[JimDabell]

It’s not pedantry.

My typical experience of stupid Apple rejections is this:

1. Stupid rejection.

2. File appeal.

3. The appeal result is to approve the application

In this case, it went like this:

1. Stupid rejection.

2. File appeal.

3. Don’t wait for the appeal result.

4. Run to the press.

5. The appeal result is to approve the application.

There’s no indication 3 & 4 were necessary here. This seems like a trigger-happy reviewer whose decision was always going to be reversed.

[cageface]

The fact is we don’t and can’t know if bad press factored into Apple’s decision here so there won’t be any “evidence” unless Apple provides it, which they won’t.

Apple has relented on similar cases after getting a lot of bad press so it’s a reasonable hypothesis that they do care about looking bad in public.

[zepto]

What cases involve a name change like this?

The only recent relenting involving the press that I am aware of is ‘Hey!’, which required Basecamp to implement a feature to conform to Apple’s rules.

[oauea]

It's interesting you gathered that much experience in 6 months. Before that, appeals were simply not an option.

Do you not think it's strange you had to go through this process multiple times in 6 months?

[JimDabell]

This is not correct. You could raise objections through iTunes Connect for many years, and also respond to many rejections directly. I think the first time I did this was 2010. What happened six months ago was an improvement to these channels and an expansion to allow people to challenge guidelines directly.