1. The WSJ report noted that Apple was concerned that " AppGratis was pushing a business model that appeared to favor developers with the financial means to pay for exposure." Simon hasn't addressed this point. Do they make paid recommendations ?
If they do make app-recommendations based on payments, it makes a lot of sense for Apple to ban them. As an iOS (and Android) developer, I personally think that paid-recommendations are bad for the ecosystem (though I'm sure that some giant shops paying for recommendations may disagree). At the least, I think users of AppGratis should be told if the recommendations are "paid for".
2. Simon's discussion of rule 5.6 doesn't really address the problem. Rule 5.6 says "Apps cannot use Push Notifications to send advertising, promotions, or direct marketing of any kind."
Simon counters by saying that they only send one notification per day and that users opt-in. However, neither claim refutes the fact that they''re violating rule 5.6. All iOS push-notifications are opt-in anyway. Rule 5.6 says 'no advertisement , no promotions,.... no direct marketing'. It doesn't make exceptions for apps that only send one notification per day. Now Simon could argue that Rule 5.6 is bad for the user and that push-notification-advertisements/promotions are good. That may be a debatable point. However, it is clear that his claims do nothing to counter the fact that AppGratis violates Rule 5.6 (as it is written)