
Dash developer's response to Apple's response - guelo
https://blog.kapeli.com/dash-and-apple-my-side-of-the-story
======
metafunctor
Apple should change their process so that they contact all linked accounts if
it's possible that they would be closed.

End of.

Kind of.

Seems like Apple is working off the assumption that linked accounts are
acutely aware of what each other are doing, and thus are all equally
responsible for each others actions. Clearly this assumption is not valid.

Having listened to the entire call, I think both parties conducted themselves
with respect and good faith. The only question unanswered in the call is “why
didn't Apple notify both accounts?”.

Apple is in a position of disproportionate power here. They created the
platform, they make the rules, everybody either plays by them or doesn't play
at all. I really hope Apple will just be honest and admit that they did, in
fact, have an inadequate process for dealing with this kind of corner case.
They did make a mistake. They closed someone's account when it shouldn't have
been closed.

If Apple is adamant that they made no mistake, they only reinforce the feeling
that Apple has become an inhuman giant, a profit-hunting corporate entity,
that doesn't really care about human values — the antithesis of what Apple
used to be.

~~~
Twisell
Wether apple is inhuman or the developer is a prick is quite an open question.

Both were faulty and they obviously didn't come to an agreement. Apple phone
offer would have gave both of them a clean exit and it might always remain
shady why this agrement wasn't actually implemented...

After carefully listening to the phone call I still don't understand why the
developers was arguing at all. He could have been back in buisness in a breeze
with no harm at all.

~~~
pfg
> Both were faulty and they obviously didn't come to an agreement.

I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion. The developer offered to
publish a blog post saying that the app was removed due to fraudulent activity
on a linked account he was not aware of. Apple accepted and then went ahead
and published a statement accusing him of engaging in fraudulent behaviour
anyway, claiming they gave plenty of warning, but not mentioning that the
activity was limited to the non-Dash account, that the developer claims to
have been unaware of the connection, and that they _did not inform him of the
connection or give any warning on this account_. That's just dishonest.

~~~
Twisell
Well it's more like Apple asked him to post an explanation on his blog. As far
as I know this asked blog post was never published and then Apple realease
it's response.

So again this might well remain unsolved because probably no one appart from
the arguing parties can't tell why the agreement on the blog post in exchange
for dev program re-enrollment wasn't fulfilled by either parties...

~~~
pfg
> As far as I know this asked blog post was never published and then Apple
> realease it's response.

From the blog post:

> Update: Just to make it clear, I have complied with Apple’s request and have
> sent a blog post draft approximately 30 minutes after this phone call ended.
> I have since not received any contact from Apple in any way, and they did
> not respond to my calls. Their recent statements come as a shock as I
> thought we were working together to resolve this issue.

Given that Apple's statement left out several important facts (arguably, to
paint a rosy picture of their behavior), I'm inclined to believe the developer
here.

~~~
Twisell
So maybe we can agree it relate to faith, not facts.

I choose to focus more on the actual phone recording than to the dev post
because at least you can hear both positions.

Indeed something had gone wrong in the process they agreed on phone. But it's
words against words. So I really think it's better not to chose to believe in
one over another, because that would always be tainted by our own personal
predisposition (which of course may differ).

------
ChildOfChaos
What's the issue here? Seriously.....

So this guy has a lot of suspicious activity on accounts linked to him. Apple
have done what they believe is the right thing to protect the integrity of the
app store, in line with there own terms and conditions which the developer has
agreed too.

Said developer has published blog posts online that give Apple very bad
publicity over this, making them look like the bad guy for trying to protect
users and maintain quality (What does apple have to gain by randomly disabling
this guys account?)

Apple have reached out to him and offered to sort the issue out as long as he
posts the facts in a blog post, which is fair after his previous posts have
outright caused Apple PR issues for something that is his own fault.

Apple have also got top execs dealing with this issue, trying to make things
right. Developer doesn't release said blog post, so Apple releases statement
with said facts to protect themselves for further incorrect accusations.

Developer then gets but hurt and releases the conversation that does nothing
to help there situation.

What is the developer trying to achieve here exactly? Sounds like the
developer is guilty as sin for this fraud and is more interested in accusing
apple and covering themselves.

~~~
markbao
> _which is fair after his previous posts have outright caused Apple PR issues
> for something that is his own fault_

1\. That it's his fault isn't so clear. The developer claims he was not
notified that there was a linked account until _two days_ after a ban. If you
listen to the recording, he asks why he was not notified, and the
representative does not give a good answer.

> _Developer doesn 't release said blog post, so Apple releases statement with
> said facts to protect themselves for further incorrect accusations._

2\. If we are to believe the developer, then he actually sent a draft of the
blog post to Apple, then Apple doesn't respond and instead posts a public
statement.

> _What is the developer trying to achieve here exactly?_

3\. Telling his side of the story and what happened. If we just heard the
Apple side of the story and that was it, then we would assume, as many did,
that the developer did do review manipulation. If we didn't hear about his
side, we would have had no idea that Apple discovered the fraud on a _linked_
account and wanted a blog post explanation to reinstate the account. Apple's
statement was incomplete given everything they knew; there was no talk of
"linked" accounts or anything of that sort.

> _Sounds like the developer is guilty as sin for this fraud_

4\. Again, if we are to believe the developer, there was no _intent_ to
defraud anyone, so I think it's a stretch to say that he's "guilty as sin" for
it. The only fraud would be his cousin's fraud that his account is connected
to, which Apple failed to notify the developer about until two days after
closing his account and after the blog post.

------
pier25
If Apple is open to admit the dev back to the program means he didn't really
commit fraud.

And if he didn't commit fraud, why is Apple enforcing him to write a PR blog
post in favor of Apple as a condition to get back into the program?

Apple wants him to write fake review. Oh the irony.

~~~
interpol_p
The phone call doesn't stipulate terms the way you describe.

Apple says his account was linked to the fraudulent account. They define
"linked" as sharing test devices, and having been enrolled under the same
credit card number. The accounts were linked.

They say to the developer that if he explains exactly the above then his
account will be re-instated. It's not a "fake review" if it's stating the
facts.

The part where we can assign blame to Apple is where they failed to notify all
"linked accounts" when one of the accounts was engaged in fraudulent activity.
They only notified the account engaged in the fraudulent activity, but went on
to shut down that account and all linked accounts.

If they had notified all linked accounts then the developer claims he could
have taken steps to resolve this much sooner. (But to argue for Apple's side
here: Apple views all linked accounts as a singular "legal entity," and so
assumed notifying one was the same as notifying them all.)

~~~
davemel37
The gist of this point is the debate around banning guns from people on the
terrorist watch list. One side insists that if they are bad enough to watch,
we shouldn't let them buy guns (this is Apples stance that since our arbitrary
system linked them, that suddenly makes him guilty.) and the people on the
other side, insist that since there is no due process to being added to the
terrorist watch list, it is a way to bypass a constitutional right (which is a
valid point, whats to stop the government from arbitrarily adding people to
these lists and stopping them from buying guns.

Regardless of which side of the argument you lean towards, they can both
legitimately believe they are 100% in the right.

~~~
interpol_p
Both sides agree with the facts of the case:

\- Developer used his credit card to enrol in multiple accounts

\- Developer had same test devices on both accounts

\- One account engaged in fraud

\- One account was notified of fraud

Apple's request is that the developer make these facts known and have his
account reinstated. Because Apple doesn't want to be seen as arbitrarily
shutting down developer accounts — they have reason in this case and want it
known.

It seems like Apple was sympathetic to the claim that the developer lost
control of / forgot about the account which had the fraudulent activity. But
also wanted to be seen as having a reason for pulling Dash in the first place.

They weren't asking the dev to admit to fraud. They were asking him to admit
to opening multiple developer accounts and losing control of one. Which both
sides acknowledge he did. I'm not sure I understand why the developer thinks
this would be an admission of wrongdoing on his part (unless the wrongdoing
was opening multiple accounts and giving them to untrustworthy people, which
he _did_ ).

~~~
pfg
> They weren't asking the dev to admit to fraud. They were asking him to admit
> to opening multiple developer accounts and losing control of one. Which both
> sides acknowledge he did. I'm not sure I understand why the developer thinks
> this would be an admission of wrongdoing on his part

Just to be clear, the developer would've been happy to do exactly that:

> 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.

However ...

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

Apple's press release does not make _any_ mention of the fact that the
fraudulent reviews were for apps from a different (linked) developer account.
They also say that they gave multiple warnings prior to removing the app. The
developer's blog post and his recording shows this only to be true for the
linked account, not his. At the very least, Apple is guilty of lying by
omission.

All in all, I think this is very bad form from Apple. They could've simply
admitted that their notification system does not present a full picture to
developers and fix that, rather than do some weird "we want to make clear we
did nothing wrong" dance, and then go out and make misleading statements.

~~~
moduspwnens14
It's also very possible that the developer is not telling the whole story.
It's not like Apple does this kind of thing every day and their statement is
fairly clear.

They also likely have additional information, like the IP addresses and
timestamps in use when the reports were made. Keep in mind that Apple doesn't
make money (directly) from taking the guy's app down, and even the guy's story
doesn't really make sense.

It hinges on the idea that he bought the developer program for a relative, who
then used a bunch of his devices years later to leave a bunch of fraudulent
positive reviews for his apps and negative ones for competitors. Really?

It sounds to me like Apple had him dead to rights and gave him an out, despite
having no need to do so. He knows he screwed up AND publicized this with his
blog, so he can fix it with his blog or he can lie in the bed he made. He
stuck with his made-up story to save face (at the expense of Apple) so they're
sticking with the original decision.

~~~
davemel37
Two important points.

>It's not like Apple does this kind of thing every day

1\. Just because you don't hear about it doesn't mean it doesn't happen all
the time to less known developers with no public voice.

2\. What's his incentive not to take the out Apple offered him? If he was
guilty & had no problem lying, why the heck wouldn't he grab the opportunity
to be reinstated?

The only rational incentive to hold his ground is if he actually believes he
is in the right. Which indicates that his story is likely true.

I agree that he could just as easily be lying, but the series of events and
decisions fit much better with a guy who feels hurt and in the right, versus a
guy who has no problem lying and being dishonest publicly.

Edit: spelling correction

------
Mithaldu
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.

* They did make a mistake in not verifying whether the second account activity was actually done by Kapeli, yet they want him to claim they made no mistake, otherwise they won't reinstate Dash.

~~~
Reason077
I think Apple's position is reasonable here.

A second developer account, which is the account linked to fraudulent reviews,
was opened using the same credit card, same bank account, and same test
devices as the main Kapeli account. So it's reasonable that they would assume
the same person was in control of both accounts.

The developer claims this is not the case, however. Apple seems willing to
accept that. All they are asking is for him to write a blog post stating these
facts.

~~~
pier25
Not at all.

If Apple is ready to bring him back it's because he didn't commit fraud.

And if he didn't commit fraud he shouldn't need to write a blog post as a
condition to get back. Quite contrary, Apple owes him an apology.

~~~
interpol_p
The blog post request is to make it clear that his account was linked to an
account engaged in fraudulent activity. Apple wanted him to post it because it
would make clear that he opened _both_ developer accounts with his credit
card, even if he eventually lost control of one.

If you open developer accounts that eventually engage in fraudulent activity
you're not "owed" an apology. You should be on top of the things you open in
your name and with your bank details.

Apple should have taken steps to notify _all_ linked accounts. That's their
mistake. But it was the developer's mistake to open an account for someone who
would engage in fraud in the first place.

------
pkamb
According to his blog post, the developer sent his blog draft to Apple and
hadn't yet heard back.

He then today refreshes Loop Insight / iMore and reads "According to Apple,
all attempts to work with the developer __have __failed ".

Was the press release really Apple's answer to the blog draft? Was it _meant_
to torpedo the ongoing "blog negotiation", or independent of it?

~~~
eridius
I'm assuming it was completely independent. And when they said attempts
failed, this was _before_ the account was terminated. It's not referring to
any communication with the developer post-termination.

~~~
pkamb
Re-reading today's press releases, Apple's statements perhaps read as if
they're delayed responses to the initial story (and are oblivious of the "my
cousin did it" angle currently being talked through on the phone).

But the Dash developer clearly read the press releases as responses to the
_ongoing_ communication, rejections of his draft blog post. In his view they
made a _new_ decision and went to the press with it. Account ban final. He has
nothing to lose by posting his telling of the events and the audio.

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

It's really unfortunate for both sides if this drama is the result of bad
timing and/or siloed organizational departments.

~~~
eridius
I think you're correct. I too read Apple's statements today as being something
prepared ahead of time (possibly even communicated to the media earlier and
embargoed), wholly independently of Apple's ongoing talks with Kapeli about
the blog post.

------
mmerickel
After listening to the call it does seem like Apple didn't do due diligence
and notify all parties involved. They notified the owner of the dev account,
but not the owner of each account that was going to be deactivated. Doing this
could have prevented the misunderstanding.

~~~
madeofpalk
I'm sure there was much more communication than just that call. Apple, in a
previous statement, said "Warning was given in advance of the termination and
attempts were made to resolve the issue with the developer but they were
unsuccessful"

~~~
Mithaldu
Listen to the phone call. He asks them why they contacted only the owner of
the linked account and not the details on his account before closing his
account, and Apple does not deny they failed to contact him and only says
"cause they were linked".

There was no other communication with Kapeli.

~~~
IBM
They also told him that, from their perspective, the two accounts belong to
the same entity because they have the same payment details and test devices.

There was no reason for them to know that this developer purchased an account
for someone else and gave them his test devices (which sounds like an excuse
anyone accused of anything gives when they're caught).

~~~
Mithaldu
Apple would also be aware that various sets of contact data are attached to
those accounts, but ignored them. The linking is furthermore also only done on
their side via metadata, and not communicated to, or done by, the developer.

~~~
eridius
Of course the linking isn't communicated to the developer. It wouldn't be an
effective anti-fraud mechanism if it was.

~~~
Mithaldu
I'm not saying they should. I was just enumerating some ways in which notice
could've reached him, but didn't, in response to the GP post trying to claim
he was notified.

------
nihonde
Eh? It's very vague in the blog post, but it sounds like the developer paid
for an Apple account and the device which were used to create fraudulent
reviews. That last looks quite bad and makes Apple's position more
understandable. Why isn't the developer explaining what happened with the dev
account that they opened and funded? You can't just say "I haven't done
anything wrong" under those circumstances without explaining who controls the
offending account and why they might be manipulating App Store reviews.

~~~
jbob2000
Did we read the same article? He used his credit card to pay for a friend's
developer account and gave her one of his old devices to test on. Though he
didn't mention it (sticking to facts) it looks like he was teaching someone
how to make an iOS app and provided a bit of charity.

~~~
Spooky23
...and mysteriously, this friend spontaneously began posting fraudulent
reviews relating to this guy's app?

Sounds like bullshit to me.

~~~
Mithaldu
They didn't relate to Kapeli's app at all, other than that the account on
which they were made was created by his credit card and on an old machine he
gave away.

------
sams99
The flip side of this story is ...

How would you feel if someone swiped a copy of your cc, started an apple
developer account, did a bunch of review freud and then got you kicked out of
the app store.

I think there are some serious issues around due process with account
termination. If something like this was sent originally this would be a non
issue.

> We detected freud from account X that is linked using your credit card
> number to account Y. ... bla bla bla freud is bad ... respond within N hours
> or have your account terminated.

~~~
eridius
Your hypothetical doesn't match reality. The accounts were linked through more
than just the CC, and the CC wasn't stolen anyway (presumably Kapeli didn't
change the CC on his account, and the charge for the new account was never
contested). And there's probably more than just the CC and test devices
anyway, Apple probably used things like detecting that a computer used with
one account was used to create the other, or the creator of the second account
was currently logged in using the apple ID of the first, or something like
that (but they probably don't go into detail about this because they don't
want to tell fraudsters how to avoid detection).

------
andreasley
Lessons:

    
    
      - Apple considers Developer Program memberships "linked to the same entity" if they are paid for by the same credit card.
      - If one of these accounts violates rules, all accounts of this entity are being closed.
      - As always, it's difficult to get any useful information from Apple.
      - Apple will listen and try to find a reasonable solution – at least if the public backlash is big enough.
    

In my opinion, Apple should communicate this more clearly and, upon closing an
account, provide all relevant information to the membership holders as well as
providing a means of appeal. Mistakes do happen.

I welcome Apple's crackdown on fradulent activity. However, as an iOS
developer, stories like these are the reason why I don't want to bet my
livelihood on distributing apps through the App Store. While the risk of
having my app rejected or account closed for no particular reason is small,
it's still there. Are developer's voices being heard, even if they don't have
a blog and a twitter account? My experience with Apple's Bug Reporter says no.

~~~
Mithaldu
Not only credit cards. Hardware can link accounts too, so be very careful whom
you gift or sell your old computers to.

------
wvenable
This is the first I've ever heard of the concept of "linked" Apple developer
accounts. I suspect most people won't come across this particular issue but
it's just another fun app store concept.

~~~
0x0
It's particularly interesting to see that they are cross-checking registered
test device UDIDs across developer accounts.

Suddenly UDIDs need to be kept confidential, or a fraudster might add a high
profile developer's UDID to their own developer account and then drive it into
the ground.

Doing iOS consultancy work for other people's dev accounts could also be more
risky than expected now if you use your personal test devices there.

Remember also that there are probably thousands of third party databases out
there linking millions of UDIDs with real world identities, as it is only in
the last few iOS versions that the device uniqueIdentifier API started
returning blanks. Earlier, many apps and adtracking libraries almost certainly
would include the UDID in server calls during login etc.

~~~
eridius
> _Doing iOS consultancy work for other people 's dev accounts could also be
> more risky than expected now if you use your personal test devices there._

I don't think so. The fact that you have your device registered on two
different accounts is unlikely to be sufficient to link the two accounts. It's
merely one of the ways in which the accounts were linked. Using the same CC
and/or bank details is another. And there's probably other links too that
Apple didn't disclose (because they're only effective at combating fraud if
fraudsters don't know about them).

~~~
0x0
I do agree with your points here. Still gives me some pause with how I treat
my UDIDs going forward.

------
pkamb
I wonder how many other developers have unknown "linked" accounts with a
former coworker or business partner.

------
sathomasga
sounds like the developer got screwed by his relative, not by Apple

~~~
6nf
I doubt a relative would post literally thousands of fake reviews over the
course of many months without the dev's knowledge

~~~
Mithaldu
Read the post again. Kapeli paid for the dev fee for an account he did not
make or control, and gave the person controlling that account hardware he had
bought. Apple proceeded to pull a facebook and marked the two accounts as
linked and treated them as being the same person. Then the person controlling
said account started doing shady stuff, followed by Apple dinging them, but
failing to actually follow up with Kapeli's account to see whether that one is
actually and in reality controlled by the same person.

The relative was acting only on their own and likely not even aware that what
they were doing could hurt Kapeli, and vice versa.

And Apple knee-jerked without questioning their assumptions.

~~~
eridius
> _but failing to actually follow up with Kapeli 's account to see whether
> that one is actually and in reality controlled by the same person_

That doesn't make sense. We're talking about anti-fraud measures here. If they
contacted the other account and said "hey are you the same person as this
first account?" a fraudster would _always say no_ even if the same person
controls both accounts!

~~~
Mithaldu
There are various ways to verify. Photo id, state id, holders of other
associated credit cards (particularly where the cash for the app payments go
to). I'm not saying they should ask nicely, but do due diligence.

------
largehotcoffee
Apple is right here and their decision makes sense. Honestly he's lucky they
are even letting him rejoin the program.

------
lamontcg
Apple and Google and the Walled Gardens they've constructed seriously need
some regulation and need to be considered "common carriers" which provide a
service to the general public without discrimination.

Telephone companies are one such an example.

If you paid the bill of your friends phone one month, and later the phone
company got into a dispute with them and cut off the phone that you do
business on out of your home office -- and then refused to reinstate your
phone line unless you publicly apologized to them, I suspect the FCC would not
approve of their actions.

Apple has way more power in this situation and is much more of a monopoly over
many software developers lives, but is operating by rules that it makes up
itself.

------
jasonfungsing
Wow!!! story changed after listened the call. I don’t think Apple did anything
wrong in this.

------
dragonwriter
So, Apple wanted to secretly pay the developer (via removing a penalty they
had imposed) to produce PR material regarding the trustworthiness of their
actions in the Developer Program.

That's pretty much the same thing they claimed was the basis of the account
suspension, if you think about it. Guess it's a "good for me, but not for
thee" kind of thing.

~~~
oldmanjay
Generally, if you have to turn the situation inside out like a sock to make a
point, it's not going to seem very convincing.

------
timclemans206
Always record your calls if the other side is.

~~~
itg
The audio didn't start from the beginning so it is hard to say if they
notified that they were recording, but in California, all parties must consent
if one wants to record a phone call.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#Uni...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#United_States)

~~~
fruchtose
Since the dev behind Dash is based in Romania[1], is this law still
applicable?

[1] [https://blog.kapeli.com/about](https://blog.kapeli.com/about)

~~~
hydrogen18
Only if you can get a Romanian judge to extradite him to California.

------
Mandatum
How to get an app banned from the app store:

Spend $5000 at Fiverr or similar on bogus reviews.

.. There are no more steps.

This also works with SEO. You can spend under $100 at Fiverr for thousands of
backlinks, get your website flagged by Google and the website needs to
manually remove those backlinks in their console (which takes days, if not
weeks to track down the flagged links).

Rinse and repeat on your competitor once a month to ruin their online
presence.

------
pasbesoin
Sometimes, I miss Steve Jobs.

(In case my oblique comment isn't clear enough: Time for someone with real
authority to cut through the crap on Apple's end.)

------
wineisfine
Oh so he GAVE is old hardware and GAVE his credit card to this relative. How
conveniently coincidental.

I think Apple did fine here, actually.

------
kyriakos
Is it legal in the US to record a phone conversation without both parties
being aware they are recorded?

~~~
xuki
He's not in the US

------
slackstation
This is dumb. He's risking a significant amount of his livelyhood for a
company that doesn't really care all that much about him and he's calling them
out in public.

Dumb move. Most people will forget about this in a week and his business will
be affected for months (in the shortest possible time frame) and probably
permanently.

This is a dangerous bluff to make.

~~~
pier25
Probably not.

Dash is mostly a desktop app and he can keep on selling it outside the MAS.

------
lardissone
Easy. Apple acted prematurely on a Kapeli mistake he doesn't admit.

------
rhapsodic
After listening to the call recording, I can't see how Apple was being all
that unreasonable with the guy.

I suspect that his recording and posting audio of that call is going to blow
up in his face. Especially if he broke any laws by doing it.

~~~
Spooky23
Undisclosed call recording is a really bad idea.

~~~
riskable
Depends on the state. Most states are "one party" where only one party (i.e. a
person making or receiving a call has to know about it).

[http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-
co...](http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-
conversations)

Federal law is "one party" as well.

~~~
pier25
The US law doesn't apply here... he is in Bulgaria I think?

Edit: Romania.

------
rhapsodic
_" 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."_

Sounds a little fishy to me. I'm not saying that he was aware of or involved
in review manipulation that was coming from his "relative's" Apple Developer
account that he happened to pay for.

But I wouldn't bet money that he wasn't.

And the fact that he feels the need to mention giving said relative "test
hardware that I no longer needed" suggests that said hardware might have been
involved in the alleged review fraud.

I don't think this will end well for this guy.

~~~
trymas
Also, aren't credit cards valid for 4 years? Either he had completely new card
at the time or it's a bit fishy.

------
luketheobscure
His summary doesn't at all reflect what was in the phone call that he posted.
He says that Apple insisted he admit wrongdoing, but the representative from
Apple was very clear about the three points he wanted expressed (his account
was "linked to an account with fraudulent activity", he's working with Apple
to unlink the accounts, and that he's working with Apple to get back into the
program). He even specifically says that he won't admit any wrongdoing, and
the Apple representative didn't take issue with that.

~~~
pkamb
There are multiple communications and phone calls in play. It was a previous
phone call on Friday that required admitting wrongdoing.

> 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. [this is the call that was recorded]

