Yeah. Clearly one team at Apple feels (or felt) that the name was no impediment to them marketing it. Like all corporations, Apple is just a congregation of human beings, rather than a synchronized hive mind. But it's problematic if app authors can't trust in consistency as a result.

FWIW, it's a net downside for me that my professional workstation has an app named "Amphetamine", so I'm quietly in favor of a rename. But it's obviously the author's prerogative to choose its branding, so long as it falls within (consistently) applied policies of those who they rely on to distribute it.

How is it a net downside? The entire purpose of the App Store being locked down is that it's reliable. There is no way any HR department will launch an investigation because you downloaded an app called Amphetamine. Worst case scenario they go look it up and realize there's nothing more to the situation.

I'd have to see a documented event of this happening rather than a hypothetical scenario to believe a downside actually exists.

Just because your HR would be ok with it doesn’t mean all would be

Who is dumb enough to think people get drugs by installing an app called Amphetamine, monitors user software installs anally AND also lets users install their own software locally in the first place?

Most corporate PCs are windows. On a fraction of the macs users are allowed to install their own software, on a tiny fraction of those amphetamine is installed, on a tiny fraction of a fraction of those maybe someone exists who has a problem with HR.

I'm not sure the last subset actually exists in the real world nor that we ought to support censorship to help imaginary people deal with imaginary morons.

Just because you imagine it's a problem doesn't mean it is.

Like they said, doc or it didn't happen.

This, I think is perhaps the biggest item in the developer's favour. That Apple themselves found the name palatable enough to promote the app on the front page of their App Store with the existing name.