[HN Gopher] Apple can terminate developer account without a reas...
___________________________________________________________________
Apple can terminate developer account without a reason by mistake
Author : sv_lastname
Score : 168 points
Date : 2022-09-04 08:19 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| Side-loading and alternative app stores via EU order can't come
| soon enough. Too many digital eggs in one digital basket, too
| much control by a corp for something that is so influential on
| society.
| viktorcode wrote:
| It won't help. Case in point: Steam. If your indie game isn't
| on it you can as well not release it at all, as the money you
| collect will be a pittance.
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| IMO, this is trying to draw analogies where there doesn't
| need to be any. I work in games myself, but this isn't
| particularly relevant.
|
| A better comparison is Google Play versus F-Droid. Yup. The
| overwhelming majority of people get their utility apps from
| Google Play still. However, for anyone who cares to do so,
| there is F-Droid, Amazon, and plenty of others that offer
| more than just utility apps, including Epic Games app where
| countless folks download Fortnite, if you want to bring it
| back to video games and the success or misinformed lack
| thereof with third-party platforms.
|
| With the likes of F-Droid, everything on it is free, mate. It
| is free as in beer and free as in freedom, it's FLOSS. Money
| doesn't enter the equation, but everything is possible to
| audit.
|
| Like I told another user: If you care about these things, the
| only winning move is not to play. Ergo, it's there for
| anybody who cares to seek it out.
|
| Let's bring it back to games again. Fortnite was removed from
| the App Store. You bet that Epic Games would have released
| their own Epic Games app just like on Android to get iOS
| users playing Fortnite again. If you don't think that it
| would have been a huge success just like on Android then I
| can only laugh. So many young folks switched from iOS to
| Android to keep playing Fortnite.
| gerpsh wrote:
| I
| Terretta wrote:
| Devil's advocate take:
|
| The nanosecond bad actors (e.g., mega corps) can have apps
| exclusively in these alt stores, that's when those corps will
| move, reinsert their anti-consumer code that Apple makes them
| take out, and have that be the only choice. And these mega
| corps will tell consumers about what's in there as much as they
| used to before Apple added the mandatory disclosures which is
| -- not disclose at all.
|
| Also, it's much easier to make peace with Apple choosing what
| can be snapped into a modular PDA (personal digital assistant)
| if you stop distinguishing between hardware and software as if
| that distinction matters for an appliance, and consider it all
| firmware and all part of a singular trusted digital experience:
| "Don't make me think."
|
| Today, consumers can choose trusted curation and full
| integration (iDevices), or non-curated and unbundled (countless
| brand + Android OS options).
|
| If alt app stores happen, consumers will lose this choice,
| because nobody will be left counter balancing the exploiting
| corporations' power. The race to monetizing exploitation
| happening before Apple stepped in will continue apace.
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| Quite possibly, mate!
|
| I don't have any skin in the game in terms of Apple anymore.
| I use Android these days, and I use F-Droid, and all the apps
| on it are FOSS and possible to audit. If privacy/security is
| a concern, the only winning move is not to play with closed
| source OS and firmware on devices.
|
| Side-loading and installing from binary blobs is the counter-
| balancing choice: don't use any third-party app store, pick-
| and-choose what you run. Not to do any disservice to F-Droid,
| it's an excellent option, but only doing what you could do by
| hand.
| wartijn_ wrote:
| If that's the case, shouldn't we have seen this behavior on
| Android? The Play Store has all kind of restrictions and it
| has always been possible to create you own store and only
| offer your apps in that store. Yet you can download apps from
| every mega corp in the Play store.
|
| > Today, consumers can choose trusted curation and full
| integration (iDevices), or non-curated and unbundled
| (countless brand + Android OS options).
|
| Or option 3: curated and integrated by buying an Android
| phone that comes bundled with all kinds of Google
| applications.
| ThatPlayer wrote:
| If consumers are choosing Apple for their trusted curation,
| why would those same consumers no longer stick to the Apple's
| own App Store?
|
| If exploiting corporations were so all-powerful, why do they
| have to release on Apple devices at all? Why wouldn't they
| just exclusively release it on platforms they can exploit?
| Because consumers demand it. Those same consumers can demand
| it on the Apple App Store.
| 8note wrote:
| Even if apple is less powerful, nobody will be forced to
| download Facebook or fortnite, and you can instead continue
| to just use the apple app store. Apps will continue to be
| added that meet apple's expectations because people trust
| spending money there.
|
| If your worry was founded, these apps already wouldn't be on
| Apple devices because they'd be androind-only
| Terretta wrote:
| The mega corps are angling for marketing dollars (ad spend)
| and those with marketing dollars want the audiences with
| "wallet share" and when split that way, those audiences are
| something like 85% iOS, 15% Android.
|
| This means the megacorps "have to" play nice on iOS in
| order to serve up monied audiences to their advertisers.
| lapcat wrote:
| > nobody will be left counter balancing the exploiting
| corporations' power
|
| The 3 major computing platform vendors Apple, Microsoft, and
| Google are 3 of the 4 largest corporations in the world by
| market cap. They _are_ the corporate power with no
| counterbalance.
| fweimer wrote:
| Why isn't it possible to resolve such business disputes through
| the courts?
|
| For example, Epic's suit wasn't thrown out of court immediately,
| so I just don't see how other decisions could not be reviewed on
| a case-by-case basis.
| dannyw wrote:
| Contractual disputes show up in courts all the time. However,
| the contract you have with Apple is very one-sided.
| lapcat wrote:
| It's possible, but it's very expensive and time consuming.
|
| Also, Epic lost, though the case is still out on appeal.
| [deleted]
| trollied wrote:
| > "I still didn't get an answer for my appeal so I hope there is
| a chance they decide to reinstate it"
|
| This is not news then! We don't even know whether or not it was a
| mistake.
| josephcsible wrote:
| It is news. Guilty until proven innocent is a bad system.
| qwertox wrote:
| The account should be terminated if and only if it is clear
| that there was a violation of the rules.
|
| Afterwards it turned out that it was a mistake, but what about
| all the problems this has caused the developer?
| tomatbebo wrote:
| With the upcoming Apple event, I wonder if this is another case
| of crushing the competition before Apple releases its own app?
| yreg wrote:
| I really doubt Apple is afraid of competition from "Reflex
| Camera App".
| badrabbit wrote:
| I am of the opinion that account terminations in general for any
| service (including free) that provides commercial value to users
| should be regulated by commerce regulators like FTC.
|
| So, my HN account would be exempt but people who hire and self-
| promote on HN could appeal, but not for any ban, only ones done
| without cause or where the cause is eithet not a violation of ToS
| or when it is false and the banned user can prove it.
|
| After all, commerce is regulated and allowing users to derive
| commercial value from a service is providing a commercial sevice.
|
| This will allow service providers to define ToS and ban users who
| are in violation while allowing the public to engage in commerce
| and be treated fairly. This includes brick and mortar businesses
| who refuse service, instead of banning service refusal on
| discrimination of protected categories, require explicit and
| demonstrable violations of ToS which can be criticized for
| violation of other laws.
| [deleted]
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| In other news, grass is green!
|
| Just saying this is nothing new, they've been banning developers
| and apps for no reason since the beginning of the app store.
| butz wrote:
| And that's why it is important to push PWAs forward, to be first
| class citizens on mobile devices. No developer account
| requirements - no worries about terminations or worse (e.g.
| Google disables your whole account, including emails and
| everything else).
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| I don't like (government) regulation, but I feel that this should
| be regulated...
|
| If you're banned from a nightclub, it sucks.. but there are many,
| many other nightclubs (unless you live in a place small enough to
| have only one... then it sucks too).
|
| If you're banned from apple, you basically have only google play
| left, and considering that most people specifically develop for
| one platform or another, it's usually not just losing half your
| customer base, but sometimes losing all of it.
|
| Imagine having a potato farm, being able to sell potatos only to
| walmart, and walmart baning you from selling via them...
| [deleted]
| yosito wrote:
| IIRC, it _IS_ regulated. GDPR and American equivalents have
| provisions that require companies to provide all of the data
| they have about you, and forbid companies from disabling
| accounts with automated systems without manual review. You may
| have to contact data protection authorities in your
| jurisdiction and file a report, then contact Apple 's data
| protection officers and reference the report you made. I've had
| luck doing this with other tech companies in the past. It
| should be something that a person could manage themselves with
| a few days of persistence, but I suspect there are lawyers who
| would help with this as well. IMHO, the legal team at a big
| tech company would rather manually review an account and
| reinstate it, than take on the potential liability of having
| violated data protection laws. You just have to convince them
| that you know your rights and how to assert them, and there's a
| good chance they'll quickly comply with the law.
| scarface74 wrote:
| This is definitely not the law. If for instance an airlines
| automatic system thinks you are on a no fly list. They are
| going to keep you from flying first and then investigate.
|
| That's why for people who have issues with security, they can
| also add their redress number to flights
| yosito wrote:
| GDPR Article 22:
|
| > The data subject shall have the right not to be subject
| to a decision based solely on automated processing,
| including profiling, which produces legal effects
| concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects
| him or her.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Do you really think that implies that if any regulated
| entity's automated system flags you for doing something
| illegal that they aren't going to lock you out and then
| have a human reviewer? I'm sure the EU has something like
| the no-fly list where they detain you first and then
| investigate.
| yosito wrote:
| I'm not saying literally anything you've suggested in
| your comment. Have a nice weekend.
| AlphaWeaver wrote:
| Could you cite the American equivalent legislation that
| protects those rights? Specifically the right to manual
| review?
| yosito wrote:
| As an EU citizen, I'm more familiar with GDPR. I recall
| seeing that there were similar requirements in the US, but
| it may have just been California's CCPA.
| scarface74 wrote:
| The GDPR says no such thing. I can guarantee you that if
| the bank or any institution that has any financial
| dealings with you suspects you're doing something illegal
| based on an automated system. They are going to lock you
| out first and then investigate.
| yosito wrote:
| Article 15 and article 22. Look it up if you're
| interested. They can automatically lock you out, but they
| are obligated to send you all the data they have about
| you, including whatever data caused their automated
| system to lock you out, and they are obligated to
| manually review automated lockouts.
|
| Edit: Here's the intro to article 22:
|
| > The data subject shall have the right not to be subject
| to a decision based solely on automated processing,
| including profiling, which produces legal effects
| concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects
| him or her.
| raverbashing wrote:
| Companies hate regulation but they love to give plenty of
| reasons why regulation is needed.
| chrischattin wrote:
| It's the opposite. Large companies love regulation as it
| creates extra costs and hurdles for smaller startups that
| might out-compete them otherwise. Regulation secures
| incumbent power.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| They love regulation when it favours them :)
| amelius wrote:
| I feel that the App Store is really a monopoly since the Play
| Store is something else (it uses your personal data to sell
| ads, something I want to stay far away from).
|
| Also, competition law seems to be way too simple. We should
| have at least 10 similar-sized competitors in this field, yet
| we are stuck with this duopoly.
| that_guy_iain wrote:
| The problem is no one wants to invest into making an mobile
| OS that OEMs will use. Nearly every alt mobile OS I've seen
| feels like it's coupled to the hardware and meant to be
| unique or super privacy focused which is a turn off for OEMs.
| OEMs have already been burnt by creating their own OS so none
| of them are getting in the mix. Microsoft screwed up too
| badly to come back. And Blackberry just staginated.
| fezfight wrote:
| Pinephone uses Linux. Pretty straight forward.
| amelius wrote:
| The one thing Linux seems to lack is good tried and
| tested sandboxing of untrusted applications. And of
| course an ecosystem of developers (e.g. why I can't run
| my bank app on Linux).
| fezfight wrote:
| As usual, the answer to 'why not Linux' is market share.
| Linux has numerous ways to sandbox applications. What it
| doesn't have is an advertising campaign promoting it on
| the desktop/phones. So it has a small number of users in
| those areas. Which means companies that dont care about
| freedom won't support it. And thus: banking programs dont
| run on the pinephone yet.
|
| You can, of course, access your bank from a browser.
| dane-pgp wrote:
| > You can, of course, access your bank from a browser.
|
| For now. Do you think the W3C would resist if banks tried
| to standardise a way for sites to determine if you are
| running with Secure Boot enabled? This would be part of a
| system to prevent browsers from spoofing their user agent
| string / version number.
|
| They ignored the protests of those opposed to DRM, and I
| can't imagine there being as much objection to banks
| trying to protect users from browser vulnerabilities and
| kernel-level keyloggers.
|
| Of course some Free Software advocates would again "cry
| wolf", predicting that banks would start to block
| requests from "unapproved" OSes, but those claims would
| be dismissed as scaremongering, right up until it started
| happening (and the wolf started eating their sheep).
| fezfight wrote:
| I even think MBNA recently started blocking Firefox. It's
| a dark time for us all.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| The traditional way to bootstrap this is to support
| existing apps. Which in theory for Android is easy --
| getting Android apps to run on Linux is what they already
| do.
|
| But then they weaponize inconvenience. You can run the
| app, but if you want Google Play, they stick you with
| their terms. SafetyNet blah blah. If you don't, the bank
| owns the copyright on the bank app so third party devs
| can't give ordinary users a convenient legal way to
| install it.
|
| So third party alternatives get friction on purpose and
| can't gain users. And without users people don't develop
| native apps.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Android apps have no notion Linux even exists, it isn't
| exposed to userspace as public API.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| The Android runtime has a notion that Linux exists and in
| fact runs on Linux. It doesn't take something like Wine
| to do it.
|
| Compare what it would take to get iOS apps to run on a
| Linux phone.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Indeed, and someday might be using Zirkon instead of
| Linux.
|
| Blackberry, Jolla and several other Linux + Android
| attempts have proven that being easy isn't enough.
| least wrote:
| It's a pretty straight forward path to market suicide.
| cowtools wrote:
| The linux-phone ecosystem seems to be doing alright just
| by porting applications from the rest of the ecosystem.
| It's a lot more usable than it was a year ago.
| fezfight wrote:
| There's no inherent reason, just market effects. It's a
| positive feedback loop. If you want to be rid of Apple
| and Google, support Linux. More support will lead to
| adoption, and thus a bigger market. Or you can continue
| to genuflect to Apple, thanking them as they lock down
| and prevent any opportunity to compete with them. It's
| our collective choice.
| least wrote:
| The impetus isn't really on consumers to use half baked
| products in hopes that it'll improve over time. It's on
| developers of alternatives to make it at the minimum good
| enough, but more so actually compelling to use the
| product. Firefox is losing market share every day. I'd
| say it's probably "good enough" to be a viable
| alternative for people that are looking for an
| alternative but not compelling enough to convince anyone
| to switch to it. They're fighting against momentum.
|
| Linux on phones isn't even at "good enough," let alone
| compelling.
| fezfight wrote:
| Yeah, it's going to take folks to think about what they
| want from the future, instead of just right now. Free
| market or fiefdom. Doesn't have to be Linux, but it's
| pretty clear walled gardens == fiefdoms.
|
| Its interesting because you can really see how we end up
| with dictators in politics. Doesn't need to be a coup,
| people voluntarily give it up for small conveniences.
| least wrote:
| If a phone is important enough that you think that it's
| critical that people consider using alternatives for the
| sake of the future, then those alternatives need to
| consider why they're that critical and ensure that they
| are meeting those needs.
|
| Alternatively, it's not that important and as such the
| market being a "fiefdom" is irrelevant. In which case
| suggesting people switch to alternatives is also
| irrelevant because it simply doesn't matter.
| fezfight wrote:
| Forgive me, I'm not sure what youre trying to say. The
| relevant reason not to have fiefdoms is demonstrated by
| the article, is it not? The king can unilaterally destroy
| you or your business at a whim.
| least wrote:
| That's the intrinsic risk of your business depending on
| other business' platforms. We're witnessing the effects
| of this currently with Meta's revenue being heavily
| impacted by Apple's privacy initiatives on their
| platform.
|
| I'm not sure what _you 're_ trying to say here. Even if
| you think that the status quo is problematic, I don't
| think that suggesting that consumers switch to something
| that is terrible is a pragmatic solution.
| fezfight wrote:
| I see. My point is it's a choice we all make everyday.
| How else can we do it? We can choose to live free, or as
| serfs. I acknowledge that you disagree.
|
| And yeah, Meta sucks.
| nicoburns wrote:
| Most of the ill effects of monopolies also occur in
| duopolies, so it's really besides the point whether it's a
| monopoly or not. What it clearly isn't is a competitive
| market.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| Yep, and even here it's not an "independent" duopoly
| (basically walmart and target in the same city) but
| switching from one to another means buying a new device,
| sometimes for $1k+, and your whole ecosystem.... if we're
| talking about developers here, also learning a new
| programming language and doing all the work again.
| saurik wrote:
| Yeah, these are really independent markets, in the same
| way that a store can be a monopoly even if it is only a
| monopoly "West of the Mississippi" with another not-
| actually-competing store in the East (which might or
| might not be a monopoly there; in the case of mobile app
| markets it is, and the result is really two monopolies,
| not one duopoly).
| naikrovek wrote:
| sofixa wrote:
| Play Store has local alternatives because Android allows
| third party stores.
|
| So App Store is a monopoly on Apple devices, and on Android
| based devices there's plenty of choice ranging from bad for
| privacy (Play store) to fully FOSS-only (F-droid).
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| Let's be fair... 99% of your users will never find your app
| if it's not directly on the play store.
| [deleted]
| capableweb wrote:
| Probably true, but at least it's an option.
|
| On iOS, if you don't publish the app on App Store, 0% of
| your users will be able to install it, because there is
| simply no alternative.
| least wrote:
| Two workarounds that I've seen apps that don't meet app
| store guidelines are altstore [1] and TestFlight, which I
| guess doesn't have the same rigorous oversight that the
| app store does? The latter still does require the
| developer to have an Apple Developer account, though.
|
| [1] https://altstore.io/
| danShumway wrote:
| This is absolutely true, but at the same time I am still
| extremely grateful that I can have applications like
| NewPipe that otherwise would be practically impossible to
| build/distribute. Not to say that there isn't room for
| improvement.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| Newpipe has a pretty specific userbase,... if it was on
| top of the "trending" apps in play store, there would be
| a lot more users... since it's not, it's just people like
| you, me, and a bunch of other nerds using it, while
| "normal people" just wait through the ads, because
| they're unaware that alternatives exist.
|
| For us (well, atleast me), getting an apk from github is
| not a problem, also not clicking three times to update
| the app... "normal users" usually don't do this, and some
| even get scared at the scary messages on phones, warning
| users about "alternative sources" and "play protect" and
| other stuff.
| danShumway wrote:
| Definitely, the UI to sideloading is a real problem. But
| Youtube would be unusable for me on Android without
| NewPipe, it helps so much.
|
| I'm not really arguing that this is a great solution for
| everyone (or that sideloading should magically mean that
| Android isn't being noncompetitive), just pointing out
| that even insufficient solutions can really make a really
| big difference for some people.
|
| I want the sideloading and updating experience on Android
| to be better, and there are some very real frustrations
| that come from that -- including that there are great
| apps like NewPipe that I can't really recommend to
| everyone I know because of the complexity of installing
| them. But in contrast, I don't think I could even use
| iPhone myself because these apps are so essential to me,
| so I'm grateful that at least I have a phone where it's
| possible for me to jump through these hoops.
|
| To your point though and in regards to the person you
| were replying to, you're right that none of that changes
| anything about whether Play Store has what is essentially
| a monopoly over other Android storefronts. I would love
| to live in a world where I could recommend NewPipe to
| people without feeling like I also need to borrow their
| phone and sit down with them and help them install it.
|
| ----
|
| > For us (well, atleast me), getting an apk from github
| is not a problem
|
| Pro tip which you might already be aware of, but F-Droid
| supports custom repositories, and the NewPipe team
| maintains their own repository that gets immediate
| updates. Installing NewPipe from F-Droid directly isn't
| something I would recommend because the app needs to be
| updated so frequently and F-Droid is slow to pull in
| those changes. But if you use their custom upstream repo,
| you can still have F-Droid manage the
| updates/installation while getting basically direct
| updates from the Github repo.
|
| This would of course be better if Android allowed the
| F-Droid store to auto-update apps, but...
|
| I vaguely remember hearing that at some point Android was
| going to allow this, but then I haven't heard anything
| since and my version of F-Droid still requires manually
| clicking an install button, so I'm not sure if Google
| ever actually followed through.
| intrasight wrote:
| > Let's be fair... 99% of your users will never find your
| app if it's not directly on the play store.
|
| 99% of app users get an app by clicking on a link that
| was sent/recommended to them.
|
| So more accurate to say "100% of users will never find
| your app on a store if it's not directly on a store."
|
| I work on health/social service apps for state and local
| municipalities. The conversation about putting them on
| the stores ends when we explain that the stores don't
| allow such apps. Which is a blessing in disguise ans PWAs
| are far superior in most every way.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| That's maybe us ners, who google stuff and follow
| recommendations.
|
| Most people just look at the "trending" stuff in the main
| playstore window, or search the store with general
| keywords (eg "menstrual calendar"), and try the first few
| hits.
| faeriechangling wrote:
| Never stopped Fortnite or Epic Games from selling their
| own game on their own terms on android profitably and
| successfully.
|
| Apple simply banned them. That's why I cannot equivocate
| Apple and Google's market dominance, Apple is just so
| much more obscene and over the top, Google at least has
| some more shame.
| lapcat wrote:
| > Never stopped Fortnite or Epic Games from selling their
| own game on their own terms on android profitably and
| successfully.
|
| Epic sued Google too. They're going to trial in January
| 2023.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| I was approached by a mid-level exec from Intel about
| participating in their 'app store' years ago. It was obvious
| that the middle-management was salivating at the idea of
| running a "store" with absolute control. No deal happened, that
| I know of..
| FollowingTheDao wrote:
| > I don't like (government) regulation, but I feel that this
| should be regulated...
|
| Ha, wow. "I do not like regulation, until it affects me, then I
| love it."
|
| > Imagine having a potato farm, being able to sell potatos only
| to walmart, and walmart baning you from selling via them...
|
| What you are talking about here is the dream of Libertarians.
| scarface74 wrote:
| It doesn't affect me at all either way. I'm all for
| government regulation that forces a company to be transparent
| where customers can make informed decisions. It's not some
| ignorant government officials trying to establish technical
| standards.
|
| It's a very Libertarian stance that give consumers the power
| to make informed decisions.
|
| Notice I did not say that the government should have
| oversight on the process that private companies are allowed
| to ban users. I said the independent review board should be
| answerable to the board of directors not the CEO.
| DaiPlusPlus wrote:
| > I'm all for government regulation that forces a company
| to be transparent where customers can make informed
| decisions.
|
| What is your standard for judging where transparency should
| be legally required or not?
| FollowingTheDao wrote:
| I'll answer for the commentor
|
| "When it affects my profit!"
| scarface74 wrote:
| Transparency should _always_ be required to allow
| intelligent individuals to make informed decisions about
| how they spend their money.
| FollowingTheDao wrote:
| How much transparency? Can I walk into any corporations
| office and go through their file cabinets?
| scarface74 wrote:
| The information that's needed for you to make an informed
| decision between alternatives on the products you buy.
| You don't need to know that Apple is thinking about
| acquiring Netflix to determine if the rules on the App
| Store are more agreebable than the play store
| FollowingTheDao wrote:
| Who are you to decide for me what I need to know and what
| I don't need to know?
|
| If Apple is going to buy Netflix they may buy it and shut
| it down. Or at least not let it on the Apple platform.
| That might be important to know if I'm going to dedicate
| myself to the ecosystem.
| pier25 wrote:
| And losing all the work you've put into code that only runs on
| Apple devices.
|
| Apple can decide to throw all that investment down the drain.
| bryan_w wrote:
| At least with android, you can release the raw .apk so that
| your existing users aren't left with nothing.
| sv_lastname wrote:
| Exactly, but I published one of my projects on GitHub, at
| least its source code can useful for someone else.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| never mind
| lapcat wrote:
| The App Store accepts stolen open source projects that
| violate the project's licensing. App review has no
| knowledge of that whatsoever. Review is incredibly
| superficial.
| pier25 wrote:
| Is it? Do you have a source?
| scarface74 wrote:
| I'm usually opposed to government regulation in tech or giving
| the government power more in general.
|
| But I don't see any negative consequences of passing a law
| saying a platform must provide a reason with documentation if a
| _paying_ user is banned. There also must be an independent
| review board that is answerable to the board of directors. But
| not the CEO.
|
| On the other hand, it came out in the Epic case that there is
| "no duty to deal". Meaning you can't force a company to do
| business with anyone as long as it isn't for a protected
| reason.
|
| The government can't and shouldn't force a company to do
| business with someone as in the Walmart case. Would you want
| the government to force a health or drug store to sell
| cigarettes?
| prvit wrote:
| What's special about paying users? You could just refund them
| when you ban them.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Because if you don't pay for a product, you shouldn't
| expect much. It's why it amazes me that people tie so much
| of their lives to Google - an ad company.
| viraptor wrote:
| A refund does not make you a non paying customer. In the
| same way getting injured by a faulty product can't be
| resolved with "fully refunded, they're not our customer
| anymore".
|
| Accepting payment makes some obligations more real. As a
| free user you accept whatever tos apple throws at you and
| that's it. As a paying customer you buy a service, with
| many protections that includes. (depending on your country)
| prvit wrote:
| >A refund does not make you a non paying customer. In the
| same way getting injured by a faulty product can't be
| resolved with "fully refunded, they're not our customer
| anymore".
|
| A faulty product that simply doesn't work can totally be
| resolved with "fully refunded, they're not our customer
| anymore".
| viraptor wrote:
| Technically true, but missing the context. What happens
| is regulated by applicable local law: if both sides are
| happy with that solution and it's legal to do so, the
| issue may be resolved with a refund.
|
| For example in Australia ACCC says that sure, you're
| entitled to a refund as one of the options when a
| product/service fails. But that doesn't stop you from
| being able to claim damages or losses even if you're
| fully refunded.
| https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-
| guarantees...
|
| Actually I'd love to see the result of involving ACCC in
| this situation if someone in Oz gets terminated. They can
| be very detailed in their analysis if they're interested.
| prvit wrote:
| I don't know how things work in Australia, but I'd be
| really surprised if someone signing up to sell apps on
| the app store would be treated as a consumer.
|
| Also, paying for the right to develop on Apple platforms
| is hardly a service.
| viraptor wrote:
| ACCC rules apply to products and services. The first
| sentence in the paid apps agreement is:
|
| > You hereby appoint Apple and Apple Subsidiaries
| (collectively "Apple") as: (i) Your agent for the
| marketing and delivery of the Licensed Applications to
| End-Users
|
| Apple is providing devs a service.
| prvit wrote:
| There are services which Apple provides to developers as
| a part of the agreement, but to be an Apple Developer
| involves much more than that.
|
| >ACCC rules apply to products and services.
|
| Over here in Europe consumer protection laws generally do
| not apply to contracts between businesses. i.e. A
| photographer buying a camera for their business use would
| not necessarily be covered.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Right. That would make as much sense as letting someone
| walk on burglary charges because they brought all of the
| stolen goods back and arranged them as they were before.
| prvit wrote:
| Not sure I follow, burglary usually refers to entering a
| building without permission for the purpose of committing
| another crime e.g. theft.
|
| Bringing stolen goods back and arranging them as they
| were before would often be a sufficient defense against a
| theft charge, as an intention to permanently deprive the
| owner of the item is often a necessary element of the
| crime. This would presumably also reduce your burglary
| charge to trespass.
|
| https://vistacriminallaw.com/borrowing-theft/
|
| https://www.floridacriminaljustice.com/blog/2017/08/theft
| -is...
| lapcat wrote:
| There's no evidence that Apple is refunding banned
| developer accounts, either for the yearly developer fee or
| for unpaid App Store sales.
|
| In fact, a few of my indie developer friends have gotten
| their monthly App Store payments held up by Apple while
| Apple investigates so-called "unusual activity" (which
| turned out to be nothing).
| scarface74 wrote:
| Every company that deals with payments does that. Banks,
| PayPal and I'm sure the various places like UpWork. You
| routinely hear that Amex puts people in "financial
| review" and locks your account out because of "suspicious
| activity"
| lapcat wrote:
| > Every company that deals with payments does that.
| Banks,
|
| Never in my life has my bank withheld a payment. And I've
| never had a job paycheck held back because of "suspicious
| activity".
|
| > Amex puts people in "financial review" and locks your
| account
|
| Amex doesn't pay you; you pay Amex.
|
| I'm talking about companies refusing to pay what they
| already owe you. App Store payments to developers are for
| app sales that are already long completed, and Apple has
| already taken the money from App Store customers.
| scarface74 wrote:
| I can guarantee you that if you start depositing large
| payments over $10K that your bank is going to report it -
| it's required by the law.
|
| If the bank thinks you are laundering money, there are
| going to be investigation.
|
| I once unknowingly deposited a fake money order in my
| checking account. I was naive and I fell for the old "we
| need to pay for three months rent with this money order
| and can you refund the difference".
|
| Before I even called the bank once it dawned on me that
| it was probably fraudulent, the bank had already put a
| hold on my account.
|
| If Apple think you are working in a company that is under
| sanctions, they are going to verify that you aren't.
| lapcat wrote:
| > I can guarantee you that if you start depositing large
| payments over $10K that your bank is going to report it -
| it's required by the law.
|
| What do you mean exactly by "deposit"? These are
| automatic deposits from Apple or from an employer.
|
| A ton of people make >$120K a year and receive >$10K in
| payments per month. It's not unusual at all.
|
| > I once unknowingly deposited a fake money order in my
| checking account.
|
| How is this relevant? There are no fake money orders
| here.
|
| > If Apple think you are working in a company that is
| under sanctions
|
| Again, how is this relevant to longtime indie devs?
| peyton wrote:
| > A ton of people make >$120K a year and receive >$10K in
| payments per month. It's not unusual at all.
|
| Whether it's unusual is subject to a Risk Assessment.
| NACHA happily sells Risk Assessment Workbooks to your
| bank's Compliance Department [1].
|
| [1]: https://www.nacha.org/products/ach-risk-assessment-
| workbook
| prvit wrote:
| >Never in my life has my bank withheld a payment. And
| I've never had a job paycheck held back because of
| "suspicious activity".
|
| Either your bank is particularly lenient or your
| transactions are particularly boring. Most paychecks
| definitely fall into the "particularly boring" category.
|
| OTOH App store transactions are a relatively big money
| laundering risk, you are receiving payments from large
| amounts of different people.
| lapcat wrote:
| > OTOH App store transactions are a relatively big money
| laundering risk
|
| To a longtime indie developer???
|
| We're not talking about huge sums of money here. One
| month's income for a little indie App Store developer.
| More or less (probably less) the amount of a software
| engineer's monthly paycheck.
|
| And what's Apple's "evidence" for money laundering in
| these cases anyway? It always turns out to be nothing,
| and payments are eventually restored, but the developer
| is deprived of cash flow for a month or several with no
| explanation ever.
|
| Anyway, for developer accounts that Apple terminates
| (again without explanation), I believe that Apple simply
| confiscates the money and never pays what it owes to the
| developer.
| prvit wrote:
| This is unfortunately it goes. Nothing Apple specific.
|
| >And what's Apple's "evidence" for money laundering in
| these cases anyway? It always turns out to be nothing,
| and payments are eventually restored
|
| Unfortunately, they're by law not allowed to discuss
| these things.
|
| >Anyway, for developer accounts that Apple terminates
| (again without explanation), I believe that Apple simply
| confiscates the money and never pays what it owes to the
| developer.
|
| Unlikely.
| ungamed wrote:
| You'd think so, but you'd be wrong.
| prvit wrote:
| >There's no evidence that Apple is refunding banned
| developer accounts, either for the yearly developer fee
| or for unpaid App Store sales.
|
| I'm not really sure how that's relevant here, we're
| discussing hypothetical regulation that scarface74 is
| proposing.
|
| >In fact, a few of my indie developer friends have gotten
| their monthly App Store payments held up by Apple while
| Apple investigates so-called "unusual activity" (which
| turned out to be nothing).
|
| This is likely unavoidable as Apple is subject to a
| number of AML regulations.
| MatthiasPortzel wrote:
| I wish the Apple developer program was set up more like a
| lease, where you're leasing a "storefront" from Apple. And
| they can deny you, or choose not to renew your lease, or buy
| you out of your lease. But they shouldn't need to approve
| individual app updates any more than a shopping center owner
| needs to approve the individual merchandise.
|
| No one would sign a lease that said "we can kick you out at
| any time," but that's what developers are agreeing to with
| Apple.
|
| It would require Apple to more selective up front about who
| they chose to do business with, but I think that would be a
| good thing, because it would give developers more stability
| once they were "in."
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| > Would you want the government to force a health or drug
| store to sell cigarettes?
|
| Health/drug stores are not a monopoly (or a duopoly if you
| count google, but still a monopoly for apple users).
|
| If you could get apps for iDevices on "every street corner",
| one of them not selling apps from that specific developer
| wouldn't matter either.
| girishso wrote:
| All these big corporates with monopolies are acting exactly like
| the ruthless kings of yesteryears.
|
| Things are not going to change unless there's some kind of a
| revolt.
|
| And I consider myself Apple fanboy.
| pfoof wrote:
| Google is not saint with this as well. My Admob account was
| blocked twice for 30 days because of "suspicious traffic" and the
| second time I didn't even turn on any Android device or emulator,
| not to mention any of my apps.
| viktorcode wrote:
| I remember a similar story floating around few years ago.
| Developer went public with unfair account termination story, but
| then Apple went public with their side of the story: if I
| remember correctly the developer was using other account(s) to
| inflate their app rating.
| lapcat wrote:
| I suspect that you're referring to Dash/Kapeli. The story is
| very long, and it's covered comprehensively here:
|
| https://mjtsai.com/blog/2016/10/10/apple-and-kapeli-respond/
|
| I would recommend reading everything before making a judgment.
| The developer (not a US citizen) did record a phone call he had
| with Apple, and the recording did seem to contradict some
| things Apple told the press.
|
| Anyway, the ultimate outcome of this story is that the
| developer does still have an Apple account (not sure if it's
| the same one or a newly created one) and continues to sell his
| app Dash for Mac to this day, code signed with an Apple
| Developer ID certificate and notarized by Apple.
|
| Also, Dash returned to the iOS App Store for a period of time
| after this story, though the developer eventually decided to
| retire that version.
|
| I don't think anyone blames Apple for _investigating_ the
| situation, because the good account and bad accounts did use
| the same credit card. The problem is that the investigation
| seems to have been rather superficial, and they terminated the
| Dash account without giving the Dash developer a chance to
| respond first. And the people in charge of terminating accounts
| (if there were even people involved, as opposed to automation)
| apparently had zero knowledge that Dash was a well-known and
| well-respected app in the Apple developer community. Also,
| there appears to be no evidence that the review fraud was
| related to Dash specifically (does that app even have any
| competitors?) as opposed to the apps published by the non-Dash
| account. And there is evidence that the apps for the other
| account were written by a different person. (The Dash developer
| say he helped a relative pay for an Apple developer account
| with his card.)
| veeti wrote:
| Even if these stories turn out to be completely false I will
| always give the benefit of the doubt and upvote. Because it's
| the only way to get support from Apple or Google.
| 6c737133 wrote:
| OrangeMonkey wrote:
| Oh, we are here but what can we say.
|
| I don't want to copy/paste another comment I made here so
| instead I will paraphrase: HN is getting upset (and likely
| should) about apple banning a guys account (likely algorithm)
| and last night HN was getting upset because CF wasn't banning
| another persons account.
|
| The free speech the internet promised us appears to be eroded
| daily by well meaning fools begging for their government or
| corporations to ban people they don't like. I miss the period
| before everyone suddenly loved censorship. What can I say -
| I've stayed the same but everyone else has changed.
| cowtools wrote:
| I don't know what you want us to say. If you're worried about
| censorship, you shouldn't work with apple as proven time and
| time again.
|
| Apple users are the most willing to trade their freedom for
| convenience. We have no sway there. Cloudflare users are
| another story.
| mindaslab wrote:
| I really have wondered all these years why anyone who claims to
| be sane trusts and uses any Apple products.
| sneak wrote:
| Part of the appeal of Apple products to some is outsourcing the
| maintenance of the security of the devices to Apple. Many
| people actively want this.
|
| Sideloading destroys that, as it then becomes possible to take
| actions to subvert your own device.
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| iDevices can already be subverted. Plenty of malware over the
| years, and that's without even mentioning jailbreaking.
| kredd wrote:
| Honestly? Most people (including me) don't care. I've had
| variety of iOS and Android devices, and something that affects
| only 1% of the users of either side is basically noise to me.
| Currently using an iPhone because it integrates really well
| with my devices at home, no problems with upgrades (had a
| Samsung previously), apps work find and etc.
|
| My evaluation of the products when I buy them:
|
| - has a decent customer base, proven track record and reliable?
|
| - accomplishes what i want it to do?
|
| - don't cross extreme personal ethical borders? (think of
| actively funding conversion therapies kinda extreme)
| jollybean wrote:
| Yes, but it's like the capitalist version of saying 'Xi' is
| cool because 'I'm not Uyghur or Tibetan'.
|
| Or I like US Healthcare 'because I have coverage'.
|
| I mean, I get it, at the same time, you could very quickly
| fall outside the 'in group'.
| kredd wrote:
| Let's not compare someone's political/cultural stance to
| their choice of phones. One is fairly inconsequential, the
| other one directly affects others' lives.
| alexashka wrote:
| You've shifted the argument from 'don't care' to 'cool'.
| That is an illegal move :)
| FollowingTheDao wrote:
| I know how this comes about, because it happened to me. I was
| all in Apple in the early days when their machines were easy to
| work on and they were focused on trapping you in an ecosystem
| be good design rather than by App Store lock in and
| manipulation.
|
| I woke up, many people did not. I still use apple products, but
| I do not trust them one bit, so my use of their products look
| much different than the average user.
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| What does your use of their products look like? I abandoned
| ship with the lack of focus on enterprise following Jobs
| passing, but always curious to see how others juggle having
| one foot in Apple-land.
| FollowingTheDao wrote:
| I just don't use their iCloud services for anything but
| getting to the App Store. I have a throw email that I use
| for my iCloud account that I'm OK with losing if I need to.
| gary_0 wrote:
| All this hand-wringing over a troll site losing its DDoS
| protection, and meanwhile Apple and Google blow away people's
| entire livelihoods at random and everyone hardly even blinks.
| lapcat wrote:
| > everyone hardly even blinks
|
| The story is on the front page of Hacker News and also getting
| spread on Twitter.
| gary_0 wrote:
| And a similar story will be on the front page next month,
| too. Apple and Google will shrug it off. Dog bites man.
| lapcat wrote:
| > Apple and Google will shrug it off.
|
| Yes, because they are a powerful duopoly.
|
| Also why world governments are considering and/or passing
| antitrust regulations.
|
| Mobilizing against $2 trillion corporations is a years long
| struggle, and those corporations fight back with all of
| their resources. People do care, but there's a massive
| power imbalance.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > Also why world governments are considering and/or
| passing antitrust regulations.
|
| They're a powerful duopoly because of their wealth and
| deep connections to world governments.
| OrangeMonkey wrote:
| The hand-wringing is because folks were smiling and winking at
| each other while trying to convince a fire department to stop
| protecting a house, all while holding cans of gas and matches.
|
| Its horrible for Apple/Google to have this much power - I agree
| 100%. I don't know a solution. Its likely this was an algorithm
| gone crazy and not malicious.
|
| The removal of ddos protection all the while smiling cause you
| know what will happen right after it gets removed is 100%
| malicious. And we, the tech community, appear completely ok
| with it.
|
| You have to admit it feels hypocritic.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-04 23:02 UTC)