I can't prove any of this, but I feel like there are at least two different app review queues.

On my "good" app, frequent updates, lots of users, last week it only took 24 hours to go from submission to "in review" and then about 36 hours from in review to "ready for purchace". Which is amazing! It gives me confidence that I can actually push changes on a reasonable schedule.

On the other hand I have my "toy" project that only gets updated every 6 months or so, few users is taking forever to get reviewed. It was submitted late on a Friday night, 3.5 days after the "good" app. And it finally flipped to "in review" a few minutes ago, that is 4.5 days or 3.5 days longer than the "good" app. So I will give them a pass on the weekend, lets say it was submitted Monday morning that is still 1.5 days worse.

I know I shouldn't be bitching about how long it takes. I should either be bitching about the fact that there is a review process at all. I guess if you have to have an undemocratic system, such as the app store, I actually don't mind that some people get treated better. I think only a few percent of the apps are actually useful, so if apple has some secret list that is cool by me. Or even if it goes by number of downloads you have had, in theory you have the most to lose by putting out a shoddy update.

The only thing I would like to change is you get 2 critical bug fix releases per year per app. That way when you eff something up badly you can release it immeadiately. Apple would still get to review it after the fact, and if they noticed an app abusing it, they could just delist that app. I know this idea will never happen because it is a slippery slope to a "review later" policy for every app and apple doesn't want to be in that world, no way no how.