"This is the way Apple conducts business" is not a justification for conducting business that way.

Kapeli is in Romania where credit card ownership is less common, and the "legal entity link" we're talking about is just a nominal $99/fee and some older devices. Moreover, Apple is admitting they they see them as distinct accounts, only notified one of them, and completely ignored the fact that Kapeli's side of the linked accounts had high credibility.

It sounds like Apple is desperately trying to justify the not-very-smart algorithm of an automated "booter" program rather than giving Kapeli the respect and due diligence that he deserves as a top developer.

No. You can use a different bank account to get paid and use a different name for your developer account from credit card used. You can even use a prepaid credit card(But you have to provide ID). In this case, it's clear that the account names were different. Also it seems the bank accounts to get payment from apple were different(Otherwise they would mention it). And the only links were the credit card and some devices(only apple and the developer know how many devices and in some extent)

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.

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

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

No, The name of the account and the credit card holder can be different.You just need to provide government ID and your memebershit will be delayed: https://developer.apple.com/support/purchase-activation/

In this case, it seems the two accounts used different names otherwise they would mentioned it already because it's huge evidence that the accounts are linked.

In the U.S., you can add authorized users to your credit cards, and they typically send you new cards that just have a different name, but for which the rest of the information is identical (same number, same CVV code, same expiration).

At least this was the case with the cards issued for authorized users I added to my Citi Double credit card account.

So you could have a single card number with multiple valid names/users.

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

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

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

I think I'm much less invested in this than you two but I can say that it would strike me as very unusual to pay for someone else's account with Apple.

For example, Mithaldu, if an anonymous outsourcing party rendered you a service, than rather than wire them money or pay via paypal, would you be okay with paying for an apple account with them, with no further relationship, and you don't even know who they are? Probably not.

I think we can all agree that yes, he "should have" thought about this implication of trust.

It doesn't strike me as unusual. I've paid for tools and training for relatives and friends. A membership seems no more unusual.

[edit: given the down votes, I guess the HN crowd has rich friends or doesn't do mentoring. Sometimes the people you sponsor don't get it right]

Not sure why people are downvoting - they should be commenting if they disagree!

A developer account + some old test devices sounds like a great birthday or christmas present!

You write "for relatives and friends", implying a measure of trust. You don't write "for strangers I didn't know." Would you have?

From his response "helped a relative get started by paying for her Apple’s Developer Program Membership using my credit card. I also handed her test hard"

It was a relative, so I don't get your question's relevance to the situation.

sorry, I missed that part. I straight-up don't believe that their relative engaged in fraudulent activity related to Dash (such as leaving negative reviews of competitors) by complete coincidence and at arm's length. I didn't read all the information carefully though.

> I straight-up don't believe that their relative engaged in fraudulent activity related to Dash (such as leaving negative reviews of competitors) by complete coincidence and at arm's length

You might want to read the rest, the relative was boosting their own apps. Dash was not part of scenario just affected by the end result.

You missed the other discussion which mentions he's Romanian, and very few Romanians have their own banking services, and in fact share banking services among family members.