This seems like a pretty clear case of "not obeying the spirit of the rule":
"On September 26, Greg submitted what he believed was a valid compromise: The click would take the user to the main Launcher app, and from there the app would call the appropriate action."
It's quite clear that while the code would no longer be launching another app from the widget, the user would experience essentially the same action. That he offered this as a compromise shows that he was deliberately attempting to sidestep the rule.
Does it really matter what his compromise is? His app is a Today widget app launcher. Apple decided after initially approving it that you can't make Today widget app launchers. The end.
I agree that the dev thinking it is a "valid compromise" is iffy, but I don't think there was any compromise that would allow his app to stay on the store.
Yes, and the iron grip Apple has on their own platform's application market is not a secret, nor have they been secretive about having an iron grip.
I am totally on board with the mindset that Apple needs to loosen their grip: I think it's long-term-detrimental to their platform and it keeps a lot of really innovative ideas out. And if this blog post had said "I wanted to do something really innovative, but I can't because Apple holds an iron grip", I'd be 100% behind the author. But Apple has the right to run their marketplace as they see fit, and developers who sign on and expect that Apple will not act as they always have, and as their ToS says they will, are deluding themselves.
"On September 26, Greg submitted what he believed was a valid compromise: The click would take the user to the main Launcher app, and from there the app would call the appropriate action."
It's quite clear that while the code would no longer be launching another app from the widget, the user would experience essentially the same action. That he offered this as a compromise shows that he was deliberately attempting to sidestep the rule.