App Store 'Name Squatters' Drawing Attention

[twilson]

or just charge a $10 or $20 to register names...

Bad/stupid idea!

As an independant iPhone developer myself, I find the $99 required for the SDK each year more than enough of an outlaid cost.

Had I needed to pay for an app name too would have most definitely been a deal breaker.

I'm not rolling in cash to start with and I'm not bringing in a huge fortune from app development either.

 

[twilson]

A $50 or $100 deposit on the name, refundable immediately upon submission of a binary, would stop this immediately.

People aren't going to invest hundreds (or potentially thousands) of dollars squatting on titles they "might" use some day.

Doesn't matter wether or not it's refundable, if you can't afford any further outlay you still screwed.

 

[KnightWRX]

And to another comment, 6 months isn't always enough time to get the app released. My latest app is now 2 1/2 months in the approval process alone (twice rejected for various reasons).

Once you submitted a binary, why would they revoke your app name reservation ?

Remember, this article is about being able to submit a name without attaching a binary.

 

[edwardd20]

Once you submitted a binary, why would they revoke your app name reservation ?

Remember, this article is about being able to submit a name without attaching a binary.

You don't have to submit a binary to lock out a name. Once you are ready to test on a device you lock out a name. It was MY testers that revoked the name I had chosen.

 

[KnightWRX]

You don't have to submit a binary to lock out a name. Once you are ready to test on a device you lock out a name. It was MY testers that revoked the name I had chosen.

I know you don't, that's exactly what the article and what I said the article is saying. You can "Submit a binary later". This is the problem. "Submitting a binary later" and then never submitting anything else, thus locking out the name from use.

 

[edwardd20]

I know you don't, that's exactly what the article and what I said the article is saying. You can "Submit a binary later". This is the problem. "Submitting a binary later" and then never submitting anything else, thus locking out the name from use.

I think we're arguing the same point. This has nothing to do with iTunesConnect where you submit your app. In the Developer Connection, once you define your AppID, that AppID is locked forever, or so it seems.

 

[KnightWRX]

I think we're arguing the same point. This has nothing to do with iTunesConnect where you submit your app. In the Developer Connection, once you define your AppID, that AppID is locked forever, or so it seems.

You said that 6 months isn't enough time to release an app and then went on describing that your app has been stuck in approval for 2 and a half months. I simply pointed out that once you submit a binary, this is not an issue anymore.

So either you're arguing the same thing and just poorly chose your example, or you didn't understand what this article was about.

 

[edwardd20]

So either you're arguing the same thing and just poorly chose your example, or you didn't understand what this article was about.

I poorly chose my example.

 

[skellener]

Just allow apps to have the same name, but require that they must have original icons. I don't see the name being that important. Songs have the same name yet somehow people seem to find the one they are looking for on iTunes by researching which band it is that they are looking for and other attributes like the 30 sec preview, year, album, etc. So apps have the same name, big deal. Just look at the other attributes (icon, screenshots, developer name, release date, version #, reviews, etc) and you'll find the right one.

 

[mattwolfmatt]

Does Apple follow its own rules for multiple apps with the same name?

 

[MikeDougherty]

As an app developer, I think the iTunes Connect site needs a LOT more work. The developer site gives me the impression some thought and care went into. The iTunes Connect site, on the other hand looks like it was thrown together in a weekend.

iTunes Connect should provide two things:

1) A way to delete an application submission that is no longer useful. I am "squatting" on a couple names, not because I want or need them. But I can NOT delete them. They are derivatives of my real app name. Since the only way to see if a name is available is to submit it, I got stuck with names I ended up not using, while looking for one I could live with. *** Not really the point of the article, I know. But still a major flaw in the system.

2) Some way for a developer to "dispute" the unavailability of a name. If I submit a name that is unavailable, I should be able to have iTunes Connect contact the owner and request they relinquish the name. Giving me direct access to the owner of the name, could result in "squatting for profit".

I'm not sure I like the idea of expiring or charging for app names. I got screwed out of my ideal name because I didn't submit it when I first started (5 months before launch). So I had to modify the original name. And it's still too similar to another app, which I hate, but have to deal with. Working only in my spare time to develop the app, I would have been screwed by any proposed suggestion of expiration or fee based name management technique. Not all apps take only 2 weeks to develop as Mr. Jobs might lead you to believe.

 

[edoates]

As an app developer, I think the iTunes Connect site needs a LOT more work. The developer site gives me the impression some thought and care went into. The iTunes Connect site, on the other hand looks like it was thrown together in a weekend.

iTunes Connect should provide two things:

1) A way to delete an application submission that is no longer useful. I am "squatting" on a couple names, not because I want or need them. But I can NOT delete them. They are derivatives of my real app name. Since the only way to see if a name is available is to submit it, I got stuck with names I ended up not using, while looking for one I could live with. *** Not really the point of the article, I know. But still a major flaw in the system.

2) Some way for a developer to "dispute" the unavailability of a name. If I submit a name that is unavailable, I should be able to have iTunes Connect contact the owner and request they relinquish the name. Giving me direct access to the owner of the name, could result in "squatting for profit".

I'm not sure I like the idea of expiring or charging for app names. I got screwed out of my ideal name because I didn't submit it when I first started (5 months before launch). So I had to modify the original name. And it's still too similar to another app, which I hate, but have to deal with. Working only in my spare time to develop the app, I would have been screwed by any proposed suggestion of expiration or fee based name management technique. Not all apps take only 2 weeks to develop as Mr. Jobs might lead you to believe.

I think names without associated binaries should be registered, but require renewing periodically (every 6 months) or they go back into the unused name universe. That process should cost whatever it does now to reserve a name (zero). That solves the unused and I don't really need it problem, and at least makes potential name squatters have to take a positive action to keep the name alive. Those who are in the midst of development and testing can keep the name reserved easily enough with an iCal reminder!

 

[MacFly123]

NO, it's you that don't know anything about branding. If a name is so important for a developer, than register it. There is already a process in place like for every other product in the market, it's called Trade Mark and Registered. What do you think the little ™ after ROCK BAND™ stand for?

I posed a question and stated an example, whereas you ignorantly assume you know anything about me and my knowledge of branding.

Of course i understand what you are talking about, but that doesn't really apply in this situation with names for apps in the App Store. Hence my point!

something like rock band is different since they also own the trademark and registered it at the US PAtent and Trademark Office. all they have to do is send apple a letter saying give us the name.

in the case of twitch, they developer should have reserved the name and registered the trademark before they started any coding.

Did either of you read the article? You think I couldn't go register www.RockBand.com if it were available? The point is, there needs to be some revision to the way names are spoken for.

 

[fifthworld]

I posed a question and stated an example, whereas you ignorantly assume you know anything about me and my knowledge of branding.

Of course i understand what you are talking about, but that doesn't really apply in this situation with names for apps in the App Store. Hence my point!

Did either of you read the article? You think I couldn't go register www.RockBand.com if it were available? The point is, there needs to be some revision to the way names are spoken for.

You sounded arrogant in your original post #79 as you sound arrogant now.

 

[MikeDougherty]

I think names without associated binaries should be registered, but require renewing periodically (every 6 months) or they go back into the unused name universe. That process should cost whatever it does now to reserve a name (zero). That solves the unused and I don't really need it problem, and at least makes potential name squatters have to take a positive action to keep the name alive. Those who are in the midst of development and testing can keep the name reserved easily enough with an iCal reminder!

Yeah, if I could renew my app name easily and without penalty, that would be an adequate solution. But I still think it was a major blunder to not have the ability to delete an app.

 

[NinjaHERO]

And how do you buy it from them when you don't even know who "they" are and thus don't have any way to contact them?

Just in case anyone was actually curious about the solution here. There are numerous "Who Is" look ups on the net. Anyone who owns a web address is required by law (ICANN rules is probably more accurate than law) to provide contact information. Failure to do so can result in the canceling of their address.

So you should be able to find their info, contact them thru a third part or by yourself and make an offer on the name. Or get ICANN to cancel their name for failure to comply with the rules of contact and get it yourself.

I own a lot of .coms and have to update this info every year. Its a pain.

Hope that is helpful to anyone who wanted it.

 

[MacFly123]

You sounded arrogant in your original post #79 as you sound arrogant now.

Sorry. Just pointing out the obvious to the newbies!

 

[vettori]

My solution would be to charge $250 for each submitted app.

This way the app store should also have a lot less garbage

 

[whooleytoo]

My solution would be to charge $250 for each submitted app.

This way the app store may have also a lot less garbage

...and no free apps.

 

[vettori]

...and no free apps.

Free apps that are from big names would still exist...
Apps that use advertising would still exist...
Lite version could have the same name of the full version and no fee.

Only free without ad and from small developers could be penalized.

 

[dejo]

Just in case anyone was actually curious about the solution here. There are numerous "Who Is" look ups on the net. Anyone who owns a web address is required by law (ICANN rules is probably more accurate than law) to provide contact information. Failure to do so can result in the canceling of their address.

You may be able to get a hold of the other party this way, but there's no guarantee you will, since there is no requirement to register a website that matches the name of the app, only that there is some website to send users to. So, a small developer could plan on doing a "one-sheet" website for their company, register it as www.mycompanyname.com, and just make mention of "appName" on that page, and then not until the app is actually released. WhoIs is not going to help you in this case.

 

[charlituna]

You may be able to get a hold of the other party this way, but there's no guarantee you will, since there is no requirement to register a website that matches the name of the app,

actually that is not the catch. the real catch is that while every app must have a 'support site' that is only for released apps. not for maybe names. so you still wouldn't have a way to track down the owner of an unused name so long as Apple has no policy about giving out that information (which they probably won't do).

the only reasonable solutions seem to be a time limit or some kind of ability to link several names to one possible app but then auto release the unchosen ones when the app is submitted. a deposit could be reasonable if the price is.

as for the submission fee issue. I believe that is what Microsoft is doing, but at the rate of $99 per submission, including version changes. that can quickly get huge.

we'll have to see what Apple does, if anything