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.)
Regardless of which side of the argument you lean towards, they can both legitimately believe they are 100% in the right.
- 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).
Just to be clear, the developer would've been happy to do exactly that:
> On Saturday they told me that they are fine with me writing the truth about what happened, and that if I did that, my account would be restored. Saturday night I sent a blog post draft to Apple and have since waited for their approval.
However ...
> Tonight Apple decided to accuse me of manipulating the App Store in public via a spokesperson.
Apple's press release does not make any mention of the fact that the fraudulent reviews were for apps from a different (linked) developer account. They also say that they gave multiple warnings prior to removing the app. The developer's blog post and his recording shows this only to be true for the linked account, not his. At the very least, Apple is guilty of lying by omission.
All in all, I think this is very bad form from Apple. They could've simply admitted that their notification system does not present a full picture to developers and fix that, rather than do some weird "we want to make clear we did nothing wrong" dance, and then go out and make misleading statements.
They also likely have additional information, like the IP addresses and timestamps in use when the reports were made. Keep in mind that Apple doesn't make money (directly) from taking the guy's app down, and even the guy's story doesn't really make sense.
It hinges on the idea that he bought the developer program for a relative, who then used a bunch of his devices years later to leave a bunch of fraudulent positive reviews for his apps and negative ones for competitors. Really?
It sounds to me like Apple had him dead to rights and gave him an out, despite having no need to do so. He knows he screwed up AND publicized this with his blog, so he can fix it with his blog or he can lie in the bed he made. He stuck with his made-up story to save face (at the expense of Apple) so they're sticking with the original decision.
>It's not like Apple does this kind of thing every day
1. Just because you don't hear about it doesn't mean it doesn't happen all the time to less known developers with no public voice.
2. What's his incentive not to take the out Apple offered him? If he was guilty & had no problem lying, why the heck wouldn't he grab the opportunity to be reinstated?
The only rational incentive to hold his ground is if he actually believes he is in the right. Which indicates that his story is likely true.
I agree that he could just as easily be lying, but the series of events and decisions fit much better with a guy who feels hurt and in the right, versus a guy who has no problem lying and being dishonest publicly.
Edit: spelling correction