Apple Says 1,000 Fraudulent Reviews Were Detected Across Two Accounts Owned by 'Dash' Developer [Update: Developer Responds]

[Keerock]

Being in Romania he is not bound by California law. However, releasing a private confidential conversation to the public demonstrates he is immature and not trustworthy, and guarantees he will never be associated with Apple again.

Stupid move.

Excellent points!

 

[Mascots]

They did not sling mud without evidence. They have all the evidence they need. You assume they have to share evidence with you and the public. You are wrong.

Sorry, but Phil made a vague statement and then Apple made a PR push with nothing more than their word against his, and also tripped up by placing falsehoods in their word to sway the oh-so-believe-everything-they-say fanbase. Their word is not evidence, they are not as omnipotent in reality as they are in your mind.

It took some guy on an Internet forum to actual post evidence of wrongdoing and poke holes in his story, not blind faith in some faceless entity so don't give yourself much credit for my change of tune.

 

[Otaviano]

Sorry, but Phil made a vague statement and then Apple made a PR push with nothing more than their word against his, and also tripped up by placing falsehoods in their word to sway the oh-so-believe-everything-they-say fanbase. Their word is not evidence, they are not as omnipotent in reality as they are in your mind.

It took some guy on an Internet forum to actual post evidence of wrongdoing and poke holes in his story, not blind faith in some faceless entity so don't give yourself much credit for my change of tune.

If you look at some of my posts on this site you will find I have plenty to criticize Apple on. But if "blind faith" and fanboyism is your only face saving card feel free to play it. I honestly could care less.

 

[Night Spring]

They did not sling mud without evidence. They have all the evidence they need. You assume they have to share evidence with you and the public. You are wrong.

Sure, they don't have to share evidence. But if they don't share evidence, then I can't just take them at their word.

 

[architect1337]

Gather round, folks, let me tell you a story.

Great investigation.

What's strange is if you go here:

http://macgenius.co/app/File-View/796095072

You'll see all the apps 'being sold' by Mihaela.

Let's pick one - say 'File View'. The site entry was last updated 2 months ago. If you look at the pictures - the date shown in the top right of the Mac is 'Sunday 12th Jan'. The only year when the 12th Jan was a Sunday was 2014.

Select the next image. We can examine the image and see the file owner is a user called 'bogdan'. This would indicate that when these screenshots were taken, a user called 'bogdan' owned files on that mac and created this file on this date (creation date).

I'm sure there are circumstances where the original author gave all his old software to Mihaela and that she continued to sell and update the entry (on this site) for his (and perhaps others) software.

This mysterious Mihaela has no website / support site of her own, but continued to sell Bogdan's older software.

It would be far easier if the author just came out and explained himself.

 

[frumpsnake]

That's actually hilarious because Mihaela released her own identical version of File View called File Info Pro...but hasn't updated it in 2 years.
http://macgenius.co/app/File-Info-Pro/670506824

Two months ago "Mihaela" updated Bogdan's app but not hers.

Again if you look at "her" App Store page -- File View and File Info Pro are sold simultaneously (#1 and #2!)
https://i.imgur.com/m70tauN.png

 

[architect1337]

That's actually hilarious because Mihaela released her own identical version of File View called File Info Pro...but hasn't updated it in 2 years.
http://macgenius.co/app/File-Info-Pro/670506824

Two months ago "Mihaela" updated Bogdan's app but not hers.

Again if you look at "her" App Store page -- File View and File Info Pro are sold simultaneously (#1 and #2!)
https://i.imgur.com/m70tauN.png

The screenshot for File Info Pro shows the hex dump as being owned by a user called 'Mihaela' and as having a creation date of 1st June 2013.

The screenshot for File View, shows the hex dump as being created in Jan 2014 - seven months after 'Mihaela's' File Info Pro screenshot - but the file in question was owned by and created that day by a user called 'bogdan'.

 

[Otaviano]

Sure, they don't have to share evidence. But if they don't share evidence, then I can't just take them at their word.

And I guess this varies from customer to customer. You are not wrong in feeling that way.

For me, I have been an Apple customer since 2002 and have always had positive dealings with the company. I had issues years ago with some pro software that was affecting my work and Apple reached out and went above and beyond in trying to solve the problem. So because of my experiences I believe I can take their word on this type of scenario.

 

[Mascots]

If you look at some of my posts on this site you will find I have plenty to criticize Apple on. But if "blind faith" and fanboyism is your only face saving card feel free to play it. I honestly could care less.

Is it not blind faith if the absence of Apple's evidence is proof of their statements in your eyes? And then after the evidence they eventually did provide turned out to have factual issues?

Fanboyism means more than giving Apple the benefit of the doubt, but also that one can't fathom criticism of their practices, which is exactly what you're doing. Here I have a legitimate concern and you try to make me out to be someone who just hates Apple (for simply not assuming their word to be true), which is ridiculous especially given my opinion change in the light of compelling evidence, not some circumstantial or metaphorical babel.

But then, that's not good enough: I'm not even allowed to question Apple, their actions, or call out their falsehoods in the absence of such information because people have had a good experience at some point in the past with them...

Hmm. That is kind of a definition of Fanboy, bro.

 

[Gizmotoy]

Why would you assume the worst of Apple on something like this. What do they gain from it? Good publicity? No. Good will with developers? No.

It was pretty obvious. If you just think rationally about.

It's not like Apple has a good track record with this kind of stuff. How often is there an "Apple removes X from store for vague reason" post on MacRumors? Way more often than there should be. And very frequently the decision is reversed. The regularity with which this kind of stuff occurs, IMO, doesn't lend itself to automatically erring on Apple's side. If anything, they've repeatedly proved the opposite should be true.

Here, though, the evidence looks pretty damning.

 

[juiyout]

Like Apple, Chinese communist party also says they never make mistakes.

 

[crashoverride77]

I wonder whether the warning emails Apple sent were to the developer's email address, or to his relative's email address, and the relative's just been ignoring/deleting them all this time.

Thats a pathetic excuse. So the relative was like "I wonder why I keep getting this emails from apple about the account my relative set up for me with his credit card. Best thing to just ignore them"

 

[Otaviano]

It's not like Apple has a good track record with this kind of stuff. How often is there an "Apple removes X from store for vague reason" post on MacRumors? Way more often than there should be. And very frequently the decision is reversed. The regularity with which this kind of stuff occurs, IMO, doesn't lend itself to automatically erring on Apple's side. If anything, they've repeatedly proved the opposite should be true.

Here, though, the evidence looks pretty damning.

It is true that Apple has made mistakes with this in the past. And there are some key things we can gather when looking at that:

- Previouslt they have backtracked when wrong, showing an ability to admit they made a mistake.
- Most situations with this has been when apps are updated or changed. Not just out of the blue cancelations.

The last big one I remember was I think when pcalc added a notification widget which put the calculator in Notification Center. There was some back and fourth. It was allowed and then it was not allowed. In the end it seemed like two views within Apple were conflicting with App review saying one thing and marketing saying another. Since that incident Apple has even made big change to the App Store with everything moving under Phil, where before it was divided between him and Eddie Cue. Which shows a willingness to correct and improve.

So no they are not perfect, but they are also not malicious in their intentions. Screwing over innocent developers does them no good. Not short term or long term.

While it is not mentioned on the call I would likely bet that those two accounts also share the same IP address. You can bet that Apple logs the IP when you upload a new build of your app.

I just do not see how you look at the evidence that was available and side with the guy who claims it was his "relative."

 

[Analog Kid]

How do you know the two accounts shared the same developer ID? Bogdan claims that he used his credit card to pay for his relative's developer account. So wouldn't his relative have gotten her own developer ID when the second account was created?

According to the link in the original story:
"Apple firmly believes two accounts, linked together by common credit card, bank account, developer ID login, and bundle ID, committed ongoing review fraud"

And the apps were all published using the same Org identifier.

Is there evidence that he was funding fraud? I haven't listened to the recorded conversation, as I'm hard of hearing. Was there anything in the conversation to indicate his credit card was used to pay for the fraudulent reviews? All I saw from his blog post was he admits to using his credit card to create his relative's account. But no indication whether or not his credit card was tied in any other way to activities related to the second account.

He's paying for the account that's pursuing fraudulent activity-- perhaps unwittingly, but from what Apple can tell from their records, he's funding it and Bogdan doesn't dispute it. That's one of those facts that, on the face of it, looks pretty bad but could be explained away as he has tried to do. Still, it's one of the few facts agreed to by both sides.

What does this mean? Is it an acronym?

"Bogdan Is Great, But You-know". It's a Silicon Valley reference I'd linked to earlier... In the show, they feel they need to keep repeating what a great guy their boss is while they talk about what they're not happy with but it's taking too long, so they use a "dictionary patch" to compress the nice guy stuff.

 

[mkldev]

I can't speak for whatever jurisdiction the developer lives in, but where I live this is illegal unless all parties consent.

IIRC, most places require only single-party consent, specifically so that you can defend yourself against libelous statements about what was said in a phone conversation. Two-party consent makes phone calls a really unsafe way to communicate. It destroys a critical aspect of consumer protection under the guise of protecting you from evil companies who tape your phone calls....

 

[alphaod]

This developer obviously thought if he made enough noise, it would get Apple bad publicity that they would reverse the decision, like Apple has done for a number of apps the past few years.

The problem is Apple instead went firm on their decision and released the reason they terminated his account.


As for linking accounts via credit card and other info? A lot of companies do that. In fact there are many services that give you get referral credit of some sort and if the person you refer does something bad, you get banned too.

 

[crashoverride77]

Come on Apple, that is kindergarten-style trying to get away with a really poor handling of the whole matter. If the two accounts were linked (i.e. indivisible entities in the eyes of Apple), why have not apple indivisibly inform BOTH the accounts. If you turn off two accounts, you have to inform two accounts. Pretty obvious to me.

If Apple behaved normally and reasonably, none of the later problems would have occurred. But I guess it takes more courage for Apple to admit their policies are arrogant and they made a mistake than to remove an audio jack ;-).

Do you think the other high-end phones will have a headphone jack in the next 1-2 years? If you do I got a bridge to sell you.
[doublepost=1476295402][/doublepost]

One can only speculate about what is their relationship like. I know quite a few people who stopped talking to each other for years, so what?

Apple's role is not to make assumptions, it should just behave normally - if you do something to an entity, talk to the entity.

Yes and he did not bother to remove/cancel the credit card on her account?
I got a very nice collection of bridges to sell you,.

 

[Analog Kid]

Obviously the information in the two accounts was separate. They, as a company, did not do their due dilligence - you talk about Apple as an infallible entity checking every avenue presented to them, but the very fact that they did not contact the other account means they shut down his account without notice and tripped up. Seriously, the card was in his name, the fraudulent account was not: that's just a single avenue that Apple should be embarrassed about not questioning in the first place.

I would moreorless agree that he would be responsible had they actually been in contact and he continued to pay for a fraudulent account, but that isn't what happened because of Apple, not because of him.

Then there is Apple contacting him to work with him, trying to control the narrative, and finally smearing his name with falsehoods. Really great move towards someone who is obviously represents an ideal Indie Developer. A massive company uses its fanboy base armed with nothing but their word which was wrong. Since you're so into this POV, why don't you just explain why a massive company made a show with the PR release on Sunday after working with him and leaving him hanging? He didn't post the audio until after, which saved his name in my eyes but breaking their word. So far he's done nothing to break his other than omit knowledge he had no way of knowing about until after Apple started taking heat and explained. No lies. And explainantions just as people want.

I don't know what an Apple-at-all-goat is, but the very fact you love to throw around ideas like Hitler Apple for those who don't see them in every positive light is moreorless a sign that you need to pull your head out of somewhere. The fact that you can't see any fault with a company is a little sad. Done.

It's actually not obvious the information on the two accounts was separate, as you found out a few posts later.

The problem here isn't my inability to see fault in a company-- if you actually read my posts, you'll see that I've been clear it's possible Apple made a mistake here. I just happen to think that, if they did, its an understandable mistake given all of the evidence surrounding it and that they were taking action to resolve it.

My point from the beginning has been that we have incomplete information and very little hard evidence-- all we really have is what the two sides agree on (he paid for both accounts, both accounts used the same org identifiers, there was fraud) and their individual statements based on evidence each side is keeping private.

Find a post where I say "Hitler Apple" and you win a lollipop.

The problem here is that you were blindly in the camp of the dev. What I mean by making Apple the goat at all costs is that given incomplete information, you looked back and found the one thing that Apple could have done different, based solely on the dev's blog post that it's true, and have refused to consider any other possibility than this is all Apple's fault. You have been, in fact, less open minded than Apple themselves-- when they were given an alternate explanation for the facts they had, they were willing to accept it as a possibility and fix the problem. You have been ignoring any alternate interpretation and repeating the same line over and over-- they should have emailed the one email address that would have made this magically go away.

You keep insisting Apple's word is wrong (what part of their statement was inaccurate, by the way, and how do you know?), yet you think the dev is 100% truthful even when we have very little evidence to go on. If you look at the body of my posts, and stop fixating on the fact that I think it's understandable that Apple missed a nuance, you'll see I've been pretty sympathetic and supportive of the dev-- I just think he got himself into a tight situation and could have handled it better.

 

[ActionableMango]

IIRC, most places require only single-party consent, specifically so that you can defend yourself against libelous statements about what was said in a phone conversation. Two-party consent makes phone calls a really unsafe way to communicate. It destroys a critical aspect of consumer protection under the guise of protecting you from evil companies who tape your phone calls....

Although it's the scenario in this thread, the laws are not just about consumers talking to companies.

If you are speaking with a friend, lawyer, ex, business partner, representative, aide, competitor, etc., you might speak very differently or not at all if you knew the conversation was being recorded.

IMHO too many people think that those who want privacy are inherently trying to cover up wrongdoing. (i.e. if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide). This is simply not true. There are endless reasons that are perfectly legal and moral for wanting to keep a conversation private, and I'd argue that the overwhelming majority of people expect their phone calls to be private.

 

[Analog Kid]

But instead they just slung mud without any evidence - they've made mistakes before and they are not omnipotent.

You've been slinging mud at Apple this whole thread without evidence. As a fact, we know Apple has more evidence than we do for our opinions.

I haven't seen anyone say that Apple is infallible or omnipotent-- only that they're trying to do the best they can with the information they have.

Also - love how I wait to be convinced by compelling evidence because Apple did make major missteps in this situation. That affect the developer community as a whole.

Here's the thing-- if the evidence you're convinced by is true, then Apple didn't make any missteps. The only misstep would have been if they shut down Bogdan's account for activity on an unrelated account; if they weren't unrelated, then there's no misstep.

This is why it's important to hold all the possibilities in your head at the same time and to look at the evidence from every party's side to understand their actions.

 

[peter2]

Do you think the other high-end phones will have a headphone jack in the next 1-2 years? If you do I got a bridge to sell you.

Probably not, since most vendors just copy whatever Apple does, without much thinking. My next "high-end" phone will be iPhone SE, since I find my 6s too big anyway.

BTW, believe it or not, I actually use the headphone jack, as well as many other "unnecessary" ports on other Apple devices. As far as a new headphone jack standard is concerned, that's fine, but lightning is not a standard.

 

[CarlJ]

Thats a pathetic excuse. So the relative was like "I wonder why I keep getting this emails from apple about the account my relative set up for me with his credit card. Best thing to just ignore them"

First off, it wasn't an excuse, it was a question. Do you understand the difference between the two? Second, so, then, you think that people doing bad things go out of their way to give evidence that they're doing bad things to relatives? In your world, criminals just naturally go to family reunions and say, "hey everybody, I rob banks! Oh, and I cook a little meth on the side."

 

[crashoverride77]

First off, it wasn't an excuse, it was a question. Do you understand the difference between the two? Second, so, then, you think that people doing bad things go out of their way to give evidence that they're doing bad things to relatives? In your world, criminals just naturally go to family reunions and say, "hey everybody, I rob banks! Oh, and I cook a little meth on the side."

Do you honestly think that

a) the developer sets up an account for his sister
b) pays for that account with his card
c) Gives away his old tech to her, instead of selling it.
d) The sister in return posts 1000 fake reviews without telling her brother. For what reason?
e) Why is she ignoring Apples emails?
f) If they do not speak anymore, which could be small possibility in this BS story, do you think the developer would maybe not cancel his credit card or something? Do you usually pay for your family members that you do not talk to anymore?

I mean come on, that story wouldn't hold up in kindergarden.
[doublepost=1476302334][/doublepost]

Probably not, since most vendors just copy whatever Apple does, without much thinking. My next "high-end" phone will be iPhone SE, since I find my 6s too big anyway.

BTW, believe it or not, I actually use the headphone jack, as well as many other "unnecessary" ports on other Apple devices. As far as a new headphone jack standard is concerned, that's fine, but lightning is not a standard.

The new headphone standard will be wireless. Its the same story every time.

Apple gets rid of the CD drive people go crazy
Apple gets rid of the pin adapter and introduces lightning and people go crazy.
Apple gets rid of ports hardly anyone uses and people go crazy
Apple gets rid of the headphone jack and people go crazy

Its called progress. If you have a time machine and hope 5 years into the future and read the comment you just made you would slap yourself and and tell your self "I cannot believe I wanted this cable and port nonsense". If people think like you we would be stuck with crappy plastic windows laptops from 2005 that have no battery life and 500 ports or crappy symbian/android keyboard mobiles.

 

[kdarling]

Okay, I haven't been paying attention at all, so please forgive me...

-> But how does any one person post 1,000 reviews anyway?

Do you need to create 1,000 fake Apple IDs? Or was this 1,000 total across multiple apps?

Thanks in advance for any enlightenment.

 

[themastermind]

No but this certainly could be a California wiretapping case.
Not sure of the location of the developer, but it's quite possible that phone call he recorded of the Apple representative offering to reinstate the app if the developer posts a particular blog post involved an Apple rep in California. CA requires both parties to consent to phone call recordings prior to recording them.

I don't give a rats rear-end if it is illegal in California... it just matters if it is illegal where he is at.

I'm in Tennessee, for example, our laws only require one party to have consent. So I can record calls with someone from California all day long, and its perfectly legal. However, it is not legal for the person I'm on the call with to record me unless they ask for permission first because it is illegal there. Thats handy right?

He's so dumb. Its illegal to record a conversation with a party located in California and not have consent of that party. He's so screwed and not getting his account reinstated.

Yanksfan, it may not be smart to do it and then put it on the web while negotiations are still happening... then again, it may actually be smart, remains to be seen... but it is not illegal. The world doesn't rotate around California.