
Apple Responds to Dash Controversy - lazerwalker
http://www.loopinsight.com/2016/10/10/apple-responds-to-dash-controversy-with-proof
======
Lazare
This is a very weird definition of "proof".

A much more accurate headline might be "Apple responds to Dash controversy by
insisting they were right all along and refusing to provide proof."

Edit: The tone of the entire article rubs me the wrong way; it reads like a
press release that nobody could be bothered to re-write.

> The integrity of the App Store is as important to Apple as it is to
> consumers.

Citation needed? Plus it immediately follows an unsubstantiated claim that
Apple has been ignoring evidence of review manipulation for two years, so even
if we take the article at face value...that doesn't _sound_ like they think
it's important?

> This is part of the reason we trust Apple and the App Store.

That's the most circular argument. "We trust Apple because they claim they're
trustworthy!"

~~~
jwilcoxson
Unfortunately The Loop isn't much of a news site, more of a controlled Apple
leak blog. Dalrymple has gotten to the point of being a complete Apple shill.

Edit: Compare the tone of the Loop article to Daring Fireballs:

[http://daringfireball.net/2016/10/apple_dash_controversy](http://daringfireball.net/2016/10/apple_dash_controversy)

Gruber takes a much more unbiased approach, supported well. The Loop article
reads like a statement from the Principal read by your teacher.

~~~
Mithaldu
And here's Kapeli's explanation of what happened:

[https://blog.kapeli.com/dash-and-apple-my-side-of-the-
story](https://blog.kapeli.com/dash-and-apple-my-side-of-the-story)

!!! it includes a recording of a phone call with Apple !!!

Edit: After listening to the first 2 minutes of the call, i can say with
absolute confidence that Apple is straight-up blackmailing him. I would love
to hear opinions on whether this is something that could be taken to court.

Here's the HN submission of the link:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12680597](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12680597)

~~~
galacticpony
After listening to the entire thing, I can say that Kapeli sounds like a
complete ignoramus.

He has registered an account using _his_ credentials, the account was involved
in fraudulent activity, that makes _him_ responsible, as an individual. Why is
Apple supposed to even care that he doesn't control the other account anymore?
He's _supposed_ to control the account, according to the terms of service _he_
agreed to. If he doesn't control it and he doesn't want to be responsible, he
has to close it.

Apple is giving him the _opportunity_ to get back to having a business
relationship, but he doesn't _understand_ the problem. Apparently, neither do
many of the other users on here. Apple has every right to terminate their
business relationship,so how is it blackmail? It's more like a plea bargain...

~~~
Mithaldu
Please read and listen again. He did not register the account, nor use his
credentials (if he had, apple's contact attempts would've reached him). He
only _paid_ for it, and donated hardware.

~~~
galacticpony
The bank account used _is_ credentials and Apple considers both accounts to
belong to (quote) "the same legal entity" based on that fact. This is the way
Apple conducts business.

~~~
Mithaldu
It is indeed the way they do, but you are saying he should've known that, when
he had in fact no way of knowing.

~~~
galacticpony
It is certainly knowable that the identity on the credit card is part of the
verification process and that it must match his own. If the name he entered
wasn't his own, the verification would likely have been denied:
[https://discussions.apple.com/thread/6238222?tstart=0](https://discussions.apple.com/thread/6238222?tstart=0)

That's why I'm suspicious as to which name he actually entered.

~~~
Mithaldu
Suspicion is fine with me. You could ask him via his twitter account. :)

~~~
galacticpony
I don't use twitter, but here is a tweet that suggests it isn't just about the
credit card:
[https://twitter.com/JamesNnnn/status/785645305396027392](https://twitter.com/JamesNnnn/status/785645305396027392)

~~~
Hadi_Asiaie
That's interesting and kinda important evidence that it's more about credit
card and some devices.

------
ropiku
The Dash developer posted his side of the story including a recorded call with
Apple: [https://blog.kapeli.com/dash-and-apple-my-side-of-the-
story](https://blog.kapeli.com/dash-and-apple-my-side-of-the-story)

~~~
guelo
For the conspiracy minded, HN quickly moved that story off the front page
while this Apple press release remains.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12680597](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12680597)

~~~
mintplant
I believe "one front page slot per story" is a matter of general policy.

------
codezero
Having dealt with nefarious characters in a pretty active community that was
quick to defend their own members (even when they were being very naughty)
I'll give my guess as to what's happened, basically assuming good faith in
Apple, mainly to counter a lot of the questions here around "what if a
competitor bought these..."

In cases where Apple is this certain (or seemingly certain) they usually have
a smoking gun. That is, they have some kind of heuristic or action/event that
is unquestionably tied to the developer. Perhaps a bunch of the positive
reviews came from installs that used a developer freebie code, something only
the developer could give out.

Also, smoking guns, when you're dealing with fraud and systems that people can
manipulate, are the kind of thing you don't share with others.

I expect that Apple has seen _a lot_ of competitors trying to screw over other
apps, and they would have exhausted that possibility before banning a popular
app.

~~~
kevin_nisbet
I think the difficult part is correctly attributing the behavior to the
correct party.

My knee jerk reaction to this article, is that if I were nefarious and I
wanted to get a competitor off the appstore, than I would game the review
system on their behalf. I didn't look at it too closely, but I think part of
it they said was also creating negative reviews for competitors.

Like you said, it depends on the smoking gun or the strength of evidence, but
without knowing what criteria Apple uses I think it's difficult to say how
prudent they might be.

I of course have no indication that another party is involved in this case, I
just imagine that it could, along with any number of other scenarios. Without
knowing what evidence or criteria apple uses to make this determination, it's
impossible to say as an external observer.

~~~
codezero
Yep. I look at it this way: Apple has a team, or teams, dedicated to detecting
and stopping fraudulent behavior. People on these teams are very smart and are
likely using very sophisticated methods for detecting fraudulent behavior and
attributing it, and they are very sensitive to false positives.

It's likely better to take no action than to take action, so when you take
action, it is only when there is a very strong positive signal.

Again, I'm making assumptions because this is how the work I did went. There
are a lot of things that can be done before dropping an app from the store
entirely, and Apple is incentivized to keep the apps in the store – they get
paid when people buy them, so removing them is a last straw.

~~~
coldcode
I know of one very large company that paid for downloads and 5 star reviews
for years; I doubt Apple would ever do more than ask pretty please. Given how
far their rating has fallen recently they might have been asked to stop. But
that's a long way from punishment.

------
cyberferret
From 3:52 on the recording with the Apple rep -

"Because we see them as the same entity. If we have accounts that are enrolled
in our programme using the same credit card, they are the SAME legal entity.
They ARE the same..."

Yikes, because I often put contractor developer subscriptions and other
incidental expenses on my company credit card to facilitate turnaround. Now it
looks like I can get black banned if one of my contractors on the other side
of the world goes rogue?!?

~~~
dpark
Yes. I'm not sure what the alternative would be. They let spammy app creators
keep opening accounts indefinitely with no attempt to block them from repeat
behavior?

I would refrain from using your credit card for others' accounts without
serious consideration. I definitely wouldn't do this frivolously or for people
you don't have a real trust relationship with.

------
mhandley
So if you want to get your competitor banned from the App store, just post
lots of spammy positive reviews for their product? How would you defend your
app against such an attack?

~~~
abestic9
While I don't know how their rating system or detection works, I imagine it
would be harder than just posting spammy positive reviews. They would have to
have solid evidence that you're doing it to your own app, or paying someone to
do it on your behalf.

~~~
lewisl9029
Genuinely curious: what are some heuristics that could be used to distinguish
between fraudulent reviews paid for by the developer and those paid for by a
malicious third party?

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems practically impossible to
distinguish between the two unless there was a royal screw up somewhere along
the line.

~~~
HappyTypist
Using freebie promo codes given by the developer

------
Cyph0n
Well that's definitely strange. Why would the developer do such a thing when
Dash is basically the best app of its kind out there?

Edit: To other commenters, why would Apple accuse the dev of faking reviews if
it wasn't true? I don't see Apple getting anything out of it.

~~~
Lazare
As one of the other commenters, I wasn't suggesting that Apple is purposefully
accusing innocent developers as part of a nefarious plot; I was suggesting
that they might be mistaken, and obliquely hinting that it would be nice if
they'd respond to the controversy _with actual proof_ , as the article title
(apparently falsely?) claimed they had.

> I don't see Apple getting anything out of it.

Refusing to admit innocent error is a very understandable course of action.
If, of course, that's what they're doing. From where I stand the entire
situation is completely muddy, and I don't think the linked article clarifies
anything.

~~~
CountSessine
_I was suggesting that they might be mistaken, and obliquely hinting that it
would be nice if they 'd respond to the controversy with actual proof_

They'll never provide proof for the same reason that Google won't publicize
the exact parameters behind search; it would provide bad actors with
information on how to game their system.

------
ceor4
The guy has already admitted that the fraudulent account is from his
"relative" who uses the same credit card and same test devices. It seems like
Apple gave him a lot of leeway due him actually making a good app and being
public.

While I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt, the overwhelming most
likely case is he was doing exactly what Apple thought he was doing. At the
very least, he should take some responsibility for the fact he's paying for
someones account who is actively trying to harm his competitors.

Apple probably could've avoided a lot of this mess by not overtly banning his
account, but doing the except opposite of what his manipulations intended and
make the app almost impossible to find.

------
davemel37
This whole story just comes off as a bunch of bruised egos too proud to get
out of their own way.

They both agree in principle that DASH should be reinstated, and clearly it
being reinstated is in both sides best interests.

Why Does Apple NEED an acknowledgment that they didn't do anything wrong? What
difference would it make?

Why can't Kapeli just acknowledge that he was associated with a bad actor in
Apple's system.

I get the idea of integrity, but I get the idea of self-preservation a little
more...Especially when reality is subjective and your perspective might not be
the only sincerely held belief.

I will never understand the people too principled to just SAY SORRY even if
you believe you are in the right. Are you so principled that you can't even
acknowledge the existence of a potential conflicting view point, at least
enough to admit you might be wrong, when its clearly in your best interest to
just own up, and move on...even if you aren't sincere in your apology!

Edit: I can maybe understand a prisoner refusing to admit to a crime they
didn't commit to a parole board despite contrition being a key to getting
released...but at some point of serving a life sentence, you have to kick into
self preservation mode and just admit to wrongdoing, and spend your free years
atoning for your lie.

~~~
ceor4
> Why Does Apple NEED an acknowledgment that they didn't do anything wrong?
> What difference would it make?

I get what you're saying, but if Apples gets hammered with bad publicity every
time their anti-fraud team does the right thing, they're going to stop doing
the right thing.

Especially as this case is going to be cited for years to come, it's important
apple has something to point to and say: "We didn't just arbitrarily ban the
account, it was involved in manipulating our reviews"

~~~
davemel37
>"We didn't just arbitrarily ban the account, it was involved in manipulating
our reviews"

>anti-fraud team does the right thing

That's not what happened though. What happened is that Apple has their
internal tools to link fraudulent accounts, to keep out bad actors, and this
"good" account got caught in that web. You can just as easily argue that he
didn't actually do anything wrong. After all, if he did Apple wouldn't even
consider reinstating him. The fact that Apple linked the accounts internally
doesn't actually point to any guilt or wrongdoing...It could even be pointed
to Apple's policies arbitrarily hurting the little guy.

I can see both sides very clearly and I can see a middle ground very clearly.
The only thing stopping this from being resolved is "bruised egos" on both
sides.

Edit: Added in second quote

~~~
vlozko
But what if the developer did do something wrong and the account is not so
"good" as the developer is trying to make it out to be. There's too much that
stinks about it:

1\. Opened up a developer account for a relative 4 years ago. Relative. Yeah,
ok. And 4 years ago... don't credit cards usually expire before then?

2\. The same devices were being used on both accounts. While the info isn't
available, I'm sure Apple can know if these same devices were still in active
use by both accounts.

3\. Dash isn't the problem. Too many people seem fixated on the notion of why
the developer needed to do review manipulation on Dash when that's not at all
the problem. It's the other apps on the other account that were the subject of
App Store review manipulation. These apps contained descriptions that
contained the developer's own email address in it:
[http://appshopper.com/search/?searchdev=603546869&sort=name&...](http://appshopper.com/search/?searchdev=603546869&sort=name&dir=asc)

~~~
davemel37
I do agree that he could totally be lying...but that doesn't seem to be Apples
belief or they wouldn't reinstate him.

Also, if he really was guilty, why would he poke the bear after apple agreed
to reinstate him...why not apologize and get off scott free.

It appears to me like both sides agreed to a set of facts and now its just a
matter of setting the record straight. No one seems to want to admit fault and
they are being childish about that since its in both of their interests to do
so.

------
jamesk_au
In telling the other side of the story, the Dash developer published his
(apparently secret) recording of a 7-minute long telephone call he had with a
person at Apple who purports to be speaking on behalf of Phil Schiller.[1]

Leaving aside whatever inferences might be drawn from the fact that the
developer saw fit to record and publish the recording in the first place,
here's a brief summary of what was said:

\- There was at least one other developer account "linked" to the Dash
developer account. In this context, "linked" means that the accounts "shared
the same details": they were enrolled in the Apple Developer Program "with the
same credit card number", and "used the same test devices".

\- Apple says that at least one of those other developer accounts "definitely
had fraudulent activity": "It was not your direct account but it was a linked
account." Warnings about fraudulent activity were sent to the linked account.
No warnings were sent to the Dash account.

\- The Dash developer asked: "Why didn't you notify me beforehand though, and
let me know that an account that's linked to mine is doing fraudulent
activity, so I can do something about it?" The answer is "because they were
linked"; "we see them as the same entity". "If we have accounts that have
enrolled in our program using the same credit card, they are the same legal
entity; they are the same." So Apple believed they had notified the Dash
developer because Apple believed the same person was behind the linked
accounts. (Prudence would dictate notifying all accounts at risk of
termination; we'll see what happens in future.)

\- Apple's position is that no mistakes were made. The Dash developer account
was linked to an account with fraudulent activity based on the facts known to
Apple.

\- The Dash developer says (in his blog post) that he "helped a relative get
started by paying for her Apple's Developer Program Membership using my credit
card" and "handed her test hardware that I no longer needed".

\- Apple says they are "working with" the Dash developer to "unlink the
accounts", which (I speculate) may involve some attempt to verify the Dash
developer's claim that the linked account was used only by a relative and not
by him. If the accounts are unlinked, there would be no reason for the Dash
account to remain closed.

[1] [https://blog.kapeli.com/dash-and-apple-my-side-of-the-
story](https://blog.kapeli.com/dash-and-apple-my-side-of-the-story)

~~~
Hadi_Asiaie
In one part of the conversation, they mentioned that the accounts used the
same bank account(Not only credit card). I assume it means the bank account
that the developers is get paid with. That's even more convincing that
accounts were linked. Note that you can use "arbitrary" bank accounts to get
paid with(Source: I'm an apple developer.)

Also The apple guy said it uses same test devices. As usual the devil is in
details, it's important if they still uses the same devices and in what
extent.

~~~
nodamage
If both developer accounts were using the same bank account to receive Apple's
payments, and that bank account was owned by the Dash developer, then I think
it's entirely reasonable on Apple's part to conclude that the same developer
was effectively in control of both accounts. And it would also imply that the
Dash developer was effectively profiting from the fradulent activity occurring
in the other account.

------
ben174
So if I want to remove a competing app from the app store, all I have to do is
buy them a bunch of fake reviews and Apple will ban them?

~~~
Bud
No. There is no evidence for this.

You're assuming that Apple has no process to distinguish between intentional
fraudulent reviews coming from the developer in question, and random
fraudulent reviews from others. But that assumption is not supported by any
facts.

~~~
macinjosh
There is no evidence it isn't this either. Detecting fake reviews is easy,
detecting the source (probably a click farm) is probably pretty easy too but
getting to the bottom of who hired the click farm would be extremely
difficult. You'd probably need assistance from law enforcement or a court,
probably in a developing country, to get that information from the click farm
operators.

I would think its pretty easy to hire a click farm to blatantly post fake
reviews to the app store. The worse the click farm is at covering their tracks
the better if you're trying to get a competitor banned by Apple.

Dash was a popular app among developers who use Apple products I doubt the
fake reviews would be needed. I wouldn't be surprised at all if this was
caused by a third party.

------
encoderer
Sigh. Apple comes off very poorly when you listen to that audio recording. The
rep on the phone seems clueless that he is possibly causing more damage with
this posture than would've happened had they just explained their side of the
story and re-enabled the account.

Apple should have just told us that the account was linked to a fraudulent
account so they were correct to pull the plug quickly to prevent add'l harm,
and that on further review it was clear that the relationship between the
accounts was not as close as the facts initially suggested. That would seem
entirely reasonable to me.

That said, by not notifying both accounts it seems that problems like this are
totally foreseeable. It also suggests that if a malicious actor was able to
get a developer's credit card he would have a fair shot at getting an app
delisted.

------
newsat13
Didn't the dash author say that it was inexplicably removed with no warning.
Now this press release says otherwise...

For people saying this was already in top of app store, well, there was rating
manipulation. That's why it was on the top (?)

~~~
ParadoxOryx
According to his blog post [1], it sounds like the other account that was
engaged in fraudulent activity was notified, but "his" account was not.

[1]: [https://blog.kapeli.com/dash-and-apple-my-side-of-the-
story](https://blog.kapeli.com/dash-and-apple-my-side-of-the-story)

~~~
newsat13
Can someone explain how 1 account can act "nefariously" ?

------
0x0
The root problem in this controversy, in my opinion, is that iOS offers no
other way to install third party applications outside the appstore for the
general public. If a blackmailing attacker hits your app with fraudulent
reviews on purpose you have nowhere to go with your app. If you could at least
host the .ipa for installation on your own web page, such tactics wouldn't
necessarily turn into a death sentence, just a loss of access to an effective
sales channel (the app store)

~~~
Mao_Zedang
Platforms that dont support side loading need to be held to a higher standard
than those that dont.

------
yladiz
I'm willing to give Apple the benefit of the doubt here, because they are
unlikely to release information as specific as this to the press unless it's
been checked and vetted, even if they don't release the proof to the public.
And without the proof, it's really their word against the developer's. Does
Apple have a bad reputation when it comes to this kind of thing? If not, why
are people so strongly on the developer's side?

------
falcolas
So, now we have a "He Said; She Said" situation. Who do we trust? Apple?
They've made mistakes before, and need to protect their integrity. The Dash
developer? It's in his best interests to paint himself in the best light.

What's worse, by coming out, the Dash developer has forced Apple into a
defensive position, ensuring that Dash will never appear on iOS again. Dash
has now lost revenue and exposure opportunities, and Apple's consumers are
reminded once again that they don't have the right to control their devices.

Both sides want to come out of this looking good, and right now neither side
does.

~~~
falcolas
And hence comes the recordings.

Dash developer caught up in an errant fraud check? Eh, it happens. At least
this is Apple; were it Google, the developer would be right proper fucked
(then again, his post made it to HN, so he might have gotten some special
attention).

However, making that resolution conditional on the developer making Apple look
good in a blog post? That feels pretty scummy here again to me.

The error seems innocent enough to me (though the party line of "we can't tell
you why you were shut down" is the worst way to interact with your
developers), but the conditional resolution is not making Apple look good.

------
protomyth
I get the feeling the bigger problem for Apple is the number of developers who
really don't believe them.

------
daeken
There's proof, but we're not going to link it because ... reasons. Why would
they not include any proof that might exist?

~~~
xsmasher
Because they're in an arms race with review spammers, and telling the spammers
how they were detected causes them to evolve new, undetected behaviors.

It might not be fair, but it's logical.

~~~
x0x0
While Apple understandably may be very reluctant to disclose review validation
/ fraud detection methods, they could certainly show some trusted media figure
-- Marco, some other popular ios developer, maybe even Gruber -- some detailed
bit of proof and put this controversy to rest. If, indeed, they have any
proof.

~~~
newscracker
That would be pointless because these people would be accused of being shills
who would always sing praises of Apple. There's no easy way to handle giving
away the proof and having an expectation that it would indeed help Apple.
Depending on the material, there could be nuances that could be interpreted
out of context…the context being the entire chain of events and internal and
external communications that took place.

------
hkjayakumar
Here's the developer's side of the story (includes a recording of a phone call
between him and Apple)

[https://blog.kapeli.com/dash-and-apple-my-side-of-the-
story](https://blog.kapeli.com/dash-and-apple-my-side-of-the-story)

------
feelix
What I dont understand is that if Apple are so vigilant in removing false
reviews, and if they're so sensitive to fraudulent reviews (as I wish they
would be), why is it that seemingly everywhere I look it is full of them.

Take this app for example: [https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/disk-drill-media-
recovery/id...](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/disk-drill-media-
recovery/id431224317?mt=12)

(click on "All versions"). You'll see there's HUNDREDS of fake reviews, all
giving it 5 stars, and in all cases it is the only review that account has
ever made.

------
rythie
What if the fake reviews were paid for by a competitor, so they would get
banned?

~~~
Bud
What if Apple just happened to be smart enough to think of the most obvious,
very first question that would need to be asked in this situation?

~~~
chc
That would be wonderful. Do you have any evidence that this is the case?

I mean, we are talking about the same company that just a few years back
subjected all iPhone developers to such a strict NDA that they were
technically not allowed to discuss a WWDC panel they were watching with the
person sitting next to them.

------
mmel
So there's an incentive to write fraudulent, positive reviews for your
competitors apps. Noted.

~~~
stephen_g
No, you have to have an account that your competitor opened with their own
credit card and gave to you, and then you publish an app for that account and
buy fraudulent reviews for it.

The account that the fraud happened on, and all the other accounts that appear
'linked' will be closed.

The issue was with the account he gave to his relative, which Apple probably
assumed was his account because it used the same credit card and test devices
registered to both accounts.

~~~
FireBeyond
"No, you have to have an account that your competitor opened with their own
credit card and gave to you, and then you publish an app for that account and
buy fraudulent reviews for it."

implying that this is the only way Apple would consider fraudulent positive
reviews to be developer's fault? Unlikely.

------
matt4077
California is two-party consent, so I hope that phone call starts with the
consent of Apple's employee to be recorded.

If it's not, it'd be quite a blow to the dev's credibility. (and a felony).

~~~
ParadoxOryx
He's based in Romania, where (as best I can tell) one-party consent is legal
[1].

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#Roman...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#Romania)

~~~
matt4077
California doesn't care:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#One-p...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#One-
party_consent_states)) "he California Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that if a
caller in a one-party state records a conversation with someone in California,
that one-party state caller is subject to the stricter of the laws and must
have consent from all callers (cf. Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc., 39
Cal. 4th 95[38]). "

But it does make it less relevant at least practically.

On another note, I tried to find out where he lives, but it's nowhere to be
found on the website. I really prefer business websites that give me at least
a full name and a city. I don't even know why – I'm not planning to write/stop
by/sue – it just feels shady.

(whois data is similarly anonymous – I'm starting to see Apple's point of
view)

~~~
toyg
_> California doesn't care_

Romania doesn't care either, considering how it is not subject to US law.

------
robryk
So, in order to punish the developer of an app Apple takes an action that
significantly hurts the users of that app.

~~~
ixtli
I know this doesn't treat the totality of what you're saying but in the past
(and I assume it to be the case here) if you paid for the app on the app store
it'll be available for download even if it's delisted. This was the case with
the game Edge when they got targeted by a trademark troll for their name.

~~~
ParadoxOryx
I believe the app stays available in the Purchases section like you said if
the developer "unpublishes" the app, but not if the account or app is
"terminated" by Apple.

In addition to Dash (which I'm not able to locate in my Purchases tab), I've
noticed this to be the case with apps that violate Apple's rules, like those
hidden proxies or emulators that have sprung up over the years and were later
removed by Apple.

------
some1else
Why won't they admit their system was flawed? They may be right in considering
accounts funded with the same payment source as linked accounts, but they
never notified both accounts about the impending closure.

------
protomyth
This is the part I'm unclear on:

 _What Apple has done: on Friday they told me they’d reactivate my account if
I’d make a blog post admitting some wrongdoing. I told them I can’t do that,
because I did nothing wrong. On Saturday they told me that they are fine with
me writing the truth about what happened, and that if I did that, my account
would be restored. Saturday night I sent a blog post draft to Apple and have
since waited for their approval.

Tonight Apple decided to accuse me of manipulating the App Store in public via
a spokesperson._

That makes me wonder about what the heck happened?

------
ixtli
Can anyone who bought Dash confirm or deny that you can still access it from
the "purchased" tab in the app store? This used to be the behavior for paid
apps that were delisted† and I assume it still is.

† I remember it happening for the game Edge when it was taken down due to
trademark trolling. It was later reinstated.

~~~
matt4077
No, it's gone.

------
sintaxi
Where does Apple respond? Or is this blog maintained by Apple?

------
buckbova
> Almost 1,000 fraudulent reviews were detected across two accounts and 25
> apps for this developer so we removed their apps and accounts from the App
> Store

Sounds damning. Was this a paid app? How many downloads did it have?

------
davemel37
The amount of power Companies like Apple, Google, Facebook and others have to
completely destroy and make businesses, makes me wonder if there should be
some internet arbitration court to at least let people present their case to a
third party. I get the companies would never want to give up this power and I
get that every country has their own court system and laws...

This is more a middle ground, for people caught in the cross hairs to present
their case. Maybe like WIPO arbitration for trademark domains.

------
Mao_Zedang
this is a new attack vector that will definitely start getting used against
competitors.

------
a-b
Rotten fruit. I don’t give a shit about reviews, I’m using this app on daily
basis and I’ve paid for this app so I want future updates!

------
fenomas
Meta: at times like this Apple is hurt by its policy of doing zero Developer
Relations.

If there was somebody - anybody - in Apple who spoke with a voice developers
trusted, right now they could be explaining what in hell's going on. Having
Apple Marketing leak something to somebody who leaks it to Gruber, who then
reports it as hearsay, is a damned shoddy substitute.

------
sixhobbits
I'm not familiar with this site, so this might be ignorant, but it seems
strange. Bad copy on a wordpress site. At first is looks pretty official, but
none of the "according to Apple" or "Apparently" quotes are cited or linked.
Did Apple release a statement or press release about this? At the end it just
says "it seems to me...". Who is this guy? Do we have a better source for this
news?

~~~
dangoor
This is Jim Dalrymple's site (I might have the spelling wrong). He is well-
known among Apple bloggers to be well connected to Apple people. I've seen
sites like MacRumors use a "Yep." confirmation from Dalrymple as evidence of a
rumor, so I guess folks have some reason to believe he's connected.

------
Shivetya
so was he migrating his account from type to another in an attempt to disrupt
the investigation? Perhaps as a means to break connections between accounts ,
apps, and such?

------
fcoury
This may sound stupid, and I am not by any means saying this is what happened
here, but would it be possible for someone to maliciously buy fake reviews for
a competitor app? What would happen in this scenario?

