I don't agree at all. If Taco Bell implemented a policy limiting you to one taco at a time, rather than allowing you to handle all your (stomach-churning) food

I don't agree at all. If Taco Bell implemented a policy limiting you to one taco at a time, rather than allowing you to handle all your (stomach-churning) food needs all at once, each order would take less time. They would even increase their "thoroughput" as measured by the # of orders filled per hour. But their line would be ridiculously long, because everyone would have to come back through again to finish their meal. Oh, and everyone would be pissed. Same deal here. No one (or almost no one) spends 2 months coding an iPhone app, only to just flat-out give up when it gets rejected. They fix the problem (or what they think is the problem after attempting to decipher Apple's rejection notice), and get back in line. By implementing this policy, Apple decreases their efficiency by adding managerial overhead - instead of one reviewer getting assigned one ticket once and handling three problems, those three problems are spread out over (I'm guessing) three different reviewers, which means time wasted dealing with each reapplication. Anyone who's ever developed software understands this intuitively: If you're fixing a reported bug, and in the process of doing so, discover a related bug which you know will be reported eventually, you don't fix the first and ignore the second. It may seem attractive, but you just know that another full cycle of report -> project manager -> scheduling -> reassignment -> new developer reading & getting caught up -> fixing -> QA is just wasting everyone's time. Not to mention, making app developers, who are literally walking Apple profit machines, go to the back of the queue time and time again without even telling them why is just stupid business.