Retraction: The App Store Rejection of the Week That Was a Correct Rejection
daringfireball.net
Thread for original post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49214863
daringfireball.net
Stealing an open source repo and launching it as your own app is a brazen move. Launching it with the same name as the original repo is just flagrant.
This guy thought he was going to ride this controversy to some free publicity for himself, using other people’s work. He flew too close to the sun and got caught out on every level.
Do you think he stole it directly, or an LLM reproduced it complete with existing bugs?
If anyone ever had AI copy an entire open source project accidentally, I would be interested to hear it.
Even the widely shared reports about specific snippets being reproduced relied on the user intentionally prompting for it.
It's in poor taste for sure but let's not pretend that the chosen license is doing him any favors: https://github.com/mbeher2200/DarkHours/blob/813cf85/LICENSE
Hate to see people fall for the “fewer restrictions == more Free” fallacy. Profit-driven entities love when smart people publish MIT code that they can feed off of without giving anything back.
Nor is the copycat project prevented from using the name without a trademark. For instance one couldn't repackage Mozilla or Blender under those names:
- https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=75558938&caseSearchType=U...
- https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=85852073&caseSearchType=U...
I hope that eventually you gain from society exactly what you’ve given.
Genuine piece of shit, nice.
But locking the door is also the solution to getting your house ransacked because you left the entrance open; doesn't mean the robber isn't a piece of shit.
> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software
How is it a fallacy? The ability to pull in MIT/BSD code into a commercial product without providing the source is an extra freedom over (say) the GPL. The license does give end-users one more freedom than copyleft licenses?
Some folks may not like that extra bit of freedom, and want to put the restriction that you have to (re-)share the code — and that's fine — but it is less free.
IMO,the end-user is the person downloading and using the software from the app store, not the free-riding intermediary who repackages it. Copyleft ensures the end users can modify their software by guaranteeing access to its source code, and it accomplishes this by constraining any privileges of would-be intermediary repackagers from impinging this fundamental end-user right.
When judging which software offers more rights, you must first establish which party you prefer to have primacy: downstream developers, or the users of the software who run the released packages on their devices.
That’s not theft. The author explicitly told people he wants them to do this; the company is just taking him up on the offer.
It appears that this essential part of the MIT license was violated.
The MIT license does not allow you to claim that you invented the software when you did not in fact invent the software.
This is also a reminder that people lie or just hide some part of the story all the time, and we as readers should question every story if it only presents an opinion of one side, and not the other's.
That being said, hearing Apple's own opinion is probably not what we could reasonably expect.
I have only published for Android before, and maybe Apple is running its store somewhat better.
Google is shameless. They extort a 15%/30% revenue cut from developers, and they do not hire competent staff.
Pay them $10k, and in case your app is rejected, get an automated email with a link to the TOS.
The appeal process? "Computer says No".
Admittedly I have not encountered this personally, but all reports I have seen paint this picture.
What I did face is when trying to close my Google Play Developer account: they will just not let me do it.
You'd think this would be trivial, but all I received from support were requests I update and bring into compliance a free app removed nearly a decade ago. In order to transfer it to a new account.
Only then will they graciously permit me to close my Google Play Developer account.
One is that when presented with contradictory evidence, evaluate it honestly and, if you evaluate it to be correct, in full or in part, change your belief freely and without apology.
The other is when you decide you have made a mistake, say so plainly and openly.
They often go together, but not always. I can’t speak to the author’s belief, but I will file this article under Epistles from Gruber to the internet because it is an inspiration to me.
There's no mention of or apology for how Godier deceived Gruber and the world about the astronomy/astrology App Store submission/rejection.
https://blog.terrygodier.com/2026/08/09/mea-culpa-dark-hours...
Perhaps Claude did just find the repo and reproduce it without any prompt, but also the name? Yea hmm, like 99% sure Claude would've mentioned where the majority of the project came from.
I doubt that. I’ve seen it produce thousands of lines of code or text with like a 2% string distance from something available online and not attribute it. Multiple times.
Developers and the press were equally outraged. Yet another reason that App Store was bad. Or so we all thought.
Turns out, after all the bad press for Apple, and with multiple instances where Apple helped to resolve his issue, he quietly admitted online (after weeks of controversy) that he shared his developer account with a relative who was making scam apps and doing bad stuff.
It escalated all the way to the top and Phil Schiller at Apple personally looked at the matter and confirmed that his account was indeed committing scams and bad stuff.
Bogdan Popescu.
For this fake and manufactured controversy, turns out that Terry Godier is a liar and a thief.
How does one "quietly" admit online?
> he shared his developer account with a relative who was making scam apps and doing bad stuff.
> his account was indeed committing scams and bad stuff.
This is incorrect.
The story was actually covered by Daring Fireball https://daringfireball.net/2016/10/apple_dash_controversy and well as by Michael Tsai https://mjtsai.com/blog/2016/10/10/apple-and-kapeli-respond/ and others.
Popescu said, "3-4 years ago I helped a relative get started by paying for her Apple’s Developer Program Membership using my credit card. I also handed her test hardware that I no longer needed. From then on those accounts were linked in the eyes of Apple. Once that account was involved with review manipulation, my account was closed."
Popescu also published a recording of a phone call with Apple (which by the way completely destroys your narrative of "quietly admitted online") that proved, among other things, that Apple did not consider Popescu himself to be a scammer. Moreover, Apple later allowed the removed app to return to the App Store: https://blog.kapeli.com/dash-for-ios-back-on-the-app-store
Gruber himself said in a footnote, "If, as Popescu claims the two accounts were run by two different developers, it would explain the extreme discrepancy in quality. The account that committed review fraud was publishing dozens of, well, rather junky looking apps of dubious utility. The other account only published two apps: Dash for Mac and Dash iOS, both of which are of outstanding quality and utility."
As far as I'm aware, Popescu never lied, whereas Godier clearly did.
Not sure if you have some kind of interest in Popescu or a need to defend him. He defamed himself.
EDIT: Oh and since you're stuck on the "quietly admitted", not sure what's so difficult to understand about that. He cried to the press, the press ran with it, turns out he hid the fact and then only quietly admitted that he knew about the account sharing. Understand now?
That's a copout for such a harsh public accusation.
> Popescu knowing that he had shared an account or payment instrument
Or? So you're already equivocating. Originally you claimed that he was sharing the account, but then when I pointed out that he only paid for the other account, you've moved the goalposts to "shared an account or payment instrument". But which one is it exactly, shared account or payment instrument?
> Apple explained to him in very clear terms what the issue was and was told exactly what he needed to do in order to resolve it
I don't think this ever happens when Apple auto-closes an account for what Apple thinks is fraud. Apple is ruthlessly secretive. You have to go to press just to get Apple to make a statement.
"A few hours ago I received a “Notice of Termination” email, saying that my account was terminated due to fraudulent conduct. I called them again and they said they can’t provide more information."
Later: "Apple contacted me and told me they found evidence of App Store review manipulation. This is something I’ve never done. Apple’s decision is final and can’t be appealed."
It's basically the same with all of those giant tech corporations. They auto-close accounts for no apparent reason and refuse to tell people why.
> Not sure if you have some kind of interest in Popescu or a need to defend him.
I have an interest in truth and accuracy. I don't think your claims are true and accurate.
> He defamed himself.
I disagree.
> turns out he hid the fact and then only quietly admitted that he knew about the account sharing. Understand now?
I understand but dispute this claim. What is your evidence, including the specific timeline?
I've already provided multiple links with extensive coverage of the story.
Not sure how that is not everything I claimed it to be. Omitting or saying one thing and then eventually admitting "oh yeah, actually this other thing did happen", its irrelevant what that "thing" was, because it was material to the kick ban and it was a lie by omission. Is that what you're pulling hairs over?
Defending an individual against megaEvilCorp is commendable, but in this case (and many other cases), Apple is in the right here. The developers who get kick banned are all scammers or worse.
Is "huh" supposed to be your evidence?
> Popescu ruined his reputation within the community
False.
> Everyone was misled
False.
> he had been in contact with Apple over his misconduct for quite some time before he was kicked off the App Store
He had no misconduct. Your narrative is completely false. Popescu used his credit card to pay for the account of a relative who abused that account. This is the only thing that happened. Apple's systems auto-closed Popescu's own innocent account because it was associated with the same credit card.
I would note that the ban was only temporary, and Apple eventually corrected its mistake. For example, Popescu's Mac app continues to be notarized by Apple, which would not be possible if Apple banned Popescu as a scammer. You can download the app yourself and verify this.
And again, you've produced no evidence for your baseless, scurrilous claims. I won't reply again unless you have links and quotations. I've given documented evidence, including from Gruber himself. You've offered nothing but untruths, things you've seemingly invented in your own mind.
Is there astrology in this app? No. Was there..? Yes. And the person complaining skipped mentioning that detail about their app
> Note: the original version of this post had a section here about an astronomy app I am working on that began as an astrology app and was rejected after having the astrology content removed. App store [sic] review reached out to me and let me know that they had apparently never been given the updated build and that the app should be fine to submit now.
So did the submitter submit the updated build, but it somehow never made it through Apple's process and thus was never looked at by the app store reviewer? Because that's also a bad look for Apple of "we rejected your app by mistake because we looked at the wrong version, not the new one you submitted".
> Whether Godier ever submitted a build of “Asterly” to the App Store that contained no occult horseshit and only the hard-science astronomy features that were present in his “Dark Hours” website that was available for the last week, I don’t know. But I have no reason to believe that he did.
His original submission was an astrology app. He then stole someone else’s open source repo, reskinned it, and tried to pass it off as his own app.
He is not a trustworthy person. He was trying to manipulate and deceive. I see no reason to point fingers at Apple for this.
He was trying to leverage anti-Apple sentiment for free publicity for himself and he thought nobody would notice that he stole the app and, brazenly, the name “Dark Hours” from someone’s open source project.
This guy appears to be a serial liar.
EDIT Thank you all, I'll now go search for something else to be triggered by.
https://daringfireball.net/2026/08/retraction_app_store_reje...
>Regardless of one’s opinion regarding pseudoscience and occultist horseshit — pro, con, or indifferent — one might reasonably think it wrong for Apple to disallow or discourage such apps from the App Store. In fact, there exist plenty of such apps in the App Store, and Apple has even run “Best Astrology Apps” editorial features. Apple’s stance is basically that the App Store has enough of these apps (and I suspect they’re a common source of scams, given that by their very nature they target the gullible). Guideline 4.3(b) states (emphasis added):
>> Certain kinds of apps, such as dating, flashlight, sound effects, wallpaper, simple timers, and fortune telling, are well established on the App Store and we will not accept new submissions unless they offer a meaningfully different or improved experience. We may remove these apps from the App Store going forward if they are not updated, improved, or do not attract customers. Other kinds of apps, such as drinking games, Kama Sutra, fart, and burp apps, are mediocre, low-quality, or low-effort and do not add value to the App Store.