Umm...I have no idea where you saw this invisible phrase "publicly disclose" in my post, but I can promise you, it's not there.
Please, if you're gonna disagree with me, at least disagree with what I've actually said. Not with what you think I said.
Are these not your words from your previous post: "But they give absolutely ZERO further information to developers beyond some vague claim. And there is
no appeal process."
What information should they be providing to developers about someone elses case? And why do you assert there is NO appeal process? For all you or I or anyone know the decision WAS appealed and there is no FURTHER appeals. So yeah I did disagree with what you ACTUALLY said.
[doublepost=1475864455][/doublepost]
Kapeli could be guilty. My point is that Apple needs a more transparent arbitration process including warnings and disclosure of evidence because false positives can and do happen.
Apple doesn't NEED a more transparent process, you simply believe they should have a more transparent process, and thats fine. But clearly they don't NEED one if its not important to them or its not an issue they see coming up often enough to merit one, or any other number of reasons why decisions like this aren't made and aired publicly.
[doublepost=1475864650][/doublepost]
The problem here is Apple's autocratic removal of an app with no recourse for the developer. Apple will never show any evidence so how can the developer respond with anything other than "its not true." The developer can't prove a negative. Apple has responsibility to show why they did this.
Why do you assume there is no recourse for the developer. We know from previous incidents that Apple can and does work with developers when there are issues with apps or the App Store process. Saying that THIS situation can't be appealed further doesn't mean there was no recourse in the first place. You also don't know what evidence Apple did or did not provide in this case to the developer. Not providing it publicly and not providing it at all are two different things, and the former doesn't mean the later. Apple doesn't have a responsibility to show why they did this to outside parties (though it may be a good PR decision for them to do so).
[doublepost=1475864835][/doublepost]
In this case a respectable Devs reputation has been ruined with no evidence presented, no appeals process, no warnings. He may or may not be guilty but Apple offers no recourse or safeguards against false positives in their terms of agreement. If I was a budding developer I'd think twice about contributing Apple's app store if this is the level of respect I'd be given and this is the way I would be treated. Google's terms of agreement may be just as bad but it would make the most sense to be as open as possible with Developers.
"In this case a respectable Devs reputation has been ruined" - Has it? Do you have evidence to support that? Certainly Apple did not trumpet blast this news, the Dev did.
"with no evidence presented" - To you and me perhaps, that does not mean the dev was not presented with evidence.
"no appeals process" - You don't know what happened between the Dev and Apple.
"no warnings" - You also don't know this. You are assuming it.