I'm not sure if Apple do this already? They should allow people who register a name and then discover that they no longer need it to "return it" so to speak.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
App Store 'Name Squatters' Drawing Attention
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Just as the writers of Twitch have been working for months developing the software they want to release, so to can the owners of the Twitch name in the store. Just because the App is not available yet does not mean it never will be or that they are not entitled to the name.
If you want a specific name then you need to request it as soon as you know what you want, not months after working on the App.
Iy is their own stupid fault!
How can you say it is cyber squatting? Do you know if these App will not be written?
If you want a specific name then you need to request it as soon as you know what you want, not months after working on the App.
Iy is their own stupid fault!
How can you say it is cyber squatting? Do you know if these App will not be written?
Or ****ter.
So this is pretty much the same as buying a bunch of domain names, and waiting for someone to really need one and make an offer to you?
The fact the second blogger linked in the summary states he registered dozens of name ideas for 1 application ?
A few people that "register early" might never get to submit an actual finished app. This is a problem, there needs to be an expiry mecanism or a release mecanism for app names that will never get used because projects were dropped/renamed.
This sounds like a great idea...I don't name my apps until I'm ready to submit them, I mean I have names for them, but don't "grab a name" until I have a binary ready to submit.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7D11 Safari/528.16)
As a developer it's not possible to delete an application name from the list. You can remove an app from sale but not from the list
As a developer it's not possible to delete an application name from the list. You can remove an app from sale but not from the list
So how many names have you locked up already?
Seriously though it is a very annoying practice that started on the web and is now moving into the App store. Yes it can take years to make one but why can't they submit alpha or beta versions to Apple to prove it is in the works?
I think this would be a perfect opportunity for Apple to reach out to the development community in an effort to gain some good will by consulting them on how best to solve this issue. Puts a lot of the onus on the developers while providing Apple with a solution. But what do I know?
Any well-developed application should have files allowing it to be localised, so changing the name surely isn't a big-deal? They should implement a time-delay so that if you partially submit an application it will expire after say 14 days if you don't submit. If you submit again after the 14 days then the delay will be 7 days, until eventually you either have to submit a binary with the application or stop applying for that name.
Is there a registration fee required by Apple of these applicants for an app name? If so, make it so the registrant rents the name while the app is being developed and if no app comes to fruition the name goes back on the market, and if an app is produced the registrant owns the name... Or is this not possible?
I think the deposit idea is great. Having a name expire after a while would be difficult to judge: how long is too long and how short is too short?
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7D11 Safari/528.16)
It's ok. However, there needs to be a conduit for getting a name. Possibly apple contacting the cust who owns the name and requesting it be relinquished to setting a time frame for development. Say 30 days and then the name goes back into the pot. Also, give the requesting customer a status of the name registration to go off of.
It's ok. However, there needs to be a conduit for getting a name. Possibly apple contacting the cust who owns the name and requesting it be relinquished to setting a time frame for development. Say 30 days and then the name goes back into the pot. Also, give the requesting customer a status of the name registration to go off of.
maybe my english isnt that great but why is that so awful? not sure what a **** even is.
I think this is the kernel of the most sane idea here. A deposit would hamper small indie development, and a 90 day count down to submit code would encourage shovelware.
My only change to your suggestion would be for Apple to allow a developer to submit code and dispute the name which Apple would then investigate both the developer submitting the code and the developer holding the name. If the developer holding the name can prove they are actively developing then Apple rejects the submitted code and name dispute, otherwise they approve the new app and give the name to the developer submitting code. The only downside is that Apple is already so slow in approving apps, this type of dispute resolution could take months.
How about 'working titles' until the app is actually approved?
Sequential number, replace upon acceptance.
Probably because it wouldn't make any difference. It's trivial to add a 'Hello World' binary to an application and then you're right back to square one. Plus you've blown out the approvals process for serious developers while Apple tests all those 'Hello World' apps.
A better method would be to limit name reservation to one per ADC account. When they get an app approved, they get their name reservation slot back for their next app.
This would a lot further to creating a market for the squatters to sell names than it would to solve the problem. If you create an avenue for communication it will be no time before names are for sale.
It's a difficult question, but developers should, at the very least, be able to release names they've held but aren't using.