> When I buy a game called "Surgeon Simulator" I don't expect to receive actual surgeon training

Fun fact: There are serious surgery training apps in the app stores. Surgeons, too, like to practice in a simulation rather than on real patients.

The point is that the game should not be removed for violating some silly guideline because its title contains “simulator”.

No, there isn't - certainly not for iOS, and not for Mac either, the App Store is barely hanging on by a thread

What about this? https://apps.apple.com/us/app/gastro-ex/id1202398609

(Full disclosure: I work at a sister company of Level Ex.)

Good point. And the App Store is not a retail store - developers PAY THEM to distribute their wares. They are Apple's customers too!

You may not know this, but plenty of physical retail stores charge manufacturers of goods to display their wares / offer shelf space for sale.

Yes, but it is not the norm. And physical retail stores can justify it to some extent because storage / display space is actually limited and obviously they would like to give the most space to products that sells fast and / or are more profitable. (This is why FMCG - fast moving consumer goods - are so heavily advertised. Brand awareness helps their sales, and thus shops are more ready to stock it.)

Apple has no real justification here, especially when it forcefully denies both the creators and the consumers a choice in the matter on many of its platforms.

> Yes, but it is not the norm.

It very much is the norm [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slotting_fee

Just because something is a popular business practice in the US doesn't make it a norm around the world too. And just because it found acceptance in one geography or some industry doesn't mean we have to accept the same it in another. A physical retail outlet is not the same as an online one, especially one that only sells digital products (software).

> developers PAY THEM to distribute their wares. They are Apple's customers too!

See stocking fees in physical retail stores:

* https://financialpost.com/news/retail-marketing/loblaw-follo...

* https://www.canadiangrocer.com/top-stories/headlines/loblaw-...

I do know about stocking fees and display fees. And also that it is not the norm, even if some would like it to be. (And phyaical retail outlets can justify it to some extent because space is actually limited in many stores and obviously they would prefer to give the most space to products that sells fast and / or are more profitable.)

Apple has no real justification here, especially when it forcefully denies both the creators and the consumers a choice in the matter on many of its platforms.

You're creating a strawman argument.

Imagine it were called heroin, and the app logo used a picture of a syringe.. is it still okay to you because there is no heroin in the app?

Of course it is. I'd be interested in hearing your argument as to why it isn't?

Speaking of a straw man argument - heroin isn't a legal drug anywhere in the United states. Like the author pointed out, millions of Americans take legal amphetamines every year, I'd wager a bet that legal users of amphetamines outnumber the illegal users 10,000 to 1 or ever more. But all of that is irrelevant - the app doesn't promote the use of amphetamines any more than GTA promotes committing grand theft auto.

I dunno, before I try a drug I usually scan the app store to see whether it's okay! heavy sarcasm

Do you truly believe that someone is going to see the word "heroin" next to a syringe and say "you know what, I should go shoot up some black tar?"