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
i'm sure that there is something in the rules that says that Apple can change the rules anytime. just like all their EULAs have the clause that they can change that set of rules at any point.
and in the near future there will likely be a new rule that you have X months to submit the binary for a name only filing or lose the name
they did look it up. found no app called Twitch. because there is no app. name only filings won't be in the app store. only actual apps.
Frankly, if you've got two or more never-approved apps on the go at once then you deserve what you get
. Focus your time on finishing one and submit it. Rinse and repeat. (That said, there's nothing to stop Apple from flogging extra name slots each for a large fee.)Can't see how. It's one of those slippery slope issues. When does an app stop being "Hello World" and start being "in early but active development and only uploaded due to conform to arbitrary rules in order to keep a name claim"? It's another game of arbitrary shifting goalposts guaranteed to generate more bad news stories for Apple in the media
.Better to avoid that nonsense by not requiring the submission of half-baked binaries, just to keep a name reservation.
Frankly, if you've got two or more never-approved apps on the go at once then you deserve what you get
So you're saying that companies can't have more than 1 product in the pipelines ?
We're not talking rules that only apply to small 1 man or 2 man teams here. Companies like EA won't put all their projects on hold just to please you.
Okay how about this solution
When a developer signs up to create and submit an app, he/she must include a category and brief summary of the intended app. this 'game plan' can include up to 5 potential names. Those names are then locked to that app for a period of 12 months (which should be more than enough time to have something ready to submit).
Upon submission of the binary, one of the names must be chosen and all other names go back into the general pool for any developer to chose. The same developer could at that point also apply for a new app with one or more of those names as a possibility but only after submission of the first app's binary.
if an application is rejected on grounds that would bar approval after adjustment, the developer has a 30 day window to submit a new app 'game plan' using the same name or lose it to the pool.
Actually, to submit an app, a developer must already supply these things. Here's the minimum needed to submit an app:
- Application Name
- Application Description
- Device Requirements (iPhone only, etc.)
- Primary Category
- Copyright
- Version Number
- SKU Number
- Keywords
- Application URL
- Support URL
- Support Email
- Application Rating (based on 10 content descriptions)
- Large Icon
- Primary Screenshot
- Availability Date
- Price Tier
This 'game plan' would be on top of those, I realize.
and which of apple's 20 employees in the app division would be in charge of controlling all of that coming and going noise?
Or just simply allow apps to have the same name. Big deal. Songs have the same names, but somehow you figure out which is the one you are looking for. It's not that big of a deal. Name squatting is lame. Apple should just allow multiple apps to have the same name.
As a developer, I fully support Apple's policy on this.
It takes time to develop a good app. Months to be exact. I can't just develop something and find out at the last minute that the name has been taken. I must be confident this name is mine.
Maybe Apple should limit the number of pending apps to around 5-6. Should solve most problems.
It takes time to develop a good app. Months to be exact. I can't just develop something and find out at the last minute that the name has been taken. I must be confident this name is mine.
Maybe Apple should limit the number of pending apps to around 5-6. Should solve most problems.
How do they know someone is squatting "Twitch" and doesn't plan to release an app in 2 months, but had the insight to register it before so that someone else wouldn't register it, and be stuck with the same problem?
Also why didn't Atomic Antelope just register it themselves. Seems like they missed out and are just complaining because they did.
You snooze you lose. Sorry mate.
I also agree with the above poster.
Also why didn't Atomic Antelope just register it themselves. Seems like they missed out and are just complaining because they did.
You snooze you lose. Sorry mate.
I also agree with the above poster.
Finding an unique name for their apps is in the best interest of developers, like for book and song titles. Why is necessary for Apple to enforce this uniqueness?
This was a good idea by Apple to let developers protect the ideas they were working on. It's a simple fix, just have the names expire after 6 months if they don't put out an app. Then create a system where another dev can put in a request for it if it becomes available.
honest question... does anyone think that submitting a unique name and populating a few fields counts as an app when apple talks about their 20,000+ apps?
The problem isn't that Apple reserves name, it's this :
How many dozens of these names and ideas will ever even be used by this guy ?
What was apple thinking when they came up with this idea?
The insatiable hunger for absolute control, that's what.
Actually, it's more than 85,000 apps. And that's the number available on the App Store. Third-parties (like appshopper.com) have been able to verify that figure.
agree - some kind of reserve fee and expiration date would go quite a ways to stop some of this "squatting." quite a ridiculous practice...
This is one of the biggest negatives to this solution. Apple should allow developers to release names they have reserved. Thats a given!
Apple's approval process is notoriously slow, so ideally Apple wouldn't want extra human involvement if necessary. Domain squatters are one of the most annoying things I see on the internet, and I assume there's lots of money to be made in squatting, but it's difficult to come to an agreeable solution for all parties involved.
Illegitimate squatters would want to be able to sell app names. Apple doesn't want to have to hire more staff to deal with such nuisance, and developers want to be able to develop apps knowing that the applications name has been reserved. An expiry time is a good idea, but its unfair to say that you only have 3 months to develop an application, that may need longer.
Maybe Apple should just abolish the ability to squat on a name. You chose the name when your app is published to the store. If someone beats you, tough luck! But I'd hate to see developers rush through unpolished apps in an attempt to get their name registered first.
The deposit idea is good, but Apple doesn't want to push out indie developers with low budgets, as the diversity of the App Store is part of what makes it so successful (see advert "Theres an app for everything").
Apple could limit the number of name reservations. If you want more reservations, maybe you could pay more for that privilege. A small indie developer is unlikely to be developing lots of different projects at the same time, and big corporate develops have the budget to be able to purchase (or pay deposit for) a larger allowance of registered names. They could also include a 2 year expiry time, to make sure that the big corporations return any unused names.
Stay classy Apple.
So they have to create unique names for each flashlight app? The Apple iTunes app Store, millions of apps, no repeat names!
So they have to create unique names for each flashlight app? The Apple iTunes app Store, millions of apps, no repeat names!
You can be sure that this had little to do with Apple, but was a concession to developers (probably larger companies that need to justify the expense of developing software by having a branding strategy). The fact is Apple does not have the impetus to require unique names. What do they care i there are fifty iFart apps. It's the developers that want to differentiate their app from the next guy's who have a vested interest in unique app names.
Mmm, limiting the amount of time that any developer could hold an app name before releasing something for it would not have helped Atomic Antelope at all!
The so called "squatter" could have reserved "Twitch" a minute before AA made their request.
Furthermore, using the term "squatter" on the people who reserved "Twitch" -a common word- is misleading.
We call cyber-squatters only those who reserve other's copyrighted terms and names -e.g. macrumors1.com. Reserving common or non-copyrighted terms is not stealing nor illegal.
So then, Apple over-regulates the app name assignment process, and guess what, nothing is actually accomplished -developers can still sit on common names, fake trashy "name-parking" apps saturate the approval process and app store, and companies like atomic antelope keep shooting themselves in the foot in ever creative new ways, and spreading the blame afterwards.
Did you know that there are no less than 80 million reserved .com domain names in existence, yet it's still easy to find attractive 6 to 8 letter (no digits or hyphens) domains for practically every use? Not in the dictionary, mind you, but still highly marketable.
Only the most egregious cases need being looked at IMO. Apple needs no further feet shots of their own
The so called "squatter" could have reserved "Twitch" a minute before AA made their request.
Furthermore, using the term "squatter" on the people who reserved "Twitch" -a common word- is misleading.
We call cyber-squatters only those who reserve other's copyrighted terms and names -e.g. macrumors1.com. Reserving common or non-copyrighted terms is not stealing nor illegal.
So then, Apple over-regulates the app name assignment process, and guess what, nothing is actually accomplished -developers can still sit on common names, fake trashy "name-parking" apps saturate the approval process and app store, and companies like atomic antelope keep shooting themselves in the foot in ever creative new ways, and spreading the blame afterwards.
Did you know that there are no less than 80 million reserved .com domain names in existence, yet it's still easy to find attractive 6 to 8 letter (no digits or hyphens) domains for practically every use? Not in the dictionary, mind you, but still highly marketable.
Only the most egregious cases need being looked at IMO. Apple needs no further feet shots of their own
When we released Bopple on the App Store, we found that the name was already taken (the game was actually called Popple, you can see that at the video showing the alpha ver. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8R86F4ZLNDs ) and there was no Popple at the store. However the game Popple eventually showed up. Maybe was being reviewed by Apple, but we had to redo all the assets containing the name