Apple has threatened to remove Amphetamine from the App Store

The name was approved by Apple years ago. The developer built the brand on that name. What changed? Apple's policies (on their whims). If Apple has to come down hard, they should bear the cost of the re-branding at least to measurably communicating widely regarding the rename. It is sad that Apple exercises so much power callously.

"The name was approved by Apple years ago"

This isn't going to be popular, however getting away with something for a period of time is not the same as being approved/sanctioned/etc. In the petition the author claimed that the app "spontaneously began violating" one of the guidelines, when clearly it has violated it all along. Yet that disingenuous angle is used constantly when people get away with something for a while and suddenly aren't.

As an aside, it's interesting that anyone thinks that making a big noise about this will cause Apple to revert their stance (as app using a pill as their icon, naming it after a controlled substance, and using narrative like "the most awesome keep-awake"). That is improbable. It seems much more likely that Apple will be very certain this app is renamed, and the narrative changed.

Apple approved of the app. Hence the name was approved. Not sure what we mean by "getting away" here

I drove by a cop over the speed limit yesterday. He didn't pull me over. Therefore I can always drive over the speed limit and it is "approved".

This is childish, nonsensical argumentation. The app has always been in contravention of the rules of the app store.

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.

Next time, I recommend you speed up and catch the cop to make sure they know you were speeding and see how things play out.

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 look the other way. Regardless, I got away with speeding.

If I then at some future date pointed to that as legalizing my speeding for all time, that would be ignorant nonsense. Yet we see this exactly this sort of childish argument in all realms: Some guy deducts something unlawful for years and then one day the tax man says "Uh no...that isn't allowed", and they point to their prior years as if that makes it suddenly lawful. That getting away with it before grandfathers it in or something.

Some random Apple employee writing a story linked it (or a tax employee accepting a tax return, or a cop giving a pass to speeding), therefore it is officially sanctioned for all time. Give me a break. That isn't how any of this works.

But it makes for a lot of crybaby stories.

If (a) there is no definite speed limit, just an imprecise policy statement (like "don't drive too fast") and (b) a person drives by the same cops for years at the same speed and gets clocked and doesn't get ticketed, and then (c) is one day pulled over and told that they're driving imprudently, then they indeed have a basis for complaint. That is exactly how this works. The interplay between vague policies and regular practice is how people gain clarity in the absence of a bright line rule -- playing ball.