Just try to play (a lossless-format high-dynamical-range audio) on a high-end stereo streaming via bluetooth and then compare with a wired connection.
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 Says 1,000 Fraudulent Reviews Were Detected Across Two Accounts Owned by 'Dash' Developer [Update: Developer Responds]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Just try to play (a lossless-format high-dynamical-range audio) on a high-end stereo streaming via bluetooth and then compare with a wired connection.
I only have an iPad, iPhone, and an iMac. Does any of them qualify as "high end stereo"?
My take is Apple still needs to modify their policies. The more info that comes out the more guilty the Dash developer looks. It's becoming very clear he did it and is now lying to everyone.
However, I'm still uneasy about Apple just terminating an account without notification. To me, this is due diligence. The developer was trying to use this as a way to make Apple look like they were in the wrong. If Apple changes their policies to ensure any account holder is notified prior to termination, then there is no question at that point. You work with Apple or you don't. There is clearly nothing more that Apple can do at that point and shows to everyone they truly do bend over backwards to work with developers. That is my only gripe about this whole situation wrt Apple.
To those that say he was notified, you can clearly understand from the recording that they didn't. They notified the owner of the fraudulent account. There was no indication that they knew the owner was the same other than "being linked" and zero acknowledgement that attempts were made to the owner of the Dash account. If they said that they had done that, sorry, game over at that point. Developer 100% in wrong with no wiggle room.
I think it's clear by now too, the Dash developer has no intention of doing the right thing despite overwhelming proof. I'm hoping someone creates a rival documentation browser and publishes via app Store. I will buy that one and abandon Dash as I don't believe in supporting fraudsters.
However, I'm still uneasy about Apple just terminating an account without notification. To me, this is due diligence. The developer was trying to use this as a way to make Apple look like they were in the wrong. If Apple changes their policies to ensure any account holder is notified prior to termination, then there is no question at that point. You work with Apple or you don't. There is clearly nothing more that Apple can do at that point and shows to everyone they truly do bend over backwards to work with developers. That is my only gripe about this whole situation wrt Apple.
To those that say he was notified, you can clearly understand from the recording that they didn't. They notified the owner of the fraudulent account. There was no indication that they knew the owner was the same other than "being linked" and zero acknowledgement that attempts were made to the owner of the Dash account. If they said that they had done that, sorry, game over at that point. Developer 100% in wrong with no wiggle room.
I think it's clear by now too, the Dash developer has no intention of doing the right thing despite overwhelming proof. I'm hoping someone creates a rival documentation browser and publishes via app Store. I will buy that one and abandon Dash as I don't believe in supporting fraudsters.
As if the story wasn't twisted enough, according to Facebook 'Mihaela' is Bogdan's mum.
https://www.facebook.com/mihaela.popescu.18007218/about?section=all_relationships
So it's not as if she's some distant cousin he forgotten about.
Popescu claims there is no other way to distribute his iOS app?
False. Especially for developer targeted apps. Just put the complete source code on github. Any competent developer can then build and install the app on their own iOS devices.
Done.
False. Especially for developer targeted apps. Just put the complete source code on github. Any competent developer can then build and install the app on their own iOS devices.
Done.
Right. I don't get this claim at all (from the blog post):
Are we to understand that most of the iOS users of an app covering developer documentation are not iOS developers? That seems... unlikely, to me. Are there many Mac developers who won't develop for or have knowledge of iOS development?
In any case, the things suggested aren't mutually exclusive, I don't think. Dash could both be open sourced and also put in the App Store by the third party (or likely multiple parties), right? Or does Apple specifically forbid open source code in the store?
There's plenty of open source code in the App store (including Apple's own!)
There is some dispute in some circles about whether it is acceptable to distribute GPLv3 code this way, but there are lots of popular and more acceptable open source licenses available (Mozilla, Apache, MIT, BSD, etc.)
iMore has a nice follow up with the developer where he address one of the posts in this thread:
http://m.imore.com/dash-developer-speaks-heres-his-full-story
http://m.imore.com/dash-developer-speaks-heres-his-full-story
Apparently not. The point is that, surprisingly ;-), there exist quite a few people who daily use Apple products together with many other products than those Apple manufactures.
Yes I agree, even though the accounts are linked Apple should notify both accounts independently just in case if the one account holder doesn't know what the other account holder is up to. This way he wouldn't be able to claim he wasn't aware what was going on. Besides that I think Apple would of taken the right action. I can't believe that the guys relative would do that to him, especially after getting repetitive warnings from Apple. The guy should seriously consider hanging out with better relatives and friends. No soup
for you. 
There's one thing Apple definitely needs to address:
Even if the developer account is terminated, if a user has paid to purchase an app (such as Dash) and the app itself is not malicious (which Dash is not), the app should never be removed from the user's "Purchased" tab.
This would be vital - considering that iOS 9 introduced app thinning and removed the ability to manually transfer purchased apps from device to a user's iTunes Library.
Even if the developer account is terminated, if a user has paid to purchase an app (such as Dash) and the app itself is not malicious (which Dash is not), the app should never be removed from the user's "Purchased" tab.
This would be vital - considering that iOS 9 introduced app thinning and removed the ability to manually transfer purchased apps from device to a user's iTunes Library.
Odd that they would quibble about your eligibility for a refund. The iTunes store gives you refunds for no reason. I accidentally purchased both the regular and the deluxe version of an album and they refunded me no questions asked.
Nope. You have every right to distrube open source code in the App Store (iOS or macOS), so long as you either own the code or you have the licence to do so.
Life experience with scammers. :-( Anyway look, I know Apple's supposed to be the Evil Empire and all, but what motivation would they really have here? And if the guy really has a beef he can hire a lawyer and take them to court. But he prefers to go to the court of public opinion instead, where the standards for evidence are a little different.
Evil empire? Uh, okay I guess. Whether the guy was a scammer or not, wouldn't this situation have been cleared by simply calling the guy? That was my whole point. 1 phone call and this is solved and we have no idea it ever occurred.
What do you mean "without any evidence"? They run the app store and developer account system and handled the credit card payments made by this guy. They control every part of the app store process as far as developer accounts, bundleIDs, payment collection, app approvals, app reviews and so on go. I'm not sure how you can say with a straight face that they "had no evidence" after 2 years of this.
As far as "slinging mud" goes, they did nothing of the sort until the developer in question made the whole thing public, and even then they were tight lipped about exact details because they're not interested in "mud slinging", merely in defending themselves as discreetly as possible without it looking like an 800 pound gorilla smashing the little guy just because they can.
This guy was clearly caught with two developer accounts, to try and isolate his "big" app from all of the shadier stuff he was doing on the other account. Apple have known this from the start. They gave him opportunities over 2 years to address it (basically: stop the fake reviews on your second account) and eventually decided that they would simply ban him. Quietly.
What he did after that was to shine a light on himself that doesn't make him come off as the wronged party here.
[doublepost=1476452185][/doublepost]
I think it's really obvious by now that this "second account" was him all along, so the argument that he was unaware of Apple giving warnings to stop the shady behaviour is a little thin.
Let's play devil's advocate. Say he's guilty as sin. It still does not change my assertion that this could have been handled a long time ago. Simply call the guy. Call him to warn him, call him on his crap, call him to say if one more fraudulent review shows up you're banned from the App store forever. Hell, call him to say we're sending Fat Tony and the Bat Boys to tune you up. It doesn't matter what they say, just make the darn call. They never did (at least according to the recorded phone call). Almost everyone replying to my quotes is so hung up on guilt or innocence that they're completely ignoring the content of my quote. A call to the guy a year or two in the past and we have no issue.
What do you mean? There are plenty of things I criticise Apple for, but that doesn't mean that finding this developer's story totally bogus means I think Apple can do no wrong.
To cover all their bases they certainly could have called him, or sent emails to the "other" account, but they didn't do so. Given what the guy is now claiming about the fraud account, it strains incredulity that he didn't know he was at risk, or he simply thought that his "clean" account would be immune.
[doublepost=1476455431][/doublepost]
Right, but Apple is under no obligation to do that. They set the rules in their house and he broke them. The fact they waited for two years while they (presumably) reached out to the "real owner" (whoever that was) of the fraud account is pretty generous given that they can simply ban accounts at any time if they decide to.
He broke the rules he agreed to. Nowhere does it state that Apple is obliged to call you to give you one more chance or try to work things out. Would it be nice if they did before pulling the plug? Of course. But to try and claim that he's in the dark about all this for two years and had no idea what was going on with the fraud account? I'm sorry, but no. He knew, but either assumed it would not affect his "clean" account, or he was simply complacent because all Apple had done for 2 years was send warnings that never resulted in a ban.
The issue at hand that everyone is forgetting is that the fraud account was caught manipulating the app store. Whether it was him or not (and his story seems to keep getting more and more convoluted as more evidence comes out), he is culpable as the person who set that account up, especially since it is filled with all of his apps except for the "clean" one.
Whether there is an "obligation" or not doesn't limit us from critiquing the manner of this was handled.
Well, that is interesting, since the tone has changed since it became clear that this was more than just "Apple being mean to developer with no evidence" into "well, Apple could have gone above and beyond their terms and conditions and reached out personally to avoid all of this bad feeling" and are being now being criticised for not doing that.
This was being handled quietly by Apple and after a long grace period, they made a decision. The resulting media storm isn't one of their own making and they're being raked over the coals for "not being accommodating enough" when banning a developer for breaking their rules.
I mean, sure, lay that criticism on them but I don't really think it holds much weight.
Apple handled it quietly and tried to maintain some level of decorum after it all went public - no public shaming yet still asserting its position but apparently that still wasn't enough.
Sweet Jeebus man. How hard is it for you to understand no one is laying blame on Apple? Again, in your zeal to defend, you're completely ignoring my point. That point? A single phone call to the guy could have solved the issue 2 years ago. That's it. Nothing more. That's not blame. It's a simple opinion about the most direct solution to the problem that doesn't involve 2 years of needless drama. Make one call to the account creator.
Yet you are still harping about he broke the rules. In my last post, I conceded he broke the rules. I will state it again, just so that we're clear: He.Broke.The.Rules. His accounts. His credit cards. His equipment. A call to him - since everything points to his ownership - is simple common sense. Contacting someone else is how a situation lingers for 2 years.
Ask yourself, if you were in charge of solving the issue, what would you do? Contact the guy and ask WTH are you doing or screw around for 2 years unnecessarily?
How was it "two years of needless drama"? It was two years of silent, non-public investigation by Apple with email warnings over fraudulent activity on an actively used Apple developer account. The fact that the owner of that account apparently didn't do anything to address the problem and who was then quietly banned has somehow turned into "Apple not handling it as well as they could". It has been suggested that they should have called the guy, who for some reason seems to apparently deserve a personal phone call after one of his accounts has been found to be breaking the rules and ignoring email requests to cease. I'm merely stating that is laughably over generous, especially given that the developer account and app store rules are clear.
In your "zeal" to find some way of getting out of the argument and still save face you're grasping desperately at straws.
He broke the rules. Apple waited two years to ban him. Apple warned the fraudulent account (possibly repeatedly, but at least once). Apple banned him quietly. The "needless drama" was caused by the guy going public trying to claim he was treated unfairly, which backfired on him rather spectacularly when it emerged that he was clearly guilty, and not only that but published a phone call from Apple in public too.
I would probably have just banned him outright there and then 2 years ago.
Like you said, he broke the rules, he deserved whatever he had coming to him at the end of the day.