I've heard both equally strongly. That 'I' is a big no no, and not using 'I' is a sign of the fact that you didn't actually contribute anything and you're riding on the coattails of your team as the 'useless group project member'.
Wrote an iOS game that earned $10M in revenue and had 50K downloads.
There is no I there, and I don't think you'd argue that this person contributed.
If you were at iPhone game co on a team and had "wrote an iOS game that earned $10m in revenue an had 50k downloads" there are absolutely people out there that read that as a team accomplishment that's suspicious that you didn't use 'I' to describe what you actually did.
If it was a team effort, we may use "Contributed to development of an iOS game that earned $10M in revenue.".
If it was an individual effort, the bullet I wrote earlier could included a term to clarify that, like "Independently...".
As for 'us on HN', about 100 HN users hire me every year. I even have a discount code for HN users on my HN page here (I got 3 HN orders in the past two days, probably from people reading this thread). I'm familiar with how to write accomplishments on resumes, for HN users and others.
You can say it exists, but it would be nearly impossible for me to spend an entire career in this field and not ever come across it.
You writing countless articles about what you think doesn't preclude the idea that people out there think differently.
Meanwhile I've personally seen it in hiring committees in every job I've worked for about 15 years now. I actively shut down that line of thinking in said committees (from both directions), and it's not difficult to do because you get a group of five people or so together in a committee and that's normally enough for there to be differing opinions on the matter. "Look, even in this small group, of people we've hired and trust to make good hiring decisions, there's mutually exclusive ideas on what you're 'supposed to do'. So obviously we throw out both ideas and accept whatever in this case since it's completely orthogonal".
I personally take your approach since it's around 75%/25%, and the numbers work in favor, but there's absolutely the other camp out there.
I'm really not sure what you're talking about with hiring committees, but if you're saying that some people are eliminating candidates because they did or didn't use personal pronouns, I think that's well beyond the scope of what I've been saying. I'm not suggesting applicants who use "I" should be eliminated from contention.