App Store squatters may find loopholes as Apple cracks down

App Store squatters may soon find themselves losing their application names if they don't start uploading binaries to iTunes Connect, though they might find ways to work around Apple's restriction.

<a href='http://meincmagazine.com/apple/news/2010/09/app-store-squatters-may-find-loopholes-as-apple-cracks-down.ars'>Read the whole story</a>

 

[ShadowBob]

As a new iOS developer struggling to find a name that hasn't already been taken, I support this policy.

 

[davis]

It's easy for anyone who actually plans on building an app to upload a binary, might not be so easy to a squatter who knows nothing about programming but just shelled out $99 in the hopes of selling the name to real developer in the future.

 

[tlhIngan]

You can't do appname squatting very well in the App Store. Even before these measures.

Firstly, Apple doesn't let you know who got the name. Some devs were upset at this because they wanted to buy the name, but it's really for the better because not letting devs talk to one another about purchasing names keeps the whole appname squatting business at bay. After all, if you can't be contacted, then it's really hard to make a few bucks trying to reserve the good names.

Second, well, I think the 120-day limit is intentional and designed to let devs re-register their names, or possibly upload a stub binary. Again, if you really want to squat on the name, you can, but now you have to do a little work and if you fail to pay your $99 the next year, it's all wiped clean anyhow. So devs can upload something WIP and keep the name.

Thirdly, well, I'm sure Apple's got something on apps whose binaries have been rejected and never updated. Also, there's always an accidental chance that your app gets approved, and then you get stuck with it - your app name's taken with a crappy app that's getting horrendous reviews, and you have to start all over again with a new app name, or wait for your dev subscription to expire so you can reclaim it...

(Remember, it's $99/year. Fail to pay up and your apps are removed and the names are freed up again).

 

[oluseyi]

An informal survey of nine developers we spoke to found that, collectively, they had five application names reserved in a manner that might be considered "squatting." The majority of those developers had none on reserve, however, and only one developer had more than one name reserved.

What?

"Five application names reserved with only one developer with more than one name reserved" means what, exactly? One guy had three names reserved, and two others had one each? Or worse, four developers had names reserved, with one having two names, so five of nine didn't have names - and this amounts to a "majority" in the way we normally think of such statistics?

I'm always amused by such anecdotes.

 

[d_jedi]

Is this really an issue?
All Apple needs is a rule that names cannot be sold/transferred. End of story.

 

[WarEagle99]

This sounds like an anti-trust lawsuit in the making. Can they really filter out these apps that developers work hard on because "they" feel like the apps aren't good enough? Shouldn't the consumers decide this, NOT APPLE?! Something tells me they will be in litigation over this one.

 

[WarEagle99]

oh.... they are squatting on the app name, but don't release an app.... ok well that might be ok.

 

[AdamM]

Uhm why not stop the reservation process altogether?

If someone comes up with an application with a name you were gonna use first then I guess you should be quicker next time.

 

[big tuna]

This sounds like an anti-trust lawsuit in the making. Can they really filter out these apps that developers work hard on because "they" feel like the apps aren't good enough? Shouldn't the consumers decide this, NOT APPLE?! Something tells me they will be in litigation over this one.

It's their store, they can sell whatever they want. Most stores don't sell porn but no one says that's anticompetitive.

 

[CarolC]

> If there's no binary a month after the initial letter, Apple reclaims the name
> and deletes your app from iTunes Connect.

They do *NOT* "delete your app".
(You never created/uploaded/offered any app.)

The solution is *SO* simple... always pick your app name... when you see your app is within 4 months of completion.

Otherwise... you simply pick another name.

Duh.

 

[costique]

What I refuse to understand is why app names must be unique. iOS cares only about bundle identifiers, app names be damned. All stupid policies actually come from marketing.

 

[Manic Miner]

What I refuse to understand is why app names must be unique. iOS cares only about bundle identifiers, app names be damned. All stupid policies actually come from marketing.

Why do you REFUSE to understand? Is it a religious thing?

 

[JKT]

What I refuse to understand is why app names must be unique. iOS cares only about bundle identifiers, app names be damned. All stupid policies actually come from marketing.

So you would be happy for e.g. Angry Birds to have been used as the name for a multitude of other people's apps the moment it first became popular thus preventing users from easily finding the original? Not exactly good for users, and I'm sure developers would love that to happen too…

 

[Billy331]

"Apple's coming after me for my 'reserved' app names not being uploaded. They may all start out as fart apps, to save the name."

Except Apple has said "No more Fart apps" and Apple has said these rules are fluid.

I think if you're just trying to game the system to keep App names Apple will just reject the temp App and reclaim the name

 

[coreycubed]

So you would be happy for e.g. Angry Birds to have been used as the name for a multitude of other people's apps the moment it first became popular thus preventing users from easily finding the original?

And nothing of value was lost.

 

[Old_one]

There's a premise in the article that Apple will slavishly follow its own rules, even if those rules end up working opposite to the intended effect. Which is just silly-- anyone who has watched Jobs manage Apple in the past decade knows that's not the way he works. And, consequently, that's not the way Apple works.

 

[JabberWockey]

I have a small LLC that I created to shield myself from lawsuits with some of the open source software my friends and I are making. It's kind of a common name but not in use anywhere else - yet when I tried to find a domain name with variants of my company's name (.com, .biz, .org, with LLC in the name, etc.) almost all are taken solely by domain name squatters.

The cheapest one is demanding three figures for the domain name. I can't even imagine what these app squatters are demanding, but I hope there is a special place in hell for these people.

 

[Gazoobee]

What I refuse to understand is why app names must be unique. iOS cares only about bundle identifiers, app names be damned. All stupid policies actually come from marketing.

No offence, but my stupid detector just shot through the roof. I'm guessing this isn't what you really intended to say.

You seriously don't see a problem with a store selling different products all with the same name? Or a problem with trademark law?

Try opening a burger shack called "MacDonalds" and see how far you get.

 

[ProfessorGuy]

Is this really an issue? All Apple needs is a rule that names cannot be sold/transferred. End of story.

Not quite. If that rule were in effect, what would stop me from accepting $x from you so that I might 'forget' to re-register on a date that I will share with you? This easily circumvents the rule, so that rule is unenforceable. Seems the story goes on....

 

[gowreck]

I wasn't squatting on some of the names in my account -- to the best of my knowledge there wasn't a method of deletion. I had a couple of apps that I never finished (and two typos) and couldn't delete them from my account.

 

[d_jedi]

Is this really an issue? All Apple needs is a rule that names cannot be sold/transferred. End of story.

Not quite. If that rule were in effect, what would stop me from accepting $x from you so that I might 'forget' to re-register on a date that I will share with you? This easily circumvents the rule, so that rule is unenforceable. Seems the story goes on....

I still don't see this as a big issue.. and there is no guarantee such an arrangement would actually work out (someone else could act before the "buyer" to register the name)