frxntier

TL;DR: Long time reader, love what you do, but (IMVHO) this article wasn’t one of your best 🙁.

I agree with the sentiment of those who are wondering why this article exists, although I won’t cause a scene about it.

It’s just a strange, meandering combination of seemingly random thoughts that I couldn’t make much sense of. In other words, I actually couldn’t figure out what the authors’ point was; something like ‘The word Pro is a marketing term’? But what is the conclusion here? It seems like the conclusion is the same as the premise.

There have been a few of these pieces popping up lately and I don’t even have any good constructive feedback to give you apart from the fact that for some reason these editorials are increasingly difficult to understand, or they seem to concentrate on very uninteresting points.

Don’t want to be negative, but when the comments section turns into you guys having to kind of restate your arguments, it’s clear people don’t understand what your point is (as I also didn’t)—although they could probably state that with more decorum haha

Anyway, all that aside, I like what you guys do so would love to see these editorials tightened up a bit so I enjoy coming here for a good read of interesting stuff rather than it feeling like a bit of a slog haha

🤙🏼🤙🏼👍🏼😌😀

Mike Wuerthele said:

djsherly said:

Mike Wuerthele said:

indiekiduk said:

"Several people have started threads on Apple's support site but had them deleted, iFixit said." if that is true then that is shocking behaviour by Apple's forum team. Is there any evidence like screenshots?

We didn’t have any problems finding forum threads about it.

Yeah, but did you find the deleted ones? One statement does not disprove the other :-)

Not so sure it’s shocking behaviour in any event, those threads might have violated other site standards, like ad hominem (which is forbidden here too but not heavily policed).

I wasn't trying to disprove iFixit's statement. Maybe there were deleted threads, and at this point that would be impossible to prove or disprove given the alleged deletion of them. However, there are also threads about it that haven't been deleted, so Apple clearly isn't nuking them all.

You misquoted iFixit. What they actually said was, “There are also multiple people who claim to have started threads on Apple’s support site only to have them deleted.”

iFixit says they ‘claim’ to have ‘started threads’ NOT that ‘several people HAVE started threads.’ There’s an important distinction: iFixit is not saying that they know anyone has started a thread which was subsequently deleted. They are saying that ‘several people have claimed to have started threads’ which may be an interesting comment on the situation but it is no way represented as ‘people HAVE started threads and they’ve been deleted.’

Misreporting it by suggesting that iFixit made claims that support threads had been deleted is disingenuous. Surely you see the problem here?

In any case, you don’t need to disprove their statement because they provided a link to a forum where people absolutely did claim to have started threads which were subsequently deleted.

What you SHOULD do is report their statement accurately.

Renumeration isn't a word

demisbellot said:

This in no way represents what actually happened, here's a recording where Apple tried to blackmail the developer into forcing him to say that Apple didn't do anything wrong in order to get his Apps restored: https://blog.kapeli.com/dash-and-apple-my-side-of-the-story Now we get this PR statement directly from an Apple mouthpiece accusing him of being fraudulent when they know and acknowledge that he wasn't behind closed doors. Disappointing behavior on everyone involved.

This in every way represents what actually happened. Apple was not forcing him to say they did nothing wrong. Apple was trying to clarify that they did not make a mistake. They shut down an account with fraudulent activity, as well as an account it was linked to, which just so happened to be his.

You say that the phone call accuses him of being fraudulent, yet nowhere in that phone call does that happen. IN FACT, the representative clearly states that by posting that an account with fraudulent activity was linked to his, he is NOT suggesting he did anything wrong.

What I take from that phone call is that Apple is simply asking for him to tell the truth, which is that unfortunately his account was linked with another account with fraudulent activity. Apple didn't make a mistake and he didn't commit fraud. The only mistake you could argue that he made was linking test devices and a credit card to someone else's account who clearly has no respect for the developer program.

The phone call I listened to was professional and courteous, and the representative simply wanted to ensure that he was on board with what happened. It is obviously an unfortunate situation, but instead of saying "Yeah ok, it's a shame this happened and I won't be helping that other person out ever again" he's more concerned about his own reputation, when his reputation was never in question.

If Apple is happy for him to say he did not commit fraud, as well as that Apple was simply following procedure when they find fraudulent activity on an account, I can't see what the problem is. This guy is being a chance to clear his name, and Apple's, and he doesn't seem to get the fact that he has an SVP willing to work with him on this matter. I mean, Jesus Christ, show some humility. If something had screwed up with my developer account and Phil Schiller (PHIL FUCKING SCHILLER!!!) attended to it, saying that he wants to work with me to resolve the issue, I would never be so arrogant and petty.

Just tell the truth! Apple didn't make a mistake, he didn't make a mistake, it's just an unfortunate situation that they're trying to resolve. Get on board!

EsquireCats said:

I think Apple are well aware of download numbers and usage of the app and didn't take this lightly. (Also indicated so by Schiller who looked into the matter directly as well.) If Phil Schiller has looked into it and upheld the decision - you can bet your ass it was happening and not in a small way.

My thoughts exactly.

When the story first came up, I didn't really think the developer was being entirely honest. Something didn't feel right.

Now that we've seen Schiller look into it, there really isn't any doubt. Schiller isn't an idiot, he certainly wouldn't send an email like that knowing it would go public without being 100% certain that he's correct.

It would've been nice to see a more detailed explanation of what went down, but I guess in most cases these shut downs occur because of obvious fraud and they've never considered that anyone they're shutting down deserves any reason for it (because the "developer" probably already knows exactly why they've been shut down).