There are a million ways to phrase a "computer readable medium" claim. I don't see anything wrong with using "apparatus" in this manner. My guess is "apparatus" was included to show this fits into one of the well-known statutory classes.
Really? I've only counted 932 so far but I don't doubt your numbers. ;-)
I agree with Karen and I don't see any immediate problems with the language in the OP.
However, it you really want to go with literal 112 language, I would use "article" or "article of manufacture" rather than "apparatus" or "machine". My understanding is that the latter have moving parts whereas the former do not.
Hmmm.... Now that I think about it, I had a CD in mind as I wrote that. A hard disk drive would include moving parts and therefore would be better suited by "apparatus". Not sure where RAM would fit. Technically, no "parts" move, but it does change state so something
moves (unlike a CD, though it does change state when you first burn it).
My personal practice is to use something like "A computer readable medium that is useful in conjunction with a computer and on which are stored computer instructions that, when executed by the computer, cause the computer to [do preamble stuff] by at least: [method steps]." I don't think I've ever seen a 112 rejection (or a 101 rejection) on that form.