LOL! Good answer!
Good for Apple... if this woman is a fraud and just using this to get donations and money from people in a desperate situation... Nuke her.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Removes Featured Watch App 'The Whole Pantry' From App Store Amid Fraud Claims
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
LOL! Good answer!
Good for Apple... if this woman is a fraud and just using this to get donations and money from people in a desperate situation... Nuke her.
no you didnt say that directly and just to be clear i agree with you that apple has to be very careful about what apps and products they curate.
however i dont see this as an example of apple doing its due diligence. they have invested time and money in this lady and her operation. perhaps we will just have to disagree on that point.
my questions though regarding this action by apple have more to do with the removal of the app from the app store.
It appears Apple is acting on the basis of their private property walled garden to simply delete an app that brings shame on Apple.
This is interesting and a bit disturbing because it appears the journey this woman went through was not so much fraud as a changing set of circumstances caused by an initial mis-diagnosis, a series of treatments including holistic, and getting a later diagnosis of being clear. This is merely a case of mixed causation.
As for the donations, it appears that when she files her tax return this year and lists her donations, and her amended return from last year, she could correct that aspect of the case with the stroke of a pen. Literally. Boom. Case not fraudulent. Then she could be reinstated on the Apple Ap store.
While it does not surprise me Apple didn't wait for due process to respond, it also shows one of the weaknesses of a walled garden. The law and justice does not matter. PR does.
Rocketman
This is interesting and a bit disturbing because it appears the journey this woman went through was not so much fraud as a changing set of circumstances caused by an initial mis-diagnosis, a series of treatments including holistic, and getting a later diagnosis of being clear. This is merely a case of mixed causation.
As for the donations, it appears that when she files her tax return this year and lists her donations, and her amended return from last year, she could correct that aspect of the case with the stroke of a pen. Literally. Boom. Case not fraudulent. Then she could be reinstated on the Apple Ap store.
While it does not surprise me Apple didn't wait for due process to respond, it also shows one of the weaknesses of a walled garden. The law and justice does not matter. PR does.
Rocketman
Not surprising
Lots of people google stuff and think they have found "the cure." Snake-oil salesman prey on the desperate.
Then there's this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oht9AEq1798
Lots of people google stuff and think they have found "the cure." Snake-oil salesman prey on the desperate.
Then there's this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oht9AEq1798
Seems like the modern equivalent of snake oil. I can see why Apple doesn't want to be associated.
If this is true, then this woman must have known the wheels would fall off the bus sooner or later. My guess is that people like this just don't care somehow.
If this is true, then this woman must have known the wheels would fall off the bus sooner or later. My guess is that people like this just don't care somehow.
Post like this are saddening. Defending a lying deceptive woman and making Apple the bad guy. MR is no longer the Apple Enthusiast board it once was.
JUST CURIOUS!!! Emphasis on CURIOUS.
Hypothetically, lets say she made 1.5 million from her ventures (appearances, app downloads, book deal, etc etc etc). Do you guys think it was worth it? What are the chances that she would be forced to give back the money? I ask because I understand there are probably some way to get her to return the donation money, money generated from app sales are probably hers to keep, right?
Is this a case where she'll most likely get a slap on the wrist, get shamed in public, then move on with her life with all the money she made?
Hypothetically, lets say she made 1.5 million from her ventures (appearances, app downloads, book deal, etc etc etc). Do you guys think it was worth it? What are the chances that she would be forced to give back the money? I ask because I understand there are probably some way to get her to return the donation money, money generated from app sales are probably hers to keep, right?
Is this a case where she'll most likely get a slap on the wrist, get shamed in public, then move on with her life with all the money she made?
I don't know if that's fair. I've been a member here since 2002 and I don't have 500 posts yet.
There is a particular circle in hell for peoplethat push fraudulent cancer "cures".
I am a cancer survivor, two surgeries, a month of recovery, and seven months of chemo and I seem to be clear, though we won't know for sure for a few years yet. It ain't fun but it works. There's a term for people who put their faith in these alternative treatments: cadavers.
Why does hitting women affect a football player's shoe ads?
----------
I'd call this pretty traditional.
That's a load of hooey. If it's that disturbing, use another platform. Apple's a business. If you want to talk about due process, go into public service.
That's a standard restriction built into the PRSI forum, it's been there the whole time. Maybe they don't mention it in every post.
I have no issue at all about banning an App, a Book, a Film or anything that misleads the public in some way.
That's fine, the product that's on sale, is misleading buyers, and I'd always support that being stopped.
I have no difficulty when the product on sale has no relevance to the person.
Should a game be withdrawn from sale because the programmer was arrested for a crime?
I accept it's a tricky issue, and people will not be able to separate the two even if they are unrelated. A sensitive area.
That's fine, the product that's on sale, is misleading buyers, and I'd always support that being stopped.
I have no difficulty when the product on sale has no relevance to the person.
Should a game be withdrawn from sale because the programmer was arrested for a crime?
I accept it's a tricky issue, and people will not be able to separate the two even if they are unrelated. A sensitive area.
Why destroy something of value? Best outcome is that she would be rapidly prosecuted, imprisoned for the fraud, with assets seized and sold - potentially to Apple, if the product provides sufficient utility - with proceeds going to the victims of her crime: i.e. Cancer research/families of those desperate folks who took her at face value and stopped conventional treatment etc.
----------
I believe the "Lost Prophets" catalogue was recently removed from many vendors for the crimes of Ian Watkins, and Rolf Harris paintings have seemingly lost their market... So the answer is surely that the public does not wish to be associated with these products by association to their producers, irrespective of the merits of the product and justification for compartmentalisation/insulation between criminal activities and genuine business endeavour. Apple therefore would not wish to be seen profiteering from the sale of these products. less the are perceived to condone the other activities.
----------
I believe the "Lost Prophets" catalogue was recently removed from many vendors for the crimes of Ian Watkins, and Rolf Harris paintings have seemingly lost their market... So the answer is surely that the public does not wish to be associated with these products by association to their producers, irrespective of the merits of the product and justification for compartmentalisation/insulation between criminal activities and genuine business endeavour. Apple therefore would not wish to be seen profiteering from the sale of these products. less the are perceived to condone the other activities.
It's pretty safe to say that the same people would pretend to be all upset and say "Apple is profiteering from Scams!!!" if they would leave the App in the store. Like usual, it's all about putting the fitting personal spin on the story
.
Give it time.
Generally people are more interested in others who commit crimes at time moves on.
How many people wish to read about, find out about, or pay money to see things associated with Hans the boot boy, back the 1940's/50's
And how many people want to pay money to buy things to do with Hitler, or other similar characters.
Humans are a funny lot.
We love pirate films, yet hate pirates.
We love films of people shooting, but hate anyone who shoots.
You mention Rolf Harris. I've no doubt his paintings will climb in value in the distant future, he's just one of the current scape goats for people's hatred at the moment.
Meanwhile UK Politicians were hushing up the UK Police about what they were doing with kids.
And we won't even guarantee police safety NOW if they speak about what was going on.
It stinks.
I'd say no. As long as the game isn't deceiving or harming people then it's irrelevant what the programmer does outside of the game.
Where it gets difficult is when someone is profiting from a crime but the game (or book, or film) is not itself criminal. For example suppose Charles Manson wrote a game about the Tate murders. The game is perfectly legit but Mason would be profiting from a crime he committed. Most people would say that he should not be allowed to to that. Would the game then be OK if Sharon Tate's family wrote it? Would it be OK if Charles Manson wrote it but all proceeds went to the Tate family? At what point are we preventing someone from profiting from wrongdoing vs just Scarlet Lettering someone we don't like even though they are not doing anything wrong.
I can agree with that I think.
As you say, you should not be able to profit from a crime.
So you attacked a women, and you write a book about it, then no, as you say.
If you attacked a women, should your version of space invaders you wrote get pulled from sale?
I can't really see the two have any relevance to each other
----------
Was in the news yesterday.
Police in the past found "official figures" in sex places with underage boys/girls, and were told to drop any investigation NOW else they would be charged under the official secrets act.
Years later, they are trying to uncover it, and naturally want the police, who were involved at the time to come forward with that they know, and our government won't even guarantee that any police that do come forward to spill the beans on important people won't be charged under the official secrets act.
They just said "we hope they would not be"
Disgusting how those in power use the law to cover stuff up like this.
The App IS in the Google Play store, and indeed nobody has batted an eye.
----------
No, it appears she raised money for charity under the claim that the money would go right to the charities; the money raised was comingled with her operating funds, and fifteen months later the named charities have not received a dime.
-Redundant Signature-Man