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

[asiga]

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.

Fraudulent business? What law did he break by failing to follow an Apple agreement?

 

[Confused Vorlon]

posted in error - but I can't seem to delete it..

 

[nextuser]

This is such a pointless controversy and waste of time. Reviews are generally useless anyway, and app discoverability is completely broken for indie devs. If Apple is trying to fix the app store, this is not the way to do it.

 

[Keerock]

Recording a phone call in California requires consent of both or all parties. Not sure if this applies to parties outside the US but this developer may have put himself in a world of hurt for publishing this recording.

 

[Otaviano]

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.

You got to see the video version?

 

[9052042]

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

To Apple. Apple allows developers to dispute issues. In this case, it has disallowed further disputes. I think there should always be a way to dispute an issue with Apple. It can't have a final draw like it's some sort of legal court. This is the livelihood of developers, the same developers that help it get to where it is now.

 

[firewood]

To Apple. Apple allows developers to dispute issues. In this case, it has disallowed further disputes. I think there should always be a way to dispute an issue with Apple. It can't have a final draw like it's some sort of legal court.

The developer agreement specifies Apple's requirements for disputing issues. And a person must agree (twice?) to this agreement to enroll as a developer in the first place. The specified court or arbitrator would likely enforce this agreement.

And Apple has been reported to use the name on a verified payment credit card as their "real" internal account identifier to help prevent fraudsters with fake IDs from enrolling.

 

[tyche]

The "it was my little brother" defense.

 

[itickings]

Good riddance!

I’m not doubting Apple in this case. Long overdue in my opinion, actually...

Once upon a time I bought the app DockView through the Mac App Store, a paid app at the time. A bit later, Bogdan Popescu decided to "upgrade" it to version 2 and make it free. Or rather, make it "free" with a required in-app purchase to restore the functionality that had been there from the start and customers like me already paid for once. This was his shady way of getting around the no paid upgrades situation in the App Store...

 

[citysnaps]

Recording a phone call in California requires consent of both or all parties. Not sure if this applies to parties outside the US but this developer may have put himself in a world of hurt for publishing this recording.

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.

 

[chr1s60]

He got caught doing something dumb, tried to lie his way out of it and then recorded and published a phone call of him thinking it would improve his stance. Hope he enjoyed his time in the App Store, he likely won't be returning.

 

[baller1308]

While it sucks I think he could have handled it better. Either way I think another Dash type app will be created soon.

 

[gimikinc]

Apple will re-instate his account if he details the situation. If the app was as well liked as it was, then do it and back to business.

With the fragments of information we may not truly know all the facts (both sides), but hard to believe Apple will just randomly target him.

 

[elmateo487]

You got to see the video version?

It was Facetime. lol

 

[bitslap47]

Listening to the recording, Apple is being more than reasonable. Echos my experience in dealing with them as a developer.

 

[truthertech]

To Apple. Apple allows developers to dispute issues. In this case, it has disallowed further disputes. I think there should always be a way to dispute an issue with Apple. It can't have a final draw like it's some sort of legal court. This is the livelihood of developers, the same developers that help it get to where it is now.

You need to shake the cobwebs out. Think about what you wrote. Apple already allowed him to dispute being terminated and after listening to his explanation for the fraud associated with his account, and taking into account the extent of the fraud, they didn't find his explanation credible. As a private business, they weren't required to do even that, but of course they are a responsible business so they went above and beyond in my opinion and warned him repeatedly and finally took action.

Your reasoning seems to be that if someone listens to you, but doesn't agree with you, you have some right to, as you put it "further disputes." This isn't a court of law, however, or some collective bargaining agreement, where you have the right to multiple layers of appeal. Under your argument, if Apple denies your fart type app, you should not only have the right to complain about it to them, but then if they don't agree with you, "because it's your livelihood," you are entitled to further disputes/appeals. Who will be at the head of the appellate system you are pushing for? Will Tim Cook be the Supreme Decider? Or will there be an independent Cupertino Board of Appeals with nine justices appointed by a vote of iPhone users?

 

[Pentium]

After he sent his draft to fix this thing, what made the people @ Apple change their mind? it was clearly in that phone call that they wana fix this...

 

[BigPrince]

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.

I agree with your analogy. I want to know if both accounts were warned or only the account committing the fraud.

 

[Bacillus]

I can't oversee this specific case.
But if Apple devises a review system that is inherent to fraud, it should implement jurisdiction with measures for apprehension, research and appeal.
It can't be that Apple is governing and ruling while treating it's own interests
The Appstore is an immature marketplace, completely inadequately designed compared to its economic importance.
The study group led by Phil Schiller to make improvements is a farce, if Apple wants to take itself serious it should handle differently.

 

[9052042]

You need to shake the cobwebs out. Think about what you wrote. Apple already allowed him to dispute being terminated and after listening to his explanation for the fraud associated with his account, and taking into account the extent of the fraud, they didn't find his explanation credible. As a private business, they weren't required to do even that, but of course they are a responsible business so they went above and beyond in my opinion and warned him repeatedly and finally took action.

Your reasoning seems to be that if someone listens to you, but doesn't agree with you, you have some right to, as you put it "further disputes." This isn't a court of law, however, or some collective bargaining agreement, where you have the right to multiple layers of appeal. Under your argument, if Apple denies your fart type app, you should not only have the right to complain about it to them, but then if they don't agree with you, "because it's your livelihood," you are entitled to further disputes/appeals. Who will be at the head of the appellate system you are pushing for? Will Tim Cook be the Supreme Decider? Or will there be an independent Cupertino Board of Appeals with nine justices appointed by a vote of iPhone users?

Speak to me when you develop apps for a living, lets see if your view is still the same.

 

[Gizmotoy]

Wow. What a giant mess. This looks good for neither party.

Strange that it sounds like it was resolved: the developer is to describe what happened and distance himself from the account posting fraudulent reviews, and then Apple will re-instate. And then later that day Apple backtracks. I guess they didn't like the apology draft? It was curt and factual, but that kind of is what was agreed to.

I can't entirely blame the guy for posting the audio given Apple cut contact and took the outcome public.

Edit: After listening to the audio more closely, I think it was the first sentence of the draft: "Apple contacted me and told me that my account will be reactivated." The representative repeatedly said that if he did the post he should say he was working with Apple to get back in the program, not that he definitively would be put back in the program. Probably had a 'that's the last straw' situation going on there at Apple HQ.

 

[truthertech]

Speak to me when you develop apps for a living, lets see if your view is still the same.

My view wouldn't change, because I have experience developing products and services. Those products and services get put into this tremendous system called free enterprise and survive or fall based upon not only their quality, but also the rules of various companies and systems. Many of those rules are a pain and inconvenience to me. But, I realize that the system is built to meet needs well beyond just mine. There is a big picture that is easy to miss when you are only focused on yourself.

I have also never found that anyone is interested in hearing me whine about how they should change their practices to comport with my sense of fairness or because I didn't want to deal with their business rules and processes. Maybe because some developers are new businesspersons, they don't realize how free enterprise and the private sector work. Yes, the business world can be arbitrary and even unfair at times, but that's how life is as well. The fact remains that but for Apple creating its ecosystem and market of hundreds of millions of vetted customers for you, you likely wouldn't even have a business as a developer. Doesn't make Apple's system perfect by any means, but have some perspective. Absent Apple's App store, your choice would likely be to work for a large company doing programming and developing apps for them. In that setting you would have infinitely more rules to follow that you disagreed with or that you felt were unfair. Instead, you can be an independent business person and make a living with your part of the almost $60 billion and growing in revenue that Apple has shared with you. It's all about perspective.

 

[citysnaps]

Wow. What a giant mess. This looks good for neither party.

Strange that it sounds like it was resolved: the developer is to describe what happened and distance himself from the account posting fraudulent reviews, and then Apple will re-instate. And then later that day Apple backtracks. I guess they didn't like the apology draft? It was curt and factual, but that kind of is what was agreed to.

I can't entirely blame the guy for posting the audio given Apple cut contact and took the outcome public.

We don't know if there was further communication.

One thing is for sure, him recording a private and confidential phone call and then releasing it to the public demonstrates he's immature and not trustworthy. No way Apple will have anything to do with him after that.

 

[69Mustang]

You need to shake the cobwebs out. Think about what you wrote. Apple already allowed him to dispute being terminated and after listening to his explanation for the fraud associated with his account, and taking into account the extent of the fraud, they didn't find his explanation credible. As a private business, they weren't required to do even that, but of course they are a responsible business so they went above and beyond in my opinion and warned him repeatedly and finally took action.

Your reasoning seems to be that if someone listens to you, but doesn't agree with you, you have some right to, as you put it "further disputes." This isn't a court of law, however, or some collective bargaining agreement, where you have the right to multiple layers of appeal. Under your argument, if Apple denies your fart type app, you should not only have the right to complain about it to them, but then if they don't agree with you, "because it's your livelihood," you are entitled to further disputes/appeals. Who will be at the head of the appellate system you are pushing for? Will Tim Cook be the Supreme Decider? Or will there be an independent Cupertino Board of Appeals with nine justices appointed by a vote of iPhone users?

Someone else needs to shake the cobwebs out. I'm confused as to whether or not you read the updated story and listened to the phone conversation. If you did, and still reached the conclusion above... those cobwebs need more than a shaking. They need to be Dyson'd.

Listening to that call, 1 thing was clear: Apple realized they made a mistake by never calling the guy.
They linked the accounts through his payment info and old equipment, yet they contacted the other person who had the second account and not him. The rep kept repeating and repeating and repeating how they linked the accounts. The rep wanted to make it clear "We didn't make a mistake here." They didn't make a mistake, they made several. They didn't contact the guy who supposedly opened the accounts. They released a statement saying they detected fraud across two accounts when they only detected fraud on one account. Originally wanted the guy to admit to wrongdoing and when he wouldn't, they acquiesced and said just describe the situation.

That wasn't an above and beyond (and they never warned him once btw), that was a CYA call.

 

[Analog Kid]

To Apple. Apple allows developers to dispute issues. In this case, it has disallowed further disputes. I think there should always be a way to dispute an issue with Apple. It can't have a final draw like it's some sort of legal court. This is the livelihood of developers, the same developers that help it get to where it is now.

Always? Forever? Should Apple just keep talking and talking and talking with every fraudulent developer until the dev loses interest and walks away?

Apple had spent 2 years on this when they said "final". Then, when it started becoming clear that there was a nuance they hadn't fully considered, they called the developer and spoke to him personally on the phone to discuss the dispute.

I'm not sure what more you're asking for...