'm interested in a good article, and good content demands verifiability.  In the last discussion I was too perplexed and exhausted from being defensive to seriously or critically assess the result, and to that end I did everyone a disservice.  Those links are not reliable sources, the content is not supported, and it should be removed regardless of who I am.  I think it would make the most sense to set aside preconceptions and really focus on what would make a better article. 

 I think you're right that the article should contain statements about the impact of ear training software on music education.  To that end it is interesting to know that some universities have licensed and require certain applications, and it would be very helpful to show qualitative evidence demonstrating that software does have an influence.  Has that CAI survey been published anywhere?  That's exactly the kind of data that we'd want to reference, but its current presentation violates No Original Research because it has not been published. 

 I am sorry that my edits and edit history make it seem that I am targeting competitors.  This is not the case, and if it is important to you I would be happy to talk about that with you personally (my address is nospam at aruffo dot com).  Publicly I would point out the unfortunate truth that most ear training packages are not notable.  Required use by institutions is an argument for notability; published evidence that a certain ear-training package causes significant improvement would, as a reliable source, justify its mention and inclusion because you are absolutely correct that students who come to this article should be informed of products that will improve their ear.  My complaint is that a product should be verifiably demonstrated to produce improvement before being included here. 

 If a package's only claim for inclusion is that it has unique features, then its inclusion is a statement about that package, not about ear training generally.  Consequently it would be necessary to prove notability.  Links from fifteen different college professors can only support the assertion "Fifteen college professors are aware that [the package] exists."  It cannot support the assertion that a package is notable by WP:NOTE guidelines. 

 Seriously, ultimately I do want to support you.  Our real disagreement in this discussion is about what is worthy enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedia, not whether all "competitors" should be quashed.     

 In addition to what I wrote a little bit ago, let me try here to meet your demand without being defensive.  I apologize for making myself look fickle and arbitrary, as though I were imposing my own will, when the criteria, established by Wiki policy, are unchanging and objective.  I