Earlier quoted context omitted.
You want to talk about a nonsensical argument, take a look at the comparison you just made. In the first situation, you have no way of knowing whether the cop even saw you. Or if they were on duty. Or if they were previously occupied responding to some other call. In the second, the app was explicitly submitted for review and approved by Apple. Even more egregious, the app was explicitly mentioned, by name , by Apple…
Let me be more explicit for you, then: I speed past a cop who is pointing his radar gun at me, staring at me , but for some reason he doesn't decide to pursue me (an experience many of us have actually had). Maybe it's an off day for him and he just doesn't care. Maybe he was confused about the speed limit on that stretch. Maybe he is waiting for a bigger fish. Maybe he likes my car (or skin) color and decided to loo…
All jokes aside, I feel that this is a poor analogy that really misses the key issues (in my mind).
A developer creates an app and then submits an app for review. The app is approved and the app starts to build an organic following. At some later date, and without any explicit changes to the app or to the terms, Apple decides that the app is in violation of the terms for information that was available upon review. The developer and app are unfortunately the ones to pay the cost, as the organic growth is deterred. Will the new app be able to recapture the same market share? Hard to say. Regardless of Apple's action in this case, I think it would be in the company's best interest to consider the developer's experience when proceeding with issues like this.