Doubt Cast on 'Dash' Developer's Defense Against Apple's Claim of Review Fraud [Updated]

[MacRumors]

Last week, popular API documentation browser Dash was removed from the App Store after Apple accused the app's developer of "fraudulent conduct," including almost 1,000 fraudulent reviews detected across two accounts and 25 apps.

The two accounts were linked together by common credit card, bank account, developer ID login, and bundle ID, according to iMore.

Dash developer Bogdan Popescu responded with his side of the story the next day, claiming the secondary account exists because he helped a relative get started by paying for her Apple Developer Program Membership using his credit card.

What I've done: 3-4 years ago I helped a relative get started by paying for her Apple's Developer Program Membership using my credit card. I also handed her test hardware that I no longer needed. From then on those accounts were linked in the eyes of Apple. Once that account was involved with review manipulation, my account was closed.

Popescu said he "was not aware" his developer account was linked to another until Apple contacted him two days after removing Dash from the App Store.

However, the developer community has presented compelling evidence suggesting otherwise -- which we present as speculation.

Earlier this week, developer Steven Troughton-Smith appeared to have discovered the secondary account, belonging to Mihaela Popescu. A cached iTunes page shows a list of 19 apps belonging to this account, tied to the same com.kapeli bundle identifier, all of which have since been removed from the App Store.

MacRumors forum member frumpsnake dug further and discovered some of those apps were at one time promoted on his website, including iGuard and moveAddict. Kapeli, the name of Bogdan's company, also tweeted about moveAddict, and there is even a moveAddict press release tied to his name.

A cached version of Bogdan's website shows moveAddict and iGuard​

From the press release:

Bogdan Popescu, a Software Engineering student at Coventry University, took this as a challenge from Apple - moveAddict is the result of one month's work.

MacRumors reader architect1337 subsequently discovered the screenshot file below, which has a date of Sunday, January 12, 2014, belongs to a user called "bogdan."

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.

Apple had agreed to reinstate Dash on the App Store if Bogdan agreed to acknowledge fraudulent activity occurring between the two linked accounts, but he refused. Apple then commented on the matter publicly, at which point Bogdan disclosed a private phone call with the company, so it's unclear if that offer still stands.

Update: Bogdan Popescu has provided his side of the story in a statement given to iMore, explaining that the secondary account belonged to his mother and that he had transferred over some apps to focus his attention on Dash.

(Thanks, Alastair!)

Article Link: Doubt Cast on 'Dash' Developer's Defense Against Apple's Claim of Review Fraud [Updated]

 

[solace]

Smelled fishy from the moment he opened his mouth honestly.

 

[OliverFoggin]

I'm not sure if it's just me but that screenshot doesn't appear to show what you are saying it shows.

 

[Stella]

Given this new evidence, the developer's defence is looking iffy. Unfortunately.

 

[WiseAJ]

Should have taken the deal. I have a feeling that it is completely off the table now.

 

[Rudy69]

People gave me a hard time when I said the whole thing was fishy and I didn't believe his story. Glad to see I was right

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

I'm not sure if it's just me but that screenshot doesn't appear to show what you are saying it shows.

I was thinking the same thing. I wonder if it's the wrong screenshot, or if they're saying that the metadata for the file points at that person.

 

[Carlanga]

The guy should have moved on since he knew he got caught. Just create a new dev account and give free licenses to previous owners or free for release day and move on.

Instead, he though since Apple doesn't divulge reasons to remove accounts that they would just stay quiet, but Apple doesn't like bad press and there is no law being broken to discuss it so they did it and he got caught off guard.

He played the system to get to the top since he knew he had a good app, he just needed to be seen. His hustle worked great, but he messed up in the end by taking an unnecessary risk.

 

[nagromme]

No opinion on the truth here—but is it possible he knew about his relative's apps, helped promote them (including on his site), but did NOT know the accounts were still linked? (And in theory, did not know about the review abuse?)

 

[MH01]

Of all the apps that have "5 star" rating in the AppStore , I'm surprised that is still making news, in my opinion there is quite a bit of review manipulation.

 

[Kaibelf]

Given this new evidence, the developer's defence is looking iffy. Unfortunately.

I disagree in part. There's nothing unfortunate. Apple gave the guy numerous chances to clean up his act, and instead he tried to turn it into a circus. In the end, it reinforces that Apple is at least doing their due diligence and not being precipitous about things like this.
[doublepost=1476374732][/doublepost]

No opinion on the truth here—but is it possible he knew about his relative's apps, helped promote them (including on his site), but did NOT know the accounts were still linked? (And in theory, did not know about the review abuse?)

In the end, the buck stops with him.

 

[iMacDragon]

I was thinking the same thing. I wonder if it's the wrong screenshot, or if they're saying that the metadata for the file points at that person.

It said the user who posted the screenshot was called bogdan, and the screenshot shows one of the apps from the other account.

 

[asleep]

Always enjoy following instances of crowdsourcing the truth.

Popescu's "the dog ate my homework" excuse never passed the smell test.

 

[jmh600cbr]

Should have taken the deal. I have a feeling that it is completely off the table now.

What deal?

 

[Kebabselector]

What deal?

"Apple had agreed to reinstate Dash on the App Store if Bogdan agreed to acknowledge fraudulent activity occurring between the two linked accounts, but he refused. Apple then commented on the matter publicly, at which point Bogdan disclosed a private phone call with the company, so it's unclear if that offer still stands"

 

[realeric]

I hope Apple ban the guy permanantly. Manuplating reviews is a crime.

 

[pdaholic]

Well, the guy is getting 15 minutes for an app which I have read is actually good (I have no experience with it). Might open new doors for him. Like Barnum said, "no such thing as bad publicity."

 

[Stella]

I say "Unfortunate" because I'd like to believe and hoped the Developer didn't post fraudulent reviews.

I disagree in part. There's nothing unfortunate. Apple gave the guy numerous chances to clean up his act, and instead he tried to turn it into a circus. In the end, it reinforces that Apple is at least doing their due diligence and not being precipitous about things like this.
[doublepost=1476374732][/doublepost]

In the end, the buck stops with him.

 

[thisisnotmyname]

When this story first broke I expected it would forever be a "he said, she said" type of thing as Apple wouldn't release specifics of their findings. Given that an Apple exec responded personally to an email though and stated definitively that there had been manipulation I felt they must have pretty clear evidence internally. Had they not, he simply wouldn't have responded to the email; that sort of response tells me he looked into it directly and was satisfied with what the team had used as the basis of the ban. These additional data now seem to be shoring up what I previously could only suspect was the case. I think that's a good thing as this was creating a fair amount of doubt in the developer community about the overall process.

Still plenty of room here for Bogdan to have not been fully aware of what was going on in his name but at this point if I were him I'd be directing my anger at the relative I had assisted that then went on to game the system rather than Apple.

 

[ke-iron]

People gave me a hard time when I said the whole thing was fishy and I didn't believe his story. Glad to see I was right

Yup. Apple is very just and through. They will not remove your app unless it's breaking some rule they're strict about. Him being a liar about it is not helping either.

 

[bbeagle]

People gave me a hard time when I said the whole thing was fishy and I didn't believe his story. Glad to see I was right

Because most people on here are Apple trolls who are against Apple's every move.

 

[mangonights]

Dash is actually a good app. As a dev, it can be very handy. So this whole thing is a bit crazy in that respect, it wasn't needed.

 

[miniyou64]

I disagree in part. There's nothing unfortunate. Apple gave the guy numerous chances to clean up his act, and instead he tried to turn it into a circus. In the end, it reinforces that Apple is at least doing their due diligence and not being precipitous about things like this.
[doublepost=1476374732][/doublepost]

In the end, the buck stops with him.

Moral superiority. This whole thing is petty.

 

[philosopherdog]

I think developers should think twice about bad mouthing Apple by running to the media. Come on, they're providing the tools and platform. Play by the rules. Have respect. Don't lie. Don't cheat. Pretty basic.

 

[Analog Kid]

However, the developer community has presented compelling evidence suggesting otherwise -- which we present as speculation.

I don't think compelling evidence can be speculation... I think it has to be one or the other.

speculate |ˈspekyəˌlāt| verb [ no obj. ] 1 form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence

Perhaps you meant to present it as circumstantial?

circumstantial |ˌsərkəmˈstan(t)SH(ə)l| adjective1 (of evidence or a legal case) pointing indirectly toward someone's guilt but not conclusively proving it.