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

[jennyp]

A cynic might say that the "relative" was just a channel for Bogdan to try and manipulate the review process in a way that he thought would insulate him from wrongdoing.

And somehow I'd find that cynic's argument compelling.

 

[CPx]

This guy sounds like a lotta work.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Are you allowed more than one review per account per App? If not, what are these "thousands of fraudulent reviews" Apple speaks of? It seems like he could post ONE review using his relative's account at most per App. If one review makes or breaks an App I'd have to say the review system in general sounds pretty sketchy (likewise if Apple allowed unlimited reviews from one account for each app). In other words, what Apple's saying really doesn't make any sense to me. He'd need over a dozen reviews per app to have any major effect, in my opinion. In short, what's the friggin' point?

 

[zhaoxin]

Are you allowed more than one review per account per App? If not, what are these "thousands of fraudulent reviews" Apple speaks of? It seems like he could post ONE review using his relative's account at most per App. If one review makes or breaks an App I'd have to say the review system in general sounds pretty sketchy (likewise if Apple allowed unlimited reviews from one account for each app). In other words, what Apple's saying really doesn't make any sense to me. He'd need over a dozen reviews per app to have any major effect, in my opinion. In short, what's the friggin' point?

No. You can put one review per account per app per version. When an app updates, you can give it another review.

 

[asiga]

Hey every body! Let's all defraud Apple and App Store customers due to their heinous crime of not supporting older ios releases in the app store. It's ok because Macrumors forums user asiga says it is!

Some of the stuff written here is just... well, I'd rather not be banned

No, I didn't say that the fact Apple is following worse strategies than Microsoft in their "golden age" entitles anybody to commit fraud. First of all, failing to obey Apple Store rules is not fraud unless it's against Law rather than against Apple's rules. It's just that you failed to obey Apple rules (very questionable and subjective rules, by the way, they were written to ensure $$$ income and to protect Apple, not customers rights).

If it was fraud, Apple would call the FBI. But it's just failure to meet contract conditions, so they finish the contract.

Second, if Apple is right in this case, their behavior here is hilarious. Man, do you mean the teen-like response of the accused guy has been able to put Apple into the news? Really? In the Steve days, this wouldn't happen. If this guy had to be banned, it would have been done right, instead of turning this into a teen chat.

Third, these Policeapple days are worrying.
It's scary just to think how will their Internal Affairs Dpt be:

Sgt #1: You're not cooperating, Pete.
Sgt #2: Just tell us who approved this iPad1 app and let's go lunch together. We pay.
Pete: No, I won't!!
Sgt #1: Pete, Pete, Pete,... can you understand how sad will Big Tally feel when he reads the report you're forcing us to write?

 

[eebrown]

I'm pretty sure you need the consent of the party based on where that party is located. So if you have a cross-state conversation, you have to obey the stricter of the laws. Apple is presumably calling from Cupertino, CA so he needs consent of them to record it.

Not sure about apple but every time I call ATT or some such service they start the conversation with this call may be recorded, if apple called him and started the conversation off with that does that give him the right to record the conversation as well?

 

[mw360]

Are you allowed more than one review per account per App? If not, what are these "thousands of fraudulent reviews" Apple speaks of? It seems like he could post ONE review using his relative's account at most per App. If one review makes or breaks an App I'd have to say the review system in general sounds pretty sketchy (likewise if Apple allowed unlimited reviews from one account for each app). In other words, what Apple's saying really doesn't make any sense to me. He'd need over a dozen reviews per app to have any major effect, in my opinion. In short, what's the friggin' point?

Apple hasn't said 1 developer accound posted 1000 fake reviews. Apple are saying the bare minimum about what was done and how, and so yours is the kind of erroneous conclusion you reach when connecting very limited dots. Likely this involves multiple fake iTunes accounts, or reviews from genuine users obtained inappropriately. The reviews were presumably to the benefit of the 2nd dev account, not directly posted from it, but again that's just trying to find a story which works from both angles, it could be wrong and we may never know.

Positing 1000 reviews to 25 apps averages 40 reviews per app. That's easily enough to make or break a small app, especially if those reviews are posted early, and also get the benefit of fake upvotes. Something shady has definitely happened here and I'm not finding his eagerness to throw a relative under the bus particular ingratiating.

 

[GadgetBen]

yet, FDG Mobile Games continue to release apps with these 5 star reviews for the past few years.

probably a huge money maker for Apple, so they don't look into these.

Right OK Apple, now do something about these apps and the many thousands of other big time developers who pay external Companies hundreds of $ to post fake reviews to bolster their apps.

As a developer, I totally agree with the decision on removing this app, but more money needs to be spent on screening fake review accounts. I see far too much of it.

Don't just target the little guy when review manipulation is going on extensively with the multinationals.

 

[CE3]

Quick question: were the accounts linked?

I listened to the recording and that part didn't seem very clear.

 

[hoon2999]

Quick question: were the accounts linked?

I listened to the recording and that part didn't seem very clear.

According to the conversation, linked with using same bank account.
And seeing from the dev's post, it must be true.

 

[Vjosullivan]

A cynic might say that the "relative" was just a channel for Bogdan to try and manipulate the review process in a way that he thought would insulate him from wrongdoing.

And somehow I'd find that cynic's argument compelling.

What anyone finds "compelling" is irrelevant. Once you accuse people of fraud only evidence counts and circumstantial evidence isn't evidence of anything.

 

[inscrewtable]

Though I still think there should always be an appeal option

Who to, the International Court of Arbitration for App Disputes.

 

[CE3]

According to the conversation, linked with using same bank account.
And seeing from the dev's post, it must be true.

That was my attempt at a joke since "the accounts were linked" was pretty much all Apple said for 8 minutes.

At first I was inclined to side with the developer, but something seems fishy here. His post states that he "handed" family member old test hardware he no longer needed, but Apple stated a couple times during the phone conversation that both accounts use the same test devices (not past tense), and the developer never denies this or mentions the old hardware defense.

Apple should have notified both accounts, but they probably came to the conclusion that he was running them both, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's true.

 

[Gildarts]

I think it's clear from the phone call that despite Apple wanting to make clear they did nothing wrong. They did.

1. They stated in the phone call that there were two accounts. Only one account showed fraudulent activity. He clearly says one of the accounts had fraudulent activity. Now in the press release Apple is saying there was fraudulent activity across 2 accounts. Clearly a false statement given the phone call.
2. Only that account was warned before termination. Why wasn't there a notice to the account that didn't have fraudulent activity? (answer is given in the call I know)

The end of the call says it all to me.

When Bogdan says "So I'll just say the truth and we'll be oke", the Apple employee smirks and says "Send it to me and I'll be happy to have Phill take a look at it, Mmkay? Hope you're having a good time. Thank you for your time I really appreciate it.".

What I notice most in the comment section is that there is a cultural difference in how people respond to this call. The English natives are saying Apple was clear, concise and trying to help. The non-English natives see Apple's response as manipulative and unsincere.

There are no winners here.

 

[Rob_2811]

Foolish thing to do to get relatives involved in your business, especially If they are the kind of people who would start manipulating reviews.

Why are Apple telling the Loop that they had contacted the developer regarding this years ago if that isn't the case though ?

 

[farewelwilliams]

So, you are saying, until Apple has dealt with all fraud that started 3 (or more) years ago, they should not take any action on fraud that is only 2 (or less) years old?

Your beef seems to be that it looks to you as if Apple is giving FDG an unfair advantage by not punishing them similarly. You assume that somebody at Apple must have made a deliberate decision based on lower motives. And that is where the problem lies, you assume deliberate action (plus on top 'lower motives' if you disagree with the action) because any alternative is beyond your imagination.

put on your glasses and take a look at the situation:
1 indie developer making a single quality app in a relatively non-competitive category with a (alleged) fraudulent activity spanning 2 years
vs
1 company that repeatedly frauds (allegedly) an extremely competitive (as well as the most popular) category for longer than 2 years with mediocre quality games

what i'm saying is: their priority needs to be checked. fix the most problematic category first that affects far more users and developers, THEN focus on the little guys/more recent offenders in lower profile categories.

 

[Michaelgtrusa]

Macupdate has the same problem.

 

[soroyv]

I started using Dash about 6 months ago and found it really helpful in my daily work.

That being said, this whole thing has made me consider getting rid of it entirely, not sure I wanna support this fraudulent business.

 

[arobert3434]

The developer's blog post sounds a lot like what a scam artist would come up with. Basically, no matter what the current story, they can always come up with a plausible string of excuses why it happened that way.

 

[yanksfan114]

Not sure about apple but every time I call ATT or some such service they start the conversation with this call may be recorded, if apple called him and started the conversation off with that does that give him the right to record the conversation as well?

I don't know but I think this call may have been different. It seems like this is an out of the way call from someone reporting directly to Phil. Also if Apple calls you then they don't always play that "we're recording you" message (I've had it happen to me).

 

[0958400]

The "developer" could pay someone who has control of a bot farm of several thousand hacked PCs (all over the country/world) that happen to have iTunes accounts on them. Each bot downloads the app and automatically posts really positive but slightly different computer generated text.

If you don't keep up with the security updates, what is your PC or Mac doing in the middle of the night?

Sleeping.

 

[Mascots]

But that does not excuse whoever handing them payment information to not be responsible. Imagine someone co-sogning a loan becuz a dev does not have citizenship here. Co-signer is still resposible for anything happens later no matter what.

There was no consigner, as he was not signing any deal and at no point does Apple associate your identity to payment method. It's the account owner who is liable and he was not the owner of said account...
Imagine if you owned a company and it was found out that one of your employees was doing nefarious things and with an account containing related information - should Apple shut down your account, too? And without any warning. Because that is a legitimate concern - such a person could have app identifiers, preexisting templates, financial information; it wouldn't be too hard to muddy the waters and that bad actor won't tell you anything.

If they had issue with what a "linked" account did, then I assume this association would work both ways: warn both accounts, THEN take down both accounts, not warn one then take down every account related by financial details regardless of activity. Hell, if Apple had just warned both accounts two years ago, I'm sure he would have yanked payment and this problem wouldn't exist today...

But that's a drop in the bucket - Apple screwed this guy: they lied about communication with him, then attempted to control the narrative instead of ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM and allowing him shift the narrative. They trashed a reputation which he worked hard as **** to get and in the end caved anyway. If they were truly right he would not be in the store now because fraud reviews is nothing short of fraud - but Apple either doesn't care about the consumer or stepped itself and wants to get out as soon as possible now.

 

[69Mustang]

A cynic might say that the "relative" was just a channel for Bogdan to try and manipulate the review process in a way that he thought would insulate him from wrongdoing.

And somehow I'd find that cynic's argument compelling.

How to create insulation from wrong doing:
1. Create new account using your credit card and payment information
2. Use equipment you've previously used in the past
3. By doing 1 & 2, ensure the wrong doing can be traced directly back to you
4. Profit?

That cynic needs better critical thinking skills and you shouldn't find anything compelling about their argument. Anything at all.

The developer's blog post sounds a lot like what a scam artist would come up with. Basically, no matter what the current story, they can always come up with a plausible string of excuses why it happened that way.

How did you come to that conclusion? The evidence as we know it, doesn't support your conclusion.
Apple issued a statement containing questionable "facts":

1. Almost 1,000 fraudulent reviews were detected across two accounts - that's not exactly true.
2. Warning was given in advance of the termination - that's not true either
   
3. Apple claims to have contacted the dev over two year period to stop fraud - again, truth missing

During the call, the Apple rep only seemed concerned with making sure Apple was free and clear of any perception of wrong doing. Ironically, a single step early on in the process would have made this issue null & void. Call or contact the guy. The rep made sure to detail the accounts had the same cc and payment info, same equipment, but failed to acknowledge Apple made the one mistake that got the ball rolling. Not contacting the guy. Why would you not contact the guy?

 

[WRChris]

Last week, popular API documentation browser Dash was removed from the App Store after Apple accused Dash's developer of fraudulent conduct and claimed he manipulated App Store reviews.

At the time, the developer denied the accusations and garnered the support of Dash app users who believed there had been a mix up and that he was not guilty, but Apple today provided more information to justify its position and the app's removal from the App Store.

In statements given to iMore and The Loop, Apple says the developer owned two accounts with 25 apps, which had nearly 1,000 fake reviews. Both fraudulent positive reviews for his own apps and negative reviews for competing apps were involved.According to The Loop's Jim Dalrymple, Apple first sent a warning to the developer behind Dash two years ago and attempted to work with him "for some time" to put a stop to the App Store fraud. The behavior did not stop, leading to the account's termination last week.

Dash's developer specifically denied having been involved in App Store review manipulation in the blog post announcing Dash's removal from the App Store, but Apple has been adamant that fraud took place. Apple's marketing chief Phil Schiller even got involved, confirming to a concerned developer that ratings and review fraud had led to the app's removal.

Apple's decision is final and there is no further appeals process, according to Dash's developer, who has yet to respond to the information Apple has provided today. Dash for iOS is unlikely to return to the iOS App Store, but Dash for Mac remains available outside of the Mac App Store.

Update: The developer behind Dash has shared his side of the story, placing the blame on a relative whose Apple Developer Program Membership he paid for.

He says he was not aware his account was linked to another until Friday and that he was not notified about any wrongdoing. He has shared a recorded phone conversation in which Apple says it will reactivate his account if he makes a blog post stating the truth that his account had been linked to an account with fraudulent activity.

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

If Apple bans accounts for this, why not ban accounts that release app updates with no purpose other than resetting reviews, I'm talking about you, Niantic.

 

[jennyp]

What anyone finds "compelling" is irrelevant. Once you accuse people of fraud only evidence counts and circumstantial evidence isn't evidence of anything.

This won't go to any court, and Apple seems to be satisfied with their own evidence.