I understand that an app is content wrapped around a concept.
It is common sense not to use a known name unless you are asking for trouble.
I could make a news app. Do I want to name it CNN?
No, unless I am authorized to use that name.
It is naive to think you can use just any name, even if you meant good. You are looking for trouble.
Next time call it something else. The video app. Learn by Watching...I mean you couldn't come up with another name?
The problem is he specifically tried to figure out if that was the problem and google wouldn't say. Perhaps he got the banhammer for not getting using a (TM) after the brand name in the descriptions. Perhaps he's actually in trouble for not getting permission for some of the content in the screenshots. All of that is probably a good idea. But specifically, he will never know why he got the banhammer and we will never know either.
The problem with whatever-as-a-service business model, is you're never worth more than a penny more to the provider than the cost of sales to replace you when/if you leave. So, people are throwing themselves at google to be an app dev, so I guess he's worth precisely nothing at all to GOOG.
A business relationship where one side is worthless to the other is best described as parasitism and often that doesn't turn out well for the parasite. That is the true lesson for all app developers to learn from this story. An inherent part of the biz model is you can get annihilated and the host (host as in parasite lifecycle model) will not care. Make sure you understand that, when making business decisions.
