Apple may face copyright abuse action over lyric-serving Apps

Obfuscation is what you're doing. Not that it'll do any good to tell you so.

1) Variable? Of course it is. There’s an incredible number of apps submitted weekly. Every one of them is different in some way (yes, probably even the fart apps). There are no criteria that can be designed that won’t have variability in the results. Sometimes it’ll be because the criteria weren’t applied correctly. Sometimes one reviewer might be over-zealous; sometimes another reviewer will be too lenient; and sometimes you get a reviewer who applies the rules correctly after a previous one was lenient. There’s been a number of rejections that seemed pretty lame, to be sure. But even if the reviewers couple apply their rules unerringly, it’s very hard to design criteria that split a body of unique items into two groups in a way that works nicely for every case. I've seen a bunch of suggestions along the lines of “let 'em all through unless they’ve got bugs”. The above-named app is a perfect example of why that can’t be allowed. But you were too busy insulting me to notice, I guess. No doubt better criteria could be devised. It’ll still be subject to problems. Apple’s grip is probably tighter than mine would be. But then again, I don’t have a million lawyers sitting up late at night wondering how to get rich by suing me. 

2) Non-standardized? Apple has given a few glimpses into the process going on behind the scenes. It appears to be quite standardized, in that they’ve given each person a standard set of criteria by which to judge apps. As mentioned above, variable results does not equate to incompetent criteria behind the scenes. Humans are involved. And collecting edge cases can be very useful in trying to understand where criteria are broken. There’s been some evidence Apple does that. The criteria probably are not modified as thoroughly or as quickly as people outside the Apple Legal Dept would like.

3) Inscrutable? This one might be fair, but like a lot of what you say, it’s overboard. It’s not inscrutable. Apple publishes their criteria, and by and large I suspect most rejections are according to the criteria. Nevertheless, there have indeed been some well-published rejections that didn’t seem according to the rules, and Apple has been too opaque in those cases. 

None of the above constitutes excuse-making. It’s simply an attempt to understand a very complex process, only parts of which outsiders like me & you have seen. It’s an acknowledgement that things that involve humans are complex. Nowhere have I said the App Store approval process is perfect, or unbroken, or even great. What I have said, though, is that it’s unfortunately necessary. I said we’ve just seen an object lesson in why it’s necessary. And you responded ad-hominem.

It’s true of any set of criteria that it’s imperfect. It’s the classic politician’s wedge. The challenger can always criticize the incumbent. Even when a process is basically sound (like this one may or may not be), someone can always come in and say “You should have done more of X, or less of Y, and Z should have been sooner.” Whatever. The test is can you do better? In your case and my case, we’ll never know. I'm pretty sure I could design criteria that would be basically fair, detailed enough to catch most things, but not so detailed that employee’s brains would implode; and I’m equally sure that my criteria would cause Apple to be gutted by lawyers while I shook my head in disbelief. All the while, the blogosphere would hold aloft every questionable edge-case as evidence that I was an idiot.

So I'm part of the problem because I'm trying to understand both sides of the problem, you say. Unlike you, who only admits to one of those sides. But your anger-mongering is not part of the problem? You’ve got some growing up to do. Please do it in silence.