Comment by lapcat
1 day ago
> he quietly admitted online
How does one "quietly" admit online?
> he shared his developer account with a relative who was making scam apps and doing bad stuff.
> his account was indeed committing scams and bad stuff.
This is incorrect.
The story was actually covered by Daring Fireball https://daringfireball.net/2016/10/apple_dash_controversy and well as by Michael Tsai https://mjtsai.com/blog/2016/10/10/apple-and-kapeli-respond/ and others.
Popescu said, "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 also published a recording of a phone call with Apple (which by the way completely destroys your narrative of "quietly admitted online") that proved, among other things, that Apple did not consider Popescu himself to be a scammer. Moreover, Apple later allowed the removed app to return to the App Store: https://blog.kapeli.com/dash-for-ios-back-on-the-app-store
Gruber himself said in a footnote, "If, as Popescu claims the two accounts were run by two different developers, it would explain the extreme discrepancy in quality. The account that committed review fraud was publishing dozens of, well, rather junky looking apps of dubious utility. The other account only published two apps: Dash for Mac and Dash iOS, both of which are of outstanding quality and utility."
As far as I'm aware, Popescu never lied, whereas Godier clearly did.
Yes, your response is mostly accurate. But lets not hide under some "Popescu never lied". I'm not going to waste time really explaining the nuance of Popescu knowing that he had shared an account or payment instrument and then acted like he was 100% innocent when Apple explained to him in very clear terms what the issue was and was told exactly what he needed to do in order to resolve it and get back into good standing.
Not sure if you have some kind of interest in Popescu or a need to defend him. He defamed himself.
EDIT: Oh and since you're stuck on the "quietly admitted", not sure what's so difficult to understand about that. He cried to the press, the press ran with it, turns out he hid the fact and then only quietly admitted that he knew about the account sharing. Understand now?
> I'm not going to waste time really explaining the nuance
That's a copout for such a harsh public accusation.
> Popescu knowing that he had shared an account or payment instrument
Or? So you're already equivocating. Originally you claimed that he was sharing the account, but then when I pointed out that he only paid for the other account, you've moved the goalposts to "shared an account or payment instrument". But which one is it exactly, shared account or payment instrument?
> Apple explained to him in very clear terms what the issue was and was told exactly what he needed to do in order to resolve it
I don't think this ever happens when Apple auto-closes an account for what Apple thinks is fraud. Apple is ruthlessly secretive. You have to go to press just to get Apple to make a statement.
"A few hours ago I received a “Notice of Termination” email, saying that my account was terminated due to fraudulent conduct. I called them again and they said they can’t provide more information."
Later: "Apple contacted me and told me they found evidence of App Store review manipulation. This is something I’ve never done. Apple’s decision is final and can’t be appealed."
It's basically the same with all of those giant tech corporations. They auto-close accounts for no apparent reason and refuse to tell people why.
> Not sure if you have some kind of interest in Popescu or a need to defend him.
I have an interest in truth and accuracy. I don't think your claims are true and accurate.
> He defamed himself.
I disagree.
> turns out he hid the fact and then only quietly admitted that he knew about the account sharing. Understand now?
I understand but dispute this claim. What is your evidence, including the specific timeline?
I've already provided multiple links with extensive coverage of the story.
huh? Popescu ruined his reputation within the community from this behavior. Everyone was misled by his initial claims, because he had been in contact with Apple over his misconduct for quite some time before he was kicked off the App Store and then went crying to the press with lies.
Not sure how that is not everything I claimed it to be. Omitting or saying one thing and then eventually admitting "oh yeah, actually this other thing did happen", its irrelevant what that "thing" was, because it was material to the kick ban and it was a lie by omission. Is that what you're pulling hairs over?
Defending an individual against megaEvilCorp is commendable, but in this case (and many other cases), Apple is in the right here. The developers who get kick banned are all scammers or worse.
1 reply →