Not trying to defend them, just want to be sure we're realistic.

8500 apps x 4 weeks = 34,000 apps...

95% of 8500 = 8075 (completed in TWO weeks)...

8075 x 2 = 16,150 apps reviewed in a month

By this equation, I see there being twice as many left and waiting for review...

8500 apps x 4 weeks = 34,000 apps 95% of 8500 = 8075 (completed in TWO weeks) 8075 x 2 = 16,150 apps reviewed in a month.

34,000 submitted. 16,150 reviewed. Hmmm. Please...please tell me I have this completely wrong.

Reviewers don't have to get all the way to the end of the game.

Game characters and scenes are embedded as images and image fragments in the executable and other resources stored in the game. Computers are really good at scanning for that stuff.

This might change in the future as the phone gets more powerful. Then characters can simply be meshes of triangles (nothing but numbers) which are imaged by the GPU. But we aren't there yet, and Apple does not forbid such content on any of its computer platforms.

@icebike - That makes sense about updates being much faster to review. Though not a huge difference, 20+ minutes, for example, would seem more feasible than 7 minutes for some level of app assessment.

@jbrandonf - Good point that it would take a long time to go all the way through a game (which is a primary genre of apps for the iPhone) and ensure nothing "inappropriate" there. Hmm.

Reading about the details of all this leaves the impression that the beast being created by demand for iPhone applications is becoming a bit unwieldy! But, I suppose it's just reaping what you sow if a company makes their product insanely popular but insists on retaining that level of control over the software allowed on it.

the later stages could have a nude competitor.

Really, you can do a full tour of most iPhone Apps in under 10 minutes. Add to that a basic list of disqualifying criteria to go for first (low hanging fruit) and the math starts to look more reasonable.

But this does explain how shaken baby apps get through. Something like that could be easy to overlook during the monotony of this process.

I'm not sure about automation. It's possible there are some basic things that can be done with automation tools to look for bad things.

Still, the numbers are pretty staggering and puts it all in to perspective as to exactly why things get held up and why mistakes are made. No one's perfect.

Makes me want to go buy the App QA team a round.

about 8500 apps and app updates to review each week

An application might need a complete review, updates don't need much scrutiny. (The Developers know if they sneak anything in that breaks a rule they will get tossed).

So reviewing an upgrade to iSSH, for instance takes 1 minute. Test a couple connections, look for a web browser (to tag it 17+) and pass it on. (In spite of this, one reviewer did kick an upgrade of iSSH back because it used the vibrator, which the Touch does not have. The developer took it out when used on a Touch).

New apps probably take 10 to 25 minutes at each station. And I suspect each reviewer checks for certain things. Including the church-lady who scans for dirty words.

After that, I can't see revisions getting as much scrutiny as new apps.

Also, don't forget that Apple is a Computer company.

Apple can scan the executables for calls to their APIs and images, and textual content. This is probably how a great deal of the work is automated, and the reviewers know the app has the 7 dirty words embedded before they even install it to test.