The reasoning given by the authors of the article (who are weirdly pro apple and anti this dev) seems also a bit weird

> There is no value to Apple recommending an app that no one else has downloaded for months, since the market has already demonstrated the app no longer has a perceived value to the App Store. Removing it is a better option for Apple than keeping it around and wasting consumer attention, with a high likelihood of it not being bought anyway.

Usually the justification is far more stupidly malicious: Apple instigated a blanket policy that works for 90% of use cases, and this guy fell into the 10% of "Alive, not very popular, but still has value on the app store". Apple being apple, just decides the cost benefit of making exceptions is not worth it and tells the dev to f-off.

Also the comments on that article are pretty rich:

> I get the idea of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," but I also get that maintaining a level of security and quality in the App Store could require the vendor to provide evidence that they are giving the app a review at least once every three years. If there are no problems, change the date on the splash screen and submit it as an updated app. If that then passes Apple's review, the clock is reset for another three years. This doesn't seem like an unreasonable quality assurance measure.

You mean like the $100 a year that this dev pays to have the developer account to keep the app on the store? What is that money going to, if not for re-review of stuff like this?