>Apple representative states there was no wrongdoing on Kapeli's side.
which is a misrepresentation of what the Apple rep said on the call.
If they thought there were any wrongdoing they wouldn't even be talking to him, much less make him that offer.
The wrongdoing here is that he opened multiple accounts that could legally be linked to him and allowed one of them to be used to defraud the App Store. Apple could see that as wrongdoing while being sympathetic to his story that he forgot about it / lost control of it and so allow him to reinstate his account.
You got your facts wrong. He did not do that.
But in either case, Apple may have viewed this as the wrongdoing.
So the same question applies to you: why are you equating Apple's willingness to reinstate his account with an admission that there was no wrongdoing?
It is expressly permitted by their guide lines to use another person's credit card to start one's own account as long as one provides govt id: https://developer.apple.com/support/purchase-activation/ Please get your facts straight before trying to get into an argument.
As to your question: If there was any wrongdoing, which Apple at first staunchly insisted there was, Apple would not even bother to talk to him, much less offer any redress.
I'm suggesting that if the account goes on to commit fraud then Apple may view that as wrongdoing. That is, the developer loaning out their credit card should be more responsible. Can you not see that this is a possibility?
And if this is a possibility then you might also see how Apple could allow the developer to reinstate their account because they are sympathetic to the reasons behind it happening. It doesn't have to mean that no wrongdoing took place.
It simply means: "We understand there was no intent to commit fraud, but it still happened, so we'll let you have your account back as long as you clear up how and why this happened on your blog."
Edit: Why would Apple not talk to him if there was any wrongdoing? I have been in a position where Apple has talked to me after assuming I was involved in wrongdoing. I was able to clear it up because they talked to me about it.
No, that is absolutely dificulous to me, and if it were the case, then the guidelines must state that, which they don't.
> Why would Apple not talk to him
Because they already told him they would not when they thought there was nothing in question.
Why must they state that? It's a fairly obscure edge case that they probably didn't predict. There aren't going to be guidelines for every conceivable possibility of how a cluster of Apple developer accounts can be (mis)used.
> Because they already told him they would not when they thought there was nothing in question.
Your claim is that if Apple even talks to the developer, then there must be no wrongdoing. I disagree with that in this case and from personal experience. Apple's developer relations people are generally able to understand and sympathise with extraordinary circumstances. Such as they did in this case.
> We don't believe that there was a mistake here, right. We don't think that we made a mistake.
So no, Apple is very explicitly saying they were not in error.
That's what's really wrong here.
His account was linked to one involved in fraudulent activity.
He's working with Apple to get his account unlinked from the fraudulent one.
That's it! He doesn't have to admit wrongdoing and Apple (despite being very confident they didn't make a mistake) gives him the benefit of the doubt and unlinks the account. Instead, he decided to dig his own App Store grave.
Yes, and it boils down to one thing:
Either the termination of his account was correct, and should be upheld; or it was wrong, and should be rescinded.
There are many times in life when things are in a range of grey between black and white, but this case is entirely black and white. Either they made an error with the termination or they didn't. If they made an error the account should be reinstated without question, delay or condition. If they did not make an error it needs to remain closed.
By the very fact that they are willing to reinstate it, they admit to the fact that the termination was in error, regardless of what they believe of say they believe.
Doublethink is real.
And the fact that Apple's willing to work with Bogdan to unlink and reinstate his account also does not mean Apple did anything wrong. If you actually listen to the phone call the Apple rep makes it very clear that Apple believes they were correct, but that Apple is willing to offer Bogdan a way to fix things.
Well, we'll have to disagree. And i think Apple's actions, in giving the option of reinstatement, disagree as well, even though they claim to believe otherwise.
Edit: Oh, and even if something were to appear reasonable to do, but turned out in hindsight to be wrong, then it would still be an error.
And this is quite a similar to what you might experience if you ever go to a Genius Bar when you are somewhere in a range of grey as I once was.
Do they make people aware that the accounts are linked?
- Apple assumed, and let these assumptions stay untested, and particularly failed to reach out to the different contact details on all involved accounts.
- Apple admits they terminated his account in error, yet blackmail him in refusing to reinstate unless he makes a blog post. (Actual contents of the post irrelevant to the point at hand.)