Thanks for the kind words John!

Very good point on the functionality being in the eyes of the beholder. There are definitely lots of cases where one man's comical, novelty app is another man's outright dross app. My take is that the two apps mentioned from GrayNoodle are in the latter category.

It is fair to post on, and I am glad you did. Your McDonald's/gourmet comparison is SPOT ON.
The inconsistency, in my opinion, goes well above this guy, and permeates the C-Suite of Apple. Apple is one of the more secretive and successful companies out there–inconsistency in the App Store is part of their formula. The minimum functionality criterion is really in the eye of the beholder, who apparently, develops "iffy" apps. I remember a few apps that were very expensive, wasn't one like $10k and showed a picture of a diamond–that were removed under this decision-category.

I don't know if it's a controversy, or a cause for concern – but I do feel it's well worth posting on, and should at the very least raise some eyebrows. One of the things that has made the App Store frustrating for developers and users alike is the ridiculous level of inconsistency in many of the app approval / rejection decisions that are made. Finding out that the actual Director of the App Store, a store that has rejected apps specifically due to 'minium functionality', is someone who has produced more than one app that fits that description and yet got approved for the store and remain in the store, feels noteworthy to me.

I don't think your comparison is that strong either. The majority of people who review books or movies have not written books or been involved in producing movies – but they read books and watch movies and know their subjects well, just as the majority of our reviewers (as some of them are developers as well) know their subject and are heavy app users. I think that is very different to someone who is put in charge of the world's biggest mobile app store (one that already takes a lot of heat for its lack of open-ness) and appears to have some pretty obvious double-standards as far as what is acceptable for him to get into the App Store, and what others are allowed to get approved.

Part of my job entails statistical analysis. If you see some of my lower-level work, in which I only do % agreement, that doesn't mean I don't understand advanced statistical theory and application. It just means I gave the customer what they wanted for a price they agreed too.

A related connection:

I am not trying to be a jerk here, but this website (which I love) is largely run by (people I respect), and for (great group), iPhone enthusiasts. Few serious developers write articles here, and few developers add comments. Should I be dismissive of reviews that address an App's shortcomings when the reviewer couldn't implement those changes with a Mac Pro, Xcode, and 4 months of free time? I think the answer is absolutely not, this is a group of outstanding reviewers, and what you have or haven't programmed/developed doesn't really affect your ability to produce a high quality review or offer insights.

If I am not a hack, and neither is this website, then I don't see how we can be concerned with this.