> It then turned out that the developer forgot to mention that originally he did upload an astrology app for review. Gruber felt duped, and noted that it's unclear whether an updated build containing the new astronomy app was ever submitted to Apple for review
I think it’s shaping up like he didn’t “forget” to mention it. This looks like an intentional play for attention. It worked very well. Too well, in fact, which drew enough eyes on to the situation to start noticing the cracks in his story.
A key part of the Gruber retraction article is that Apple rejected a different app named Asterly. He then copied the Dark Hours app, including the name, from someone else and tried to imply that was the app at the center of the controversy.
If he had actually written his own astronomy app and swapped it into the story he may have gotten away with it. Doing the wholesale copying of someone else’s work, including the name of the project and stripping the license in the process, is what got him caught.
App Store rejection stories are always popular. I see at least one post a month on Hacker News from an app developer trying to get attention because their app was rejected and it usually receives moderate social media attention. I think this person saw an opportunity to ride that anger for some personal publicity and went for it. He flew too close to the sun and got too much attention, though, so his mistruths were revealed. Now he’s trying some CYA techniques because the original ruse backfired.
[flagged]
This has nothing to do with Gruber fans or not. Your take just isn't as smart as you thought it is. Highly regarded newspapers, tv programs or books have updates / retractions all the time as even with the best fact checking it's possible that something slips through.
[flagged]
I've only changed "redactions" into "updates / retractions" as that was a typo.
Please take a look at https://www.nytimes.com/international/section/corrections for a small selection of what slips through fact checking on a well established and reputable newspaper.
I don't doubt that massive organizations make a lot of errors.
I don't think it makes your point, tho. The question is error per volume.
I seriously doubt Gruber does the same amount of fact checking as a serious publication. And that was my point above.
But I could be wrong - if you actually know I'd love the answer.
If your question is if a single person running a private blog has the same fact checking resources as a big news corporation, the answer is no but I'm not sure why you'd need me to tell you that.
As mentioned in Gruber's retraction (https://daringfireball.net/2026/08/retraction_app_store_reje...) it's the first time he had to retract something in 24 years. It doesn't really make sense to compare the two in any case as the stakes and resources are very different.
No, my question is whether the per-story fact checking is equal, or much less.
I suspect it's much less. Do you know otherwise?
> my question is whether the per-story fact checking is equal, or much less.
How could a one man operation have the fact checking machinery of some big paper, eg the NYT? Of course it’s less.
Keep in mind that he usually posts multiple times per weekday.
No. You misunderstand my question. Again.
I want to know if the human effort, per story, is the same as other publications. Does Gruber make a real fact checking effort, or does he merely trust his gut?
The retraction post from Gruber details ways in which he tried to fact-check this, including confirming that his understanding was correct with Mr. Godier and even running a draft of the post by him to make sure he'd stated the "facts" that Godier presented him correctly.
I'm not really sure what you're implicitly expecting him to have done "better" here. Ask Godier for a signed affidavit? Not publish this until he could get a statement from Apple to get their side of the story? (Which is to say, not publish it at all because the chances of Apple giving anyone "their side" of something like this is essentially zero.)
> The retraction post from Gruber details ways in which he tried to fact-check this
Yes it does. To fact check this story - he asked the source (twice) if he was lying.
> I'm not really sure what you're implicitly expecting him to have done "better" here.
He could have asked for the full text of the rejection letter, which would have revealed the name switch. For starters.
Other journalists make a much stronger effort to avoid these kinds of errors.
I don't know, maybe google a few things? The most obvious search terms for me, turned up the pre-existence of the legitimate astronomy app, not to mention the trademarked name collision with a horror video game.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49217212
Perhaps engage critical thinking? Apply the CRAAP Test? Seek some independent confirmation of facts, rather than just being a mouthpiece for some hysterical acquaintance? If I had a Bitcoin for every time I heard some gamer was "banned for no reason!!1"
Apple could've denied the app just for clashing with the name of an existing game... a game that involved demons tossing fortune-telling cards around
I make a real fact-checking effort. In this case, the developer (Godier) sent me a video of the app in action. It’s a real app. He couldn’t send me a TestFlight to run (he said) because TestFlight submissions are taking a week or longer to get approved.
Obviously what I did wasn’t enough, but trust me, I try.
Fair enough.
Did you ask him for the full rejection letter? That's the issue I raised below. I'm wondering if he forged the app name.
It seems like the situation still remains a little ambiguous - and forging the name on that letter would be definitive proof.
On the other hand, if you didn't ask for it - why not? It seems like the very least amount of verification you could have done.
Did it simply not occur to you that a source might lie?
> The question is error per volume
> my question is whether the per-story fact checking is equal, or much less
Which is it?
My dear friend, both questions are asking about the same ratio, just using different language.
How is this Gruber's fault? What level of verification do you expect of a tech blog discussing the experience of another tech blogger?
When you spread disinformation you should bear the cost of it.
Gruber has a massive audience. He should try harder.
The embarrassment is the cost.
Agreed. Which is why I raise the point.
This is a very strange take. We got a full-throated retraction. Error correction is a hallmark of trustworthiness.
> We got a full-throated retraction.
Not really. When he says "I was misled" he's passing the blame. Other statements are equally defensive.
Notice how the retractions of larger publications do not make similar claims. They state the error and move on.
[flagged]
[flagged]