As for the second points, I don't recognize what you're describing. What I can say is that I don't consider letting an app through into the App store itself is a seal of approval for whatever technique or tool that app is using, but rather a sign that they're not checking for whatever it is they're doing. If other apps get rejected for stuff others have been accepted for, or even earlier versions have been accepted for, that's a refinement of the approval process to me.
And yes, to some that might feel like a volatile situation. I'm suggesting that non-controversial app development (as in using approved tools, not writing apps that are in a grey zone when it comes to what they approve, and not using private APIs) is cutting down on that volatility in a big way, wouldn't you agree?
I concede that I might have missed your point totally, but since you're not giving examples I'm looking forward to a more verbose rebuttal in that case. =)
That's one way to look at it. Of course, then the question becomes one of a permissive development platform. You are only allowed to use what they say you can, and if they don't say you can use it, you shouldn't. And even then, they've proven in the past that even this isn't reliable. You can follow their rules, and it still not matter.
This isn't the first time they've done this. Just because they say you can do something now doesn't mean they won't pull the plug later. This is a volatile situation to be in. Now, I won't argue whether they can do it legally. Nor will I suggest that other companies can't do it. But Apple seems to be rather blatant about it.