Maybe a phone call, email, facetime, or smoke signal to the developer... I don't know... 2 years ago. Could that have solved the issue?
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
Uh, breach of contract?
[doublepost=1476212322][/doublepost]
They were speaking to the developer-- the one who was pursuing fraudulent activity. For 2 years.
Think about the level of effort Apple put into pursuing this-- tracking accounts and hardware id's for 2 years before bringing the hammer down just to avoid prematurely cutting off one small dev among many thousands.
With all the shady activity they're seeing, and the incentives to try and hide that activity, the connections they drew were not unreasonable. Even now, it's not entirely clear that this wasn't orchestrated other than a few blog posts from the accused. Despite that, and the fact that Apple has every right to ban a developer for financing fraudulent activity, they're still giving the guy yet another chance. The Executive VP for Marketing of the one of the worlds most valuable companies took a personal interest, and they reached out to one tiny dev personally by phone to figure out a way to correct this: make a public attestation that you personally were not responsible for the fraud and we'll take that as binding.
Is it possible that this guy really was pure as the driven snow? Sure. We've all been screwed over by friends and family at some point. But Apple adapted to that possibility.
So to complain that Apple isn't permitting further disputes of the issue is factually absurd.
Last edited:
Really hard to agree there's anything at all "for sure" about that.
If you had a verbal agreement, you took steps to comply with that agreement, and then the opposing party ignores it, what would you do? And what would you do if you had proof they went back on their verbal agreement? I don't know the law in Romania, a cursory glance seems to indicate it was legal, but it's entirely possible this was both normal and legal there. Especially when your opposing party is refusing to communicate in written form and you're trying to protect your income stream.
To your point, then: is violating a verbal agreement immature or untrustworthy?
Interesting suggestion of further communication, though. Perhaps.
huh? sounds like you subscribe to too many conspiracy-theory websites. i don't know anything about mind control or whatnot, but it's certainly technically trivial to create dummy accounts for posting reviews.
It was a draft. If Apple had a problem with any parts of it, the next step should have been to send it back to the developer asking him to make such changes as Apple felt was needed. Instead, according to the developer, Apple released a statement to news outlets without getting back to him. Now it could be that the developer is misrepresenting something or not telling the whole story, but if what he says is true, then Apple skipped a step.
They claimed the fraudulent activity was across both accounts in their release. Only later did they back off that assertion. They insinuated the Dash guy was guilty because his info/equipment was used to create the other account. A simple call to the account creator could have nipped this in the bud fairly early on. That's my whole point. If I'm guilty because I created the account, you should probably call me. That's common sense.
Level of effort? You mean looking up account information that has hardware id's attached to it. That level of effort is a few keystrokes. No one is looking through a warehouse of filing cabinets for some paperwork.
I'm assuming this is meant for someone else. I never complained once about Apple permitting disputes.
I subscribe to zero conspiracy-theory websites. How many do you subscribe to?
You seem a little too focused on your own take on this to actually listen to what I am saying: there have been numerous positive mentions of the Dash app BY WELL-KNOWN DEVELOPERS ON THEIR OWN WELL-KNOWN WEBSITES/BLOGS AND TWITTER ACCOUNTS. What in the hell does that have to do with dummy accounts?
I said my decision to use the software was based on reviews that weren't on the App Store.
You're saying "well those are probably faked reviews you're talking about"
I'm saying, "no, the ones I'm talking about were written by developers who are well known in the software development community, published on their own authenticated twitter accounts / websites."
You're still saying, "well those are probably faked reviews you're talking about - it's trivial to make dummy accounts".
The situation I described couldn't be affected by dummy accounts, it could only be affected by getting real developers (with reputations to uphold) to post fake reviews on their own websites - given your insistence that this was the Dash developer's action, I suggested the only thing left you might be talking about was some sort of mind control or coercion.
Your response is that I'm a conspiracy theorist. NO, I'm suggesting that only some conspiracy theory that you subscribe to could explain your continued reliance on the same response over and over.
I don't think you're listening. Smh.
Last edited:
It was meant for you. You argued against my response to someone who was complaining about Apple not permitting disputes.
Ironically, it sounds like you gave support to someone without looking into the details but now want to claim you couldn't possibly be aware of them-- I see why you have such sympathy for this dev!
What? Please go back and read my quote. It was clearly related to the last line in your quote:It was meant for you. You argued against my response to someone who was complaining about Apple not permitting disputes.
Ironically, it sounds like you gave support to someone without looking into the details but now want to claim you couldn't possibly be aware of them-- I see why you have such sympathy for this dev!
"I'm not sure what more you're asking for..."
The "more" I quoted was a simple phone call. I have no skin in the game and no sympathy for the dev in question. My point has always been this situation could have been solved by a phone call to the right person. The person who opened the account.
Coming in late in your exchange with someone else, I probably should have read back through the exchange before posting. At a minimum, I should have deleted the portion of your post that I had no interest in. I was only interested in that last line. I assumed that was pretty clear. Assumptions amirite? Apologies for the confusion. @manu chao see, you're not alone. I made an assumptive mistake too.
He submitted a draft over the weekend, and Monday (Romanian time?) he decided to publish a recording of a private phone call. It's worth noting that he didn't even wait until close of business on the very first day of business for Apple to respond.
Maturity may have taught him that impatience can escalate a tense situation. Getting trigger happy on stuff like that is certainly not helping his case here. I read the blog post, thought "oh, sounds like an understandable mixup, I hope they get it sorted"-- then saw the recording and thought "oooo... bad move."
Thus my question whether there was further communication or not. At the moment I'm not convinced it was "ignored," or that there was not further communication, either before or after the private confidential conversation that was publicly released. Which again, demonstrates immaturity and not being trustworthy.
"Really hard to agree there's anything at all "for sure" about that."
I wasn't speaking legally, rather more about a duty most ethical people understand regarding keeping phone conversations where there's an expectation of privacy, private. Instead he recorded the private confidential conversation and then put Apple on blast releasing it publicly.
Last edited:
The mere act of posting the recording (not to mention making it, unless he got permission earlier in the call) undermines my confidence and trust in him about 98%. He changed the conversation to a new topic in which he (no longer) has any claim to moral superiority. If he ever did.
That and if he opened his sister's account and clicked through all the legally binding stuff, he was actually and explicitly making himself liable for her every act. If he just loaned her the card, but she did the clicking, he had a stronger argument. Again, an argument that is now effectively moot due to posting the recording.
Edited to add: clicking through the agreement on her behalf is also itself a fraudulent act based on the agreement terms itself requiring that the person clicking is the stated person and has authority to bind, etc.
Between the submission of the draft and the release of the audio, Apple released a PR statement to iMore in relation to the event in which they trashed his reputation and stated things that were blatantly false - he then responded by releasing the audio in which Apple says that they did not actually contact him and that they wanted to control his voice. The very first point is enough to wedge a gap into Apple's PR message, the second is utterly sketchy.
So here is the thing: If they had actually contacted him before removing his account, none of this would have happened. Instead they contacted the account with fraudulent activity, then proceeded to ban any account in relation to that fraudulent account without any sort of message beyond "You were cheating reviews" for those account, even if those accounts weren't taking part in the behavior. Completely unacceptable because now he has to deal with the lash back from a community that jumps on anything perceived as anti-Apple, based on a message that was wrong.
If they had contacted him 2 years ago or even the moment before they took down his account with concern that he was funding fraudulent activity on another account, we would not be in this place right now.
Yeah, I think it was a bad call, and I think some more worldly experience would have led him to different decisions, but I also can't imagine what it's like to be a small time dev somewhere in the world that suddenly is getting all of this attention on all my favorite websites discussing whether or not I'm a cheat. There's a pretty strong impulse to defend oneself by any means necessary and it takes some wisdom to realize the most important thing is not to make any public mistakes and to look reasonable and cooperative.
It might be valid to say "I had no idea my roommate was cooking meth", but you should understand you're going to get a lot of questions and be prepared to handle them.
I think it's really easy to take sides in a dispute when we don't have all the information-- but I'm trying to remain open to the thought that everyone is doing their best to get to the bottom of this. My reaction to the recording was more sadness for the dev-- I like Dash, and I don't want to see him inflict any more harm on himself.
[doublepost=1476217087][/doublepost]
To which it probably would have been best to get back in touch with his contact and say "what the hell, I thought we were sorting this out!". The answer would have likely been, "Sorry, too many moving parts here, that statement was drafted Thursday before we talked. We'll retract it." Instead, he stuck his finger in the eye of the more powerful party and somehow hopes for a positive resolution?
I understand looking at this from the dev's point of view, but from Apple's point of view this was pretty cut and dried. There were multiple accounts owned by the same person (paying for something generally means owning it). They spent 2 years working with the fraudster, to no avail. This dev, regardless of what he knew or didn't, was funding fraudulent activity. Apple pulled the plug. If I'd heard that some chump got their account pulled because they were paying for someone else's fraudulent activity, I wouldn't bat an eye. The fact that Apple took the steps to remediate the situation, I think, is to their credit.
Last edited:
He is a great guy. There I said it.
But. And common, what does your gut tell you?
It wasn't me, it was my old hardware, with my credit card, for the other apple account I got. for eh .. someone else, yeah yeah.. a family member, and since you can't proof otherwise without lawsuit and discovery process - I think this is a valid excuse.
I am sorry, that's just how it sounds to me. I can see why Apple goes, known credit card, hardware owned by him. and the excuse is now 'family member did it without me knowing it', and.. just coincidentally in the same field, heck, same app, as he's working on. Not some other interest, ' the same '
I think he's a great guy, but it sounds like a bluff excuse
But. And common, what does your gut tell you?
It wasn't me, it was my old hardware, with my credit card, for the other apple account I got. for eh .. someone else, yeah yeah.. a family member, and since you can't proof otherwise without lawsuit and discovery process - I think this is a valid excuse.
I am sorry, that's just how it sounds to me. I can see why Apple goes, known credit card, hardware owned by him. and the excuse is now 'family member did it without me knowing it', and.. just coincidentally in the same field, heck, same app, as he's working on. Not some other interest, ' the same '
I think he's a great guy, but it sounds like a bluff excuse
If you know of developers who are paying other companies $$$ to post make reviews and such you should bring that to Apples attention. That's the only way that Apple can investigate developers and fake reviews is if people bring it to their attention.
Anything to boost their interests is not playing fair....
Whats to stop doing fake reviews online, where u can get away with it much more ?
Not the first time developers has worked around the system,, so it can happen, weather u agree with it or not.
Whats to stop doing fake reviews online, where u can get away with it much more ?
Not the first time developers has worked around the system,, so it can happen, weather u agree with it or not.
I listened to the conversation between Bogdan Popescu and the apple zealot, and, while I believe Bogdan's assertion that it was an honest mistake, I still cant comprehend why the **** would he use his own credentials "two years" ago to help somebody. That's a dumb move, especially when he's appreciated for the software he's putting out there.
As much as I disliked the apple zealot, he is right. The accounts are linked, they are the same entity. There's no way around that.
As much as I disliked the apple zealot, he is right. The accounts are linked, they are the same entity. There's no way around that.
Agree with what you've said (you're amongst the saner, more reasonable, posters here), though keep in mind that "spent 2 years working with the fraudster" could evaluate out to "sent 3 or 4 emails to the shady sister, over the course of 2 years, and she deleted them without a second thought." "Two years working with" sounds like some lengthy series of ongoing negotiations, which may not be the case. At this point we just don't know.
[doublepost=1476223007][/doublepost]
You keep misspelling "employee" - its actually a different word than "zealot". The developer is certainly at least guilty of making some poor decisions. Then again, jurors sometimes argue, "the defendant must be guilty, because it would have made much more sense to do X than Y". People often do things for reasons that don't make sense to others, and that go against best judgement.
I disagree, not because I take a stance for either side, but because I do see the viability of this happening.
I have taught several friends of mine over the last 5 years how to program Ruby, Rails, and Objective-C/Swift for iOS. I have spent considerable time, energy, and material goods (devices, subscription costs) of mine own to do this for them, for little to nothing in exchange. I do this because I care about my friends, and I am happy that they were able to leave a blue collar (or similar low paying) lifestyle for one that starts at $75k+.
It makes me feel good to help others, and this is why I do it.
I have on many occasions paid for things on their behalf with my credit cards and never did I ever think I would be "on the hook" for anything they did in their lives, on any store, or on the Internet. I was never associated with them in their endeavors and I just wanted to help them.
For example, I paid for a close friend to have about 1 year of training on Treehouse (teamtreehouse.com). He had a lot of personal expenses and very little income, and I had no issue with covering for him.
Does that make me responsible for their actions after? I don't think it should... but if policies (from Apple for example) link me to them, then I certainly will need to make sure not to do it on platforms that could cause that. It cripples my ability to be helpful ... or I at least need to just give them gift cards or some other way to make it happen.
Some people donate money to food banks, or homeless shelters, or churches, or whatever. I donate to people's educations and lend them my time, so they can build two legs to stand on and have a thriving future.
If indeed important, it could also be a language barrier misunderstanding of the phrasing.