recorded for quality assurance", I always say "thank you" to express my gratitude for them granting me explicit permission to record it.

"two-party consent" laws have been adopted in California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington.

He is in Romania where it is legal to record phone calls - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#Roman...

After listening to the entire thing, I can say that Kapeli sounds like a complete ignoramus.

He has registered an account using his credentials, the account was involved in fraudulent activity, that makes him responsible, as an individual. Why is Apple supposed to even care that he doesn't control the other account anymore? He's supposed to control the account, according to the terms of service he agreed to. If he doesn't control it and he doesn't want to be responsible, he has to close it.

Apple is giving him the opportunity to get back to having a business relationship, but he doesn't understand the problem. Apparently, neither do many of the other users on here. Apple has every right to terminate their business relationship,so how is it blackmail? It's more like a plea bargain...

Completely, 100% agree with galacticpony. This whole story sounds suspect and I'm falling square on Apple's side here. Kapeli set up a relative with a developer account AND that relative was involved in fraudulent activity that benefits Kapeli and/or damages his competitors? Either Kapeli is lying and did set up his relative to help him out with fraudulent reviews, or he was so negligible so as to risk damage to his status with Apple by hooking up an untrustworthy relative and then felt like he had every right to act indignant when Apple called him out on it AND gave him a chance to make it right?

Sorry, not buying it.

This may be hard to relate to from a First World context, but Kapeli lives in Romania where only 27% of the population owns bank accounts yet alone credit cards.[1] In many parts of the world, financial products are shared by families, even extended families.

This does not completely absolve Kapeli, but the bigger problem here is that Kapeli is (was) a top developer on Apple's platform and had oodles of credibility. He deserved a better investigation than Apple gave him, and to at least have his own ("linked") account notified of the problem before getting banned.

[1] http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_373_en.p...

No excuse, sorry, especially since it's not at all clear that he's not lying. I'm not saying he is but it can't be ruled out. Even giving him the benefit of the doubt, if it's true that he did innocently help out a relative and had absolutely no idea what that person was up to, then why not show some contrition and just get the problem resolved?

If I bring my cousin with me to a party at a friend's house and he trashes the place and gets into fights, you can sure bet I'm going to be apologizing like heck to the host, cleaning the place up, and trying to make things right. Would all people do that? Maybe not ... but don't go complaining that the host never invited you back if you didn't.

Why didn't they contact his "primary" account via its registered email address? They shut down two accounts but only contacted the first. The analogy would be better as I'm invited to a party and I bring my cousin. I leave after an hour. My cousin causes a bunch of damage to the host's place after I leave. Then two years later the host comes to my place of business and burns it to the ground and says I should've listened to the demands they made to my cousin over the last two years.

That is a bad analogy. This is case of mistaken identity, not a bad referral. Ask yourself, why are not giving this respected developer the benefit of the doubt?

A better analogy would be: You loaned your underage friend your ID 4 years ago and forgot about it. They proceeded to behave badly at a bar over a period of years without your knowledge. Then the bar owner confuses your identity based solely on that ID, despite your picture looking nothing like them and you being a well known and respected regular, and bans you without notice. Then they admit it wasn't you that trashed the place, but won't let you in until you state that the bar made no mistake in confusing you for that person.

This is also a bad analogy. The other account who is supposedly outside of the control of Kapeli, is involved in thousands of fraudulent ratings manipulations of Kapeli's apps. How likely is it that if the account were so totally out of Kapeli that this cousin would waste their time doing this? It's highly unlikely.

Not Kapeli's apps. There is no indication that there were fraudulent reviews of Dash, nor would it even make sense for there to be since it's so popular. Kapeli's own account was only used for Dash.

Deleted comment

You can get a tool to extract a license key on the dev's website.

Please read and listen again. He did not register the account, nor use his credentials (if he had, apple's contact attempts would've reached him). He only paid for it, and donated hardware.

The bank account used is credentials and Apple considers both accounts to belong to (quote) "the same legal entity" based on that fact. This is the way Apple conducts business.

"This is the way Apple conducts business" is not a justification for conducting business that way.

Kapeli is in Romania where credit card ownership is less common, and the "legal entity link" we're talking about is just a nominal $99/fee and some older devices. Moreover, Apple is admitting they they see them as distinct accounts, only notified one of them, and completely ignored the fact that Kapeli's side of the linked accounts had high credibility.

It sounds like Apple is desperately trying to justify the not-very-smart algorithm of an automated "booter" program rather than giving Kapeli the respect and due diligence that he deserves as a top developer.

No. You can use a different bank account to get paid and use a different name for your developer account from credit card used. You can even use a prepaid credit card(But you have to provide ID). In this case, it's clear that the account names were different. Also it seems the bank accounts to get payment from apple were different(Otherwise they would mention it). And the only links were the credit card and some devices(only apple and the developer know how many devices and in some extent)

It is indeed the way they do, but you are saying he should've known that, when he had in fact no way of knowing.

It is certainly knowable that the identity on the credit card is part of the verification process and that it must match his own. If the name he entered wasn't his own, the verification would likely have been denied: https://discussions.apple.com/thread/6238222?tstart=0

That's why I'm suspicious as to which name he actually entered.

No, The name of the account and the credit card holder can be different.You just need to provide government ID and your memebershit will be delayed: https://developer.apple.com/support/purchase-activation/

In this case, it seems the two accounts used different names otherwise they would mentioned it already because it's huge evidence that the accounts are linked.

In the U.S., you can add authorized users to your credit cards, and they typically send you new cards that just have a different name, but for which the rest of the information is identical (same number, same CVV code, same expiration).

At least this was the case with the cards issued for authorized users I added to my Citi Double credit card account.

So you could have a single card number with multiple valid names/users.

Suspicion is fine with me. You could ask him via his twitter account. :)

I don't use twitter, but here is a tweet that suggests it isn't just about the credit card: https://twitter.com/JamesNnnn/status/785645305396027392

That's interesting and kinda important evidence that it's more about credit card and some devices.

I think I'm much less invested in this than you two but I can say that it would strike me as very unusual to pay for someone else's account with Apple.

For example, Mithaldu, if an anonymous outsourcing party rendered you a service, than rather than wire them money or pay via paypal, would you be okay with paying for an apple account with them, with no further relationship, and you don't even know who they are? Probably not.

I think we can all agree that yes, he "should have" thought about this implication of trust.

It doesn't strike me as unusual. I've paid for tools and training for relatives and friends. A membership seems no more unusual.

[edit: given the down votes, I guess the HN crowd has rich friends or doesn't do mentoring. Sometimes the people you sponsor don't get it right]

Not sure why people are downvoting - they should be commenting if they disagree!

A developer account + some old test devices sounds like a great birthday or christmas present!

You write "for relatives and friends", implying a measure of trust. You don't write "for strangers I didn't know." Would you have?

From his response "helped a relative get started by paying for her Apple’s Developer Program Membership using my credit card. I also handed her test hard"

It was a relative, so I don't get your question's relevance to the situation.

sorry, I missed that part. I straight-up don't believe that their relative engaged in fraudulent activity related to Dash (such as leaving negative reviews of competitors) by complete coincidence and at arm's length. I didn't read all the information carefully though.

> I straight-up don't believe that their relative engaged in fraudulent activity related to Dash (such as leaving negative reviews of competitors) by complete coincidence and at arm's length

You might want to read the rest, the relative was boosting their own apps. Dash was not part of scenario just affected by the end result.

You missed the other discussion which mentions he's Romanian, and very few Romanians have their own banking services, and in fact share banking services among family members.

Last time I bought a dev account to the App Store I had to pay with a credit card in my name. My employer was willing to pay for it and would have preferred to pay on the company credit card but the App Store explicitly didn't allow 3rd party payment.

This was made abundantly clear when I signed up.

According to this, it's fine to use another person's CC as long as you provide govt id such that they can tie your account to a real person (and not the CC).

https://developer.apple.com/support/purchase-activation/

That's your interpretation of an ambiguous sentence. If your interpretation was correct, shouldn't the person you replied to have been informed of that possibility?

> He has registered an account using his credentials

Where are you getting that? In his blog posts, he only mentioned the common thing between the accounts were his credit card and old test devices he handed off - how do those qualify as "his credentials"? He explicitly mentioned he wasn't aware that his account and his alleged relatives account were linked until after his account was blocked.

You are right - he doesn't understand the problem - and neither do I. With the information that I have so far, it seems that Apple has set the bar for guilt too low, and the whole process is extremely opaque.

Gets popcorn

I'd like to think we can keep personal attacks like this off of HN without some sort of substantiation.

How is this a personal attack? It simply acknowledges that both of these websites are written by individuals. Would the substance of the comment be different had he simply used the website's names?

Calling someone a shill is a personal attack.

What is the appropriate phrasing, then? "This website is a surrogate for apple that posts their press releases without analysis?" I just don't see what the practical difference is: we're all adults, we know the point that's trying to be made.

Translation: he likes Apple products and is open about it, whereas I don't.

I love apple products, have for 31 years but the guy is pretty biased towards Apple. He writes some interesting stuff but this article for instance is basically just repeating back whatever their PR flack said.

I seem to remember him slamming Apple Music for weeks on end. Is that how paid shills behave nowadays?

And what if he believes it?

I have little reason to doubt that Dash really posted lots of fake reviews. It's not like Apple goes and accuses people of that all the time...

> And what if he believes it?

So what if he does? I believe it. That doesn't mean that Apple has provided any actual proof, and only a blinkered shill would claim they had.

I have yet to work for a company where posting fake reviews on our applications wasn't the norm. Most users (myself included) can't be bothered to write a brand new review every time an app updates.

And I've yet to not give up a product if I spot fake reviews -- and it's not that hard either...

Nope, I'm a huge Apple guy, just don't care for The Loop at all.

You know it's bad when Gruber's blog is being held up as a less biased alternative. He's been so soft on them lately on anything except the Watch, even then he's been pretty soft.

It seems like Apple was very reluctant to remove the account given the Dash is the sort of app they want people to make.

So I am not surprised they gave a lot of leeway to the developer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com