Holiday apps (Halloween in particular) and lessons learned

[canadacow]

Writing a holiday app (Carve3D (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=292415465&mt=8)) was a rather interesting endeavour. I learned a good bit about Open GL ES and other multimedia aspects of the iPhone. But that isn't why I'm writing this forum post. I feel I have some interesting observations regarding the dynamics of the App Store as well.

1) Apparently a lot of people saw Halloween as strictly a way to make a fast buck. Only it hasn't really happened and at this point, I don't really expect it to happen. When Carve3D was free I distributed about 25,000 units in a span of a weekend. When charging 0.99 for it, it was about 1% that amount. This being said, all but two apps out of forty-two that come up under a search for "Halloween" in iTunes are free. Apparently the price point for holiday apps, and in particular, Halloween apps, is "free".

2) Free apps create for a completely different audience than do apps that charge even $0.99 USD. Admittedly there were some stability issues in early releases of Carve3D and Apple's very slow turnaround time with updates did little to fix this issue. No surprise, the vast majority of iPhone users have little appreciation for how much lead time there is in getting updates pushed through the store.

3) I never intended for Carve3D to be targeted at a sub-teenage market, but the simultaneous release of Crazy Pumpkin (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=292692071&mt=8) by default seemed to give me that audience. Crazy Pumpkin is an insanely simplistic application. Compared to Carve3D, which involves mapping a 2D touch point to a 3D texture coordinate, it's worlds apart in code complexity and learning curve demanded by the user.

4) Surprisingly, Apple does have some good judgement when it comes to "Staff Picks". Apple choose fellow forum member Josh Anon's app Pumpkins (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=292179578&mt=8) as a pick. I'm not disappointed that my app was overlooked as I pointed out earlier I had stability issues that have just now been resolved, not to mention a learning curve. Crazy Pumpkin is just too simplistic and targeted at 3-year-olds or those with the equivalent IQ. Pumpkins is just right with regard to stability, features, price and fitting with the holiday.

So, lesson learned? If you're writing a "holiday" app, one should probably make it free, crisp and ideally have a pre-existing audience, like ezone and Crazy Pumpkins.

[Daremo]

Crazy Pumpkin is just too simplistic and targeted at 3-year-olds or those with the equivalent IQ.

Way to insult possible future customers who may actually enjoy that app.

[canadacow]

Way to insult possible future customers who may actually enjoy that app.

Sorry, I just call it as I see it. Besides, I think ezone would probably agree with me. See here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UORZfcN0j2w) and here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01R9N8ILPvk)

[DigMe]

Way to insult possible future customers who may actually enjoy that app.

Kinda sounds like sour grapes to me. Let's face it - it's an app involving carving an animated pumpkin. It's not like you've got the idiots and 3-year olds all over here choosing one animated pumpkin app while the classy, mensa members are all over there choosing the other animated pumpkin app. It's pretty ridiculous comment.

Sorry, I just call it as I see it.

Riiiight. When you're an app developer and you're insulting the people who chose the other app over your app then that's not calling it as you see it. That's just straight-up sour grapes, jealousy, bitterness or something else along those lines. I have no interest in supporting any of your future apps after reading your negative comments towards others.

[canadacow]

Kinda sounds like sour grapes to me. Let's face it - it's an app involving carving an animated pumpkin. It's not like you've got the idiots and 3-year olds all over here choosing one animated pumpkin app while the classy, mensa members are all over there choosing the other animated pumpkin app. It's pretty ridiculous comment.


No, what you have are both picking both. And it's reflected in the reviews, if you'd take the time to read them. I'm fairly certain the people who rated my app positively gave Crazy Pumpkin a low review, and vice versa. I mean really, have you bothered to even read the reviews between my app (Carve3D) and Crazy Pumpkin? Which, as I pointed out, are the only two free Halloween apps in the store.

By creating a free app, many people impulsively walked into my app expected a quick fix. Crazy Pumpkin, because of it's simplistic nature gives people that chidren's rattle type fix. My app, on the other hand, isn't quite so quickly rewarding as it takes practice.


Riiiight. When you're an app developer and you're insulting the people who chose the other app over your app then that's not calling it as you see it. That's just straight-up sour grapes, jealousy, bitterness or something else along those lines.

I think you've very selectively read my post. On multiple occasions, including this original post, I gave kudos to a "competing" app. Pumpkins, by Josh Anon, is a good app and Apple was wise in choosing it as a Staff Favorite. They could have picked mine, or Crazy Pumpkin, or any other other nearly 50 Halloween apps.

So why am I beating up on Crazy Pumpkin? Pumpkins and my app, Carve3D, show genuine effort to make a quality product that has more appeal than an infant's rattle (and lets be serious, that is what Crazy Pumpkin is). And Josh Anon's app and hopefully my app actually deliver on that ideal. Crazy Pumpkin does not. Crazy Pumpkin is an app I could write in half a lazy Saturday afternoon. Pumpkins and my own app, not so much. In short, if you read what I wrote again, it's not me insulting their user base, it's Ezone. As demonstrated by YouTube, their common denominator is low, and they know it.

So really, that's more of what I'm taking issue with. It's crappy developers producing crappy apps for the App Store. Ezone is one bad offender (just look at their wonderful selection of "Crazy" apps in total.) Another great example is ZATZ Publishing (http://ax.phobos.apple.com.edgesuite.net/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewArtist?id=290031857), who has released 31 different versions of the same app, a day counter to a very specific event. Eventually people caught on to this certain individual's poor tactics but it doesn't stop the developer from releasing more of the same crap.


I have no interest in supporting any of your future apps after reading your negative comments towards others.


I know you aren't serious. Why? Because unless you have 3-year-old kids or grandkids, you and I both know that even in the next 15 days to Halloween, you'll probably have Crazy Pumpkin open for a shorter amount of time than it took you to read this forum post.

Really, who are we kidding here?

[tk421]

So why am I beating up on Crazy Pumpkin? Pumpkins and my app, Carve3D, show genuine effort to make a quality product that has more appeal than an infant's rattle (and lets be serious, that is what Crazy Pumpkin is). And Josh Anon's app and hopefully my app actually deliver on that ideal. Crazy Pumpkin does not. Crazy Pumpkin is an app I could write in half a lazy Saturday afternoon. Pumpkins and my own app, not so much. In short, if you read what I wrote again, it's not me insulting their user base, it's Ezone. As demonstrated by YouTube, their common denominator is low, and they know it.

Lots of people have downloaded Crazy Pumpkin (it's the number 2 app at this moment). And it has pretty good reviews.

Who cares if their YouTube videos are kids or their app is simplistic? There is room for all sorts of apps. Ezone just knows their target audience, and apparently it's pretty large.


I know you aren't serious. Why? Because unless you have 3-year-old kids or grandkids, you and I both know that even in the next 15 days to Halloween, you'll probably have Crazy Pumpkin open for a shorter amount of time than it took you to read this forum post.

What does that have to do with anything? He (or she) didn't say he was going to use Crazy Pumpkin a lot. He said he would NOT download your apps. Why wouldn't he be able to follow through on that?

[geekmommy4]

Oh my...such seriousness over pumpkin apps? Did you look at the stock market today? :rolleyes:

[Daremo]

Sorry, I just call it as I see it. Besides, I think ezone would probably agree with me. See here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UORZfcN0j2w) and here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01R9N8ILPvk)

it doesn't matter what the app is. I see it as poor business to publicly slam potential customers in a forum, if in fact they like a competitors product that YOU don't like. I don't own either one, but I can clearly see the sour grapes you're leaving here.

[canadacow]

it doesn't matter what the app is. I see it as poor business to publicly slam potential customers in a forum, if in fact they like a competitors product that YOU don't like. I don't own either one, but I can clearly see the sour grapes you're leaving here.

Have you actually read my original post in it's entirety? Why all the focus on a single sentence?

First and foremost, and I'll say it again to be absolutely clear, Ezone and I are competitors in name only as both of our apps are the only free Halloween apps for the present moment in time. I find it ironically childish that someone would swear not to buy any free apps.

I'll make my point again and as clear as possible, because I stand by it: The apps themselves insult the intelligence of the people who shop in the App Store. This was the intention of my comment. I buttressed my point because I find it all too obvious that Ezone is honest and cognizant of their target audience via their marketing.

Ezone as company however was one of the first companies to take advantage of the now closed loophole in the App Store where by one could release an app for free and then jump to paid and take that momentum with them. The reviews of all their other "crazy" apps bear this out. Even a large number of the high reviews on Crazy Pumpkin carry with it that it's good because it's "free". If they jump to paid like they did with their other apps, the reviews immediately drop to the toilet like their other releases.

The crux of my complaint and "sour grapes" if anything is that one off, poor quality apps seem to drown out ones where time, original thought and effort have gone into them. Cheap tricks like switching from free to paid (now closed) or deliberately placing whitespace or other characters in a name to get attention seems to rule what wins and what doesn't, rather than actual quality. I know I'm not alone in feeling this way and this was the intent of my comment in the original post. Apple apparently sees through this with their "Staff Favorites" list and they chose a very good app.

In closing, I will say my better half has read this post over my shoulder and does say I do sound like I'm whining to an extent. I can see where she's coming from. The catch is that I already have a successful, quality app in the store, and we need more of them. What we need less of are (and Apple apparently agrees with me on this point) are "pull my finger" apps, "I am Rich" apps, and the like that scar the creditability of the App Store.

Can we all go home now and argue about the Presidential Debates instead?

[Daremo]

Have you actually read my original post in it's entirety? Why all the focus on a single sentence?

First and foremost, and I'll say it again to be absolutely clear, Ezone and I are competitors in name only as both of our apps are the only free Halloween apps for the present moment in time. I find it ironically childish that someone would swear not to buy any free apps.

I'll make my point again and as clear as possible, because I stand by it: The apps themselves insult the intelligence of the people who shop in the App Store. This was the intention of my comment. I buttressed my point because I find it all too obvious that Ezone is honest and cognizant of their target audience via their marketing.

Ezone as company however was one of the first companies to take advantage of the now closed loophole in the App Store where by one could release an app for free and then jump to paid and take that momentum with them. The reviews of all their other "crazy" apps bear this out. Even a large number of the high reviews on Crazy Pumpkin carry with it that it's good because it's "free". If they jump to paid like they did with their other apps, the reviews immediately drop to the toilet like their other releases.

The crux of my complaint and "sour grapes" if anything is that one off, poor quality apps seem to drown out ones where time, original thought and effort have gone into them. Cheap tricks like switching from free to paid (now closed) or deliberately placing whitespace or other characters in a name to get attention seems to rule what wins and what doesn't, rather than actual quality. I know I'm not alone in feeling this way and this was the intent of my comment in the original post. Apple apparently sees through this with their "Staff Favorites" list and they chose a very good app.

In closing, I will say my better half has read this post over my shoulder and does say I do sound like I'm whining to an extent. I can see where she's coming from. The catch is that I already have a successful, quality app in the store, and we need more of them. What we need less of are (and Apple apparently agrees with me on this point) are "pull my finger" apps, "I am Rich" apps, and the like that scar the creditability of the App Store.

Can we all go home now and argue about the Presidential Debates instead?

The problem with all of this, is it's all based on opinion. It doesn't matter what you or I think is good. People like what they like, being it simple or well thought out. It doesn't matter.

My comment had nothing to do with what the app is or does. I was simply saying everything else you wrote in your original post lost credibility as soon as you insulted the people who may enjoy the app when you compared their IQs to a 3 year old because their opinion differs from you. That's it really. It's just bad business.

[eagecl]

As a buyer of both applications, I agree with the OP and appreciate him sharing his experiences. While people are jumping all over him for "whining", they are missing the value of the article which is the lessons learned from experiences in the app store.

Initially I wanted to get Carve3d, but I'm not a huge fan of paying .99 for a seasonal application. When I wasn't able to get it during the free weekend, I downloaded the other application. Two screen flicks later, I deleted it. It really is a pretty dumb app. If it works for you, great, but Carve3d is much better. In fact the only thing they share in common is a halloween theme.

I don't feel insulted by the OP even though I "bought" the competitor's app. I think it did so well b/c there were many people who got it b/c it was free and then put it on their iPod and either realized it was pretty lame or amused their 3 year olds with it (which is great)!

While we're beating up on developers expressing a negative opinion of a competitor's product, let's not forget Apple does it all the time. Did anyone see the "state of the mac" when they talked about their success being partially due to the fact that Vista sucks? That wasn't "whining", that was accurate and amusing.

Anyways, Thanks for a great app and for sharing your experiences. I for one found it interesting.

[canadacow]

That's it really. It's just bad business.

I'll concede on that point, but that was not the intention of my post at all. I can't help it if that's how you took it either.

Anyway, it's also bad business to give stuff away completely for free, no strings attached, but as my original post said, that's apparently the price point for holiday apps, as a lesson learned.

[moopf]

Initially I wanted to get Carve3d, but I'm not a huge fan of paying .99 for a seasonal application.

Without getting into the wider argument here, I'd love to know your reasoning for this. We're talking about $0.99, an impulse buy if you like. I'm trying to understand the app store marketplace as there appears to be a huge discrepancy in what people are willing to pay and what they believe they should get for the price they are paying. I see $0.99 apps railed against because they don't do this or that, or they don't give longevity past an hour or so, or other such reasons (I'm excluding bugs here, as they are good reasons) and I really just don't get it. I see people demanding updates to $0.99 or free apps as if it's reasonable to expect more and more, even when those apps works perfectly well as they are. There's a level of expectation that I simply don't get.

I presume you wouldn't spend admission price on a seasonal film that gave you a couple of hours worth of entertainment as well? Or a real pumpkin to carve? Or anything else, not entirely remotely related to Halloween that is $0.99 for something essentially throw-away in entertainment terms. These apps are entertainment, all the same, so why are the expectations so different?

For some reason games, apps etc. that are entertainment on the app store aren't being treated as such. It appears that in buying them, many customers think that comes with an expectation that it will be constantly improved or must do more than provide a small shot of entertainment. At least that's how I'm seeing it.

I'm not having a go, believe me, I'd just really like to understand more about why consumers on the app store think the way they do as I think, as developers, it would help us to realise who we're aiming at.

[canadacow]

Initially I wanted to get Carve3d, but I'm not a huge fan of paying .99 for a seasonal application.


I think at this point I've figured out that nearly everyone else has the same line of thinking as you in this regard. And to be honest, it is fair. They're basically disposable apps so it makes sense that they should be free.


Anyways, Thanks for a great app and for sharing your experiences. I for one found it interesting.

Thanks. This is all a learning experience for everyone. That's why I toyed with pricing and other aspects and then later posted my experiences here.

Happy Halloween!

[canadacow]

Without getting into the wider argument here, I'd love to know your reasoning for this. We're talking about $0.99, an impulse buy if you like. I'm trying to understand the app store marketplace as there appears to be a huge discrepancy in what people are willing to pay and what they believe they should get for the price they are paying. I see $0.99 apps railed against because they don't do this or that, or they don't give longevity past an hour or so, or other such reasons (I'm excluding bugs here, as they are good reasons) and I really just don't get it. I see people demanding updates to $0.99 or free apps as if it's reasonable to expect more and more, even when those apps works perfectly well as they are. There's a level of expectation that I simply don't get.

This has grabbed my curiosity as well and I've been attempting to crack it. My other app, iSSH (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=287765826&mt=8) is worlds apart from Carve3D. It's higher priced in the App Store ($4.99 USD) and has very specific target audience (UNIX system administrators). In reality $4.99 isn't much to pay for software and really isn't too far removed from free. For me I have no problem having customers expect updates because I know that in many cases I actually be expanding my future customer base, which is good for business. For example, a customer requested BIG5 Chinese support. Once that makes it into my product, I expect my sales in China to see a huge jump, and then jump once again after Apple secures a legitimate contract for service there.

With regard to people expecting updates to free apps. I think within reason it makes sense. Cleaning up stability or usability issues should be expected, but core functionality included in free apps should be considered the "end of the line." In my opinion. ;)

[shoelessone]

wow, why you guys are all kicking this guys ass I'm not sure. I honestly didn't see his post as being anything but helpful, informative, and honest. I'd say his application is a HELL of a lot more complex then the app that you just flick the different faces. Again, it seems like he posted good info, and I'm really shocked by all of the flack he's getting - wtf am I missing?

[moopf]

This has grabbed my curiosity as well and I've been attempting to crack it. My other app, iSSH (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=287765826&mt=8) is worlds apart from Carve3D. It's higher priced in the App Store ($4.99 USD) and has very specific target audience (UNIX system administrators). In reality $4.99 isn't much to pay for software and really isn't too far removed from free. For me I have no problem having customers expect updates because I know that in many cases I actually be expanding my future customer base, which is good for business. For example, a customer requested BIG5 Chinese support. Once that makes it into my product, I expect my sales in China to see a huge jump, and then jump once again after Apple secures a legitimate contract for service there.

With regard to people expecting updates to free apps. I think within reason it makes sense. Cleaning up stability or usability issues should be expected, but core functionality included in free apps should be considered the "end of the line." In my opinion. ;)

I don't mind requests for updates for my game and, in fact, included many in an update as they made sense. And certainly, consumers do often have good ideas for improvements. But there is a general expectation, even with entertainment apps that are selling for what basically amounts to peanuts, that they should be constantly improved or added to. This seems fundamentally at odds to games/entertainment apps on other platforms, for instance, where the only thing consumers reasonably expect are bug fixes and generally expect to pay and do pay much more money for them. It's that core difference in attitude, especially when we're talking about such small amounts of money, that I simply do not understand and I'm trying to get my head around :)

[eagecl]

Without getting into the wider argument here, I'd love to know your reasoning for this. We're talking about $0.99, an impulse buy if you like. I'm trying to understand the app store marketplace as there appears to be a huge discrepancy in what people are willing to pay and what they believe they should get for the price they are paying. I see $0.99 apps railed against because they don't do this or that, or they don't give longevity past an hour or so, or other such reasons (I'm excluding bugs here, as they are good reasons) and I really just don't get it. I see people demanding updates to $0.99 or free apps as if it's reasonable to expect more and more, even when those apps works perfectly well as they are. There's a level of expectation that I simply don't get.

It is an insteresting phenomenon. I am not sure I am accurate in saying that my reason for not buying the .99 app was due to it being a seasonal app. After all .99 IS an impulse buy. My iPod has very few paid apps on it. I only spend money on apps that I know I will like and provide longevity. this is to protect myself from nickel and dimeing myself into poverty. In the Carve3D app's scenario, I saw that it was free for a weekend and missed it (I tried to download it at 11:30pm Mon night). I thought it would be a cool tool for templating a pumpkin face before I carved an actual pumpkin (which it is). When it went back up to .99, I considered buying, but I had no way of trying it out first and so did not consider it priority enough to warrant a .99 gamble. now that I know the quality of the app, I would consider buying, but now I already have it. The most obvious solution would be a shareware, try-before-you-buy model. That would be good in this situation because I could then purchase the app after having my doubts removed by trying it out. The problem then is that you have a glut of shareware in the app store and it's not as elegant as the current model. Perhaps a better implementation would be for Apple to allow you to try it out using a built in emulator in iTunes. Now that would be cool.

A word about more expensive apps, I have purchased Galcon which was $5 during a sale and I love the game. Well worth the money. But I did not buy it when it was 9.99 even though I know it would be a great game that I would enjoy over and over. I don't know why there is a psychological barrier to spending $9.99 on an app, but there is. $5.00 is the most I will pay for an application, even great ones (Lux Delux, I hope your listening).

paid apps:
Galcon $4.99 (picked up during a sale)
Cro-Mag $2.99 (picked up during a sale) Never play
Radius $.99 (picked up during a sale)
Dizzy Bee $2.99(first app I bought) Never play

[eagecl]

I don't mind requests for updates for my game and, in fact, included many in an update as they made sense. And certainly, consumers do often have good ideas for improvements. But there is a general expectation, even with entertainment apps that are selling for what basically amounts to peanuts, that they should be constantly improved or added to. This seems fundamentally at odds to games/entertainment apps on other platforms, for instance, where the only thing consumers reasonably expect are bug fixes and generally expect to pay and do pay much more money for them. It's that core difference in attitude, especially when we're talking about such small amounts of money, that I simply do not understand and I'm trying to get my head around :)

I don't expect updates to inexpensive apps as long as they are not buggy and have glaring errors. I will however stop using an app if it is not useful. Probably alot of feedback you get related to updates is stemming from users wanting to use the app to its full potential, but needing additional functionality/bug fixes. I don't know how many "todo" applications I've downloaded that come close to getting it right, but missing by just a little. As a result, I am still using the notes app that comes with the iPod. A couple of those, I've emailed the developer with suggestions and I keep watching for updates. Until then, they stay off my iPod.

[moopf]

When it went back up to .99, I considered buying, but I had no way of trying it out first and so did not consider it priority enough to warrant a .99 gamble. now that I know the quality of the app, I would consider buying, but now I already have it. The most obvious solution would be a shareware, try-before-you-buy model.

First of all, thank you for the answer and taking my post in the way it was meant :)

Now here's the big problem I see with customer expectation. You want to trial a $0.99 app? This goes back to the expectations on an app that costs $0.99 - for that level of payment commitment, if you played a 24 hour trial and decided you'd got your fun out of it, you'd pay nothing. I guess it really depends how much entertainment you want for $0.99, and this is where the expectation doesn't meet the reality.

For that kind of cost, I'd probably expect an hour, maybe two, entertainment tops. More than that and it's a bonus. Less than that and, well, it's only $0.99 so it's no great shakes. I don't have money to burn but if something looks interesting and it's $0.99, well I think I'd "gamble" on that in hopes of it meeting my requirement of a couple of hours fun. I mean, where else could you get a couple of hours fun for $0.99 these days. Or even an hour.

Obviously this isn't the way that vast numbers of app store consumers feel and I'd love to get to the bottom of the reason why - what is it about the app store, or about the demographic using the app store, that means they expect so much more and think that $0.99 is a gamble.

[yalag]

First of all, thank you for the answer and taking my post in the way it was meant :)

Now here's the big problem I see with customer expectation. You want to trial a $0.99 app? This goes back to the expectations on an app that costs $0.99 - for that level of payment commitment, if you played a 24 hour trial and decided you'd got your fun out of it, you'd pay nothing. I guess it really depends how much entertainment you want for $0.99, and this is where the expectation doesn't meet the reality.

For that kind of cost, I'd probably expect an hour, maybe two, entertainment tops. More than that and it's a bonus. Less than that and, well, it's only $0.99 so it's no great shakes. I don't have money to burn but if something looks interesting and it's $0.99, well I think I'd "gamble" on that in hopes of it meeting my requirement of a couple of hours fun. I mean, where else could you get a couple of hours fun for $0.99 these days. Or even an hour.

Obviously this isn't the way that vast numbers of app store consumers feel and I'd love to get to the bottom of the reason why - what is it about the app store, or about the demographic using the app store, that means they expect so much more and think that $0.99 is a gamble.

I think it all comes down to relativity. What can you get for a buck in the real world? Nothing, that's right. Not even a coffee or a piece of candy. So if someone comes along and tries to sell you something (remotely useful) for a buck, you'd take it. Why? Because just what else could you do with a dollar anyways?

Now the apps tore. Almost every kind of app can be had for free with 10 competitions to choose from. 0.99 becomes a huge investment. Really, the strategy should be to write apps that will have no competition. Period. Then you get to charge whatever price you feel is fair. Why is no one whining about 0.99 koi pond? Well because koi is koi, there is no other koi. As a poster in this thread as mentioned, iSSH is making him truckloads of money. Why? Well, there's probably 2 ssh clients and neither is free.

[moopf]

Now the apps tore. Almost every kind of app can be had for free with 10 competitions to choose from. 0.99 becomes a huge investment. Really, the strategy should be to write apps that will have no competition. Period. Then you get to charge whatever price you feel is fair. Why is no one whining about 0.99 koi pond? Well because koi is koi, there is no other koi. As a poster in this thread as mentioned, iSSH is making him truckloads of money. Why? Well, there's probably 2 ssh clients and neither is free.

This only really works if the free ones are any good. In my experience of the app store, I have downloaded tons of free apps and ended up purchasing a paid for alternative for nearly all of them because they've been so poor. What's interesting in games, for instance, is that the vast majority of free apps are lite versions of full apps. This again, would lead me to think that the competition isn't as great as you may think. Maybe it's the sheer volume of apps that makes consumers weary of trying another one as well, making them reluctant to pay that $0.99 for something else. If that's the case then, for 99% of developers, this just isn't going to work.

Originality is certainly something very important. But again, how much originality can you expect for $0.99 ;)

PS> I've seen plenty of people whining about koi pond since it was released. Take a look at the reviews for it, for instance. Even at $0.99 people want more or aren't happy with it, and here's an app with no competition. I think this goes deeper than it just being because there are free versions of apps.

[Rojo]

This thread has derailed into a pricing debate, but I want to get back to what the OP was talking about.

Well... I guess I have the intelligence of a 3-year old because I downloaded Crazy Pumpkin (and none of the other pumpkin apps) while knowing full well exactly what I was getting with it. ;)

I actually think ANY pumpkin-carving app for the phone, no matter how advanced it is, is kind of silly. Carving a real pumpkin? That’s kind of cool, even for adults. Carving a virtual 3D pumpkin? Uh...what’s the point? So you can whip out your phone and show your friends the virtual pumpkin you created? Sorry, I can’t see anyone over 12 actually doing that... (apologies to anyone over 12 here who actually HAS done that).
I can see some appeal for very young kids, sure -- and I think it’s great that these kind of apps exist for that kind of audience. I know there’s a lot of iPhone owners with little kids that like to have apps that can entertain them.

However, with Crazy Pumpkin, my purpose for downloading it was NOT to have a “virtual pumpkin” that looked “real.” If I wanted that, I would just GET a real pumpkin! No, with Crazy Pumpkin I simply wanted a very simple, basic, Halloween-themed app that I could leave in my dock if I ever had a Halloween-themed party or just to have on Halloween night. It’s super-simplicity IS the appeal for me -- and for the OP not to understand that there’s an audience for that, even for adults, makes me wonder if he has a lot MORE to learn than just what he talks about here.

I guarantee there are a LOT more adults who have downloaded Crazy Pumpkin over any of the more "realistic" pumpkin carving apps, and NOT just because it’s free or listed in the top apps. Sure, that helps -- but I guarantee you that if you gave most adults the option of choosing any of the Halloween-themed apps for themselves (and NOT for their kids), and all of them just happened to be free so price wasn’t a factor, that the majority of them would still choose Crazy Pumpkin. Why? Because ALL of them are kind of lame, to be honest. But at least Crazy Pumpkin has a certain simplistic appeal about it, and can be used just for “dressing” around the house. As much as the OP wants to make fun and ridicule it and say it’s for toddlers, I’m actually LESS embarrassed to have it on my phone than I would be if I had his 3D carving app. The thought of someone knowing I actually spent time to carve out a virtual pumpkin is just too shameful for words.

There’s a HUGE market for “simple” and “cute” and “no-nonsense” merchandise that’s strictly aimed towards adults (with appeal to children just a happy by-product). The OP is hugely underestimating this market, and should probably do a little more research. And while I took no offense at his comments, I do think he’s a little bit ignorant of what sells and what appeals to people.

As for lessons learned, perhaps the biggest thing the OP can get out of this experience is that maybe seasonal apps are NOT the smartest way to be utilizing his developing skills. Leave the holidays for companies like ezone to take advantage of, and spend your time developing more long-lasting apps that can have some real use for people. You have iSSH, which I’m sure is great for people who need that. Let’s see more of that type of thing from you. Take a look at the numerous threads on this forum about what apps people really want. I'm pretty sure no one is asking for a pumpkin-carving app.

On an completely off-note: moopf -- I absolutely love your Hiqup app! :D

[canadacow]

Obviously this isn't the way that vast numbers of app store consumers feel and I'd love to get to the bottom of the reason why - what is it about the app store, or about the demographic using the app store, that means they expect so much more and think that $0.99 is a gamble.

I think eagecl is on to something when he says that he doesn't want to be nickel and dimed by the store. That's kind of the danger if there are no "lite" app equivalents available. Even then, I take issue with apps like Mocha VNC lite where they are rendered useless because of artificially imposed restrictions on functionality. Functionality is crippled in such a way that I get a negative impression of the app, even if the full version is great. Games have it a little easier in this department because a "lite" version can simply have a reduced number of levels or pieces, without actually impacting the experience.

But now, just to hold it up as an example, there are five "pumpkin carving" apps, three for 0.99 USD and two that are free. I'm predicting that there are probably 3 more in the pipeline (that'll sell for 0.99 USD). And ultimately 50+ themed Halloween apps. That 0.99 starts adding up really quickly to find that one or two good seasonal apps that you like.

I guess to put things another way. While your own app may be for sale for 0.99 USD, that's not the price the consumer is seeing. They're seeing the cumulative price of all the apps they'll have to buy at that price or more to actually find the one they like. If we're talking just pumpkin carving apps, it'll be 6 USD worst case scenario in their search. At that point, it's a lot for a throw away app.

[Rojo]

I guess to put things another way. While your own app may be for sale for 0.99 USD, that's not the price the consumer is seeing. They're seeing the cumulative price of all the apps they'll have to buy at that price or more to actually find the one they like. If we're talking just pumpkin carving apps, it'll be 6 USD worst case scenario in their search. At that point, it's a lot for a throw away app.

While I still think you need to learn a lot about what appeals to people, your thoughts here are actually very smart. There's a lot of people who bitch about pricing, and just as many people who bitch about the people who are bitching about pricing. But there's something to be said about people's reluctance to buy certain apps -- even if they are just 99 cents. Yes, it's not much money when you compare it to other things you may buy -- however, app costs DO have a culmulative effect. I've spent a TON of money on apps, and only 25% of it is actually useful to me. I'm a lot more cautious about what paid apps I download now -- not because I'm being cheap, or I think these apps are so expensive, but because they DO add up over time. And when most turn out to be useless, that ends up being a lot of money wasted...

[canadacow]

This thread has derailed into a pricing debate, but I want to get back to what the OP was talking about.

Well... I guess I have the intelligence of a 3-year old because I downloaded Crazy Pumpkin (and none of the other pumpkin apps) while knowing full well exactly what I was getting with it. ;)


And really, me too. It is on my phone. It was free. What did I have to lose? I don't even have any kids! That statement was a hyperbole and I'm fairly confident that most people, including yourself, got the intent behind what I was saying in the context. Can we move on now?


I actually think ANY pumpkin-carving app for the phone, no matter how advanced it is, is kind of silly. Carving a real pumpkin? That’s kind of cool, even for adults. Carving a virtual 3D pumpkin? Uh...what’s the point? So you can whip out your phone and show your friends the virtual pumpkin you created? Sorry, I can’t see anyone over 12 actually doing that... (apologies to anyone over 12 here who actually HAS done that).


In my own defense, Carve3D was an experiment to learn exactly the things we're talking about here. When I wrote iSSH, my attitude was completely different. I wrote iSSH because I wanted a good SSH client for the iPhone. With Carve3D however, I wanted to do something completely different and see how it would turn out. I wanted to learn the ins-and-outs of the Open GL ES functionality of the phone so I could apply it to future apps. I wanted to have the experience having a non-niche market app in the store.

It's always been an annual tradition of mine to code some sort of holiday app. This year it was Carve3D for the iPhone. In my mind I did have as my target audience people would would appreciate the 3D capabilities of a phone, much like Earth3D, also in the store.


However, with Crazy Pumpkin, my purpose for downloading it was NOT to have a “virtual pumpkin” that looked “real.” If I wanted that, I would just GET a real pumpkin! No, with Crazy Pumpkin I simply wanted a very simple, basic, Halloween-themed app that I could leave in my dock if I ever had a Halloween-themed party or just to have on Halloween night. It’s super-simplicity IS the appeal for me -- and for the OP not to understand that there’s an audience for that, even for adults, makes me wonder if he has a lot MORE to learn than just what he talks about here.


Point well made and conceded. However further discussion on the thread revealed my additional frustration with Ezone. Their abuse of the system and their deluge of ultimately low quality apps in the store. Crazy Pumpkin is somewhat of an exception for them as in the past they had always tried to make the jump from free to paid. So far they haven't but it will be interesting to watch when they do. Would you have paid 0.99 USD for your iPhone dock-screensaver?


As much as the OP wants to make fun and ridicule it and say it’s for toddlers, I’m actually LESS embarrassed to have it on my phone than I would be if I had his 3D carving app. The thought of someone knowing I actually spent time to carve out a virtual pumpkin is just too shameful for words.


To each his own, I guess. Like I said earlier, I'm actually quite impressed with what the iPhone can do with it's 3D hardware. On the other hand, I'm not so much impressed that it can mask arbitrary images with an alpha layer.


There’s a HUGE market for “simple” and “cute” and “no-nonsense” merchandise that’s strictly aimed towards adults (with appeal to children just a happy by-product). The OP is hugely underestimating this market, and should probably do a little more research. And while I took no offense at his comments, I do think he’s a little bit ignorant of what sells and what appeals to people.


At this point you keep missing one very obvious point. Both Crazy Pumpkin and Carve3D are free. Things like "markets", "merchandise" and "selling" do not apply here. I mean they do, but only in a "look at my numbers!" and not "look at my revenue!" kind of deal.


As for lessons learned, perhaps the biggest thing the OP can get out of this experience is that maybe seasonal apps are NOT the smartest way to be utilizing his developing skills. Leave the holidays for companies like ezone to take advantage of, and spend your time developing more long-lasting apps that can have some real use for people.


Isn't that exactly my final conclusion from my OP? "If you're writing a "holiday" app, one should probably make it free, crisp and ideally have a pre-existing audience, like ezone and Crazy Pumpkins."

But like they say about the lotto, "Can't win if you don't play", the same as it is here, "Can't learn if you don't try."


You have iSSH, which I’m sure is great for people who need that. Let’s see more of that type of thing from you. Take a look at the numerous threads on this forum about what apps people really want. I'm pretty sure no one is asking for a pumpkin-carving app.


I'm definitely not short on ideas. Though I do think gold rush days of iPhone apps is pretty much already over. With Google's phone coming on line and more competition added every day, there will still be a handful of winners, but it certainly isn't the pay dirt that was painted at the very beginning. This is why quality control is all the more important.


On an completely off-note: moopf -- I absolutely love your Hiqup app! :D

Agreed. I just grabbed it and it's the only game so far on the iPhone that I've really liked. Good work!

[moopf]

On an completely off-note: moopf -- I absolutely love your Hiqup app! :D

Thanks, glad you like it :)

I think eagecl is on to something when he says that he doesn't want to be nickel and dimed by the store. That's kind of the danger if there are no "lite" app equivalents available. Even then, I take issue with apps like Mocha VNC lite where they are rendered useless because of artificially imposed restrictions on functionality. Functionality is crippled in such a way that I get a negative impression of the app, even if the full version is great. Games have it a little easier in this department because a "lite" version can simply have a reduced number of levels or pieces, without actually impacting the experience.

Now this goes to the core of why the app store doesn't work for developers (apart from the larger production houses and some apps that have hit some PR for whatever reason). If you're having to produce a free version, or Apple allows time-limited trials, of something where the full version costs a couple of dollars then you are not going to see sales of your full version because of the longevity that would be expected by the consumer in order for them to go on to purchase that. It's unrealistic when it comes to time and effort to create whilst selling at that price. This is the paradox, you can't compete unless you have a free version but in having a free version, for most apps priced $0.99 - $1.99, what you're giving them for free is probably enough for them to have their fix and move on. Because of the amount of entertainment you can, in the real world, expect for such a low payment commitment, it's counter-intuitive for developers.

If prices were generally higher, this wouldn't be such a problem, but they aren't and that's a worrying trend in the app store, especially for independent developers. It's nobody's fault per-se, nor is it necessarily wrong, it's just the way the market appears to have developed, but it's interesting and makes you scratch your head as a developer either way :) I think that a lot of it comes from the belief, at least at the start of the app store, that success would be built on volume so prices could be low. That really hasn't happened. And it definitely causes me to re-appraise if, what or when I'll do something else. That's why these discussions (although it's gone off what the real crux of this thread was about, but as the OP is inolved, that's fine :D ) interest me so if I do do anything else, I know where I'm aiming.

[mrgreen4242]

My lunch break is wrapping up here so I didn't have a chance to finish this thread, but something in the first post jumped out at me - 25,000 d/l when the app was free and 250 (if I read that right) when it was $1.

Now I'd rather have 70% of $250, but it looks like this app (and I think a large number of others) fall into a category between free and $1. Not to say $1 is a lot of money, but in this case it's sort of a limited use application that might not be worth $1 to most people (as evidenced by the number of people who paid for it).

To that end, it seems like there's a huge opportunity here for Apple or a 3rd party to start up a sponsorship program for free apps. An ad agency to connected potential advertisers with developers, and to get some standards for what kind of ads to put in an app and how much that's worth.

Example: say you got a company that makes pumpkin carving tools/kits (you know the little book of patterns with a serrated knife and plastic scooping spoon) or something like that to pay your $0.02 per user for a 5 second slash screen when your app loads you would have come out ahead of your $1 per download earnings, and it would have likely continued to grow in user base as it moved up the popularity list rather than sinking down after upping to $1.

Like I said, there seems to be a LOT of apps in this zone, and I think having more free, but ad-supported would be beneficial to everyone involved (as long as the ads were reasonable - like a short splash "this app brought to you by..." type thing).

[canadacow]

Like I said, there seems to be a LOT of apps in this zone, and I think having more free, but ad-supported would be beneficial to everyone involved (as long as the ads were reasonable - like a short splash "this app brought to you by..." type thing).

Don't think I haven't thought to contact Butterball regarding my 3D Turkey Carving idea! :D

I'll come out with an app called "Crazy Turkey" as well that will simply let you choose between white meat or dark. And then gobble.

[eagecl]

Don't think I haven't thought to contact Butterball regarding my 3D Turkey Carving idea! :D

I'll come out with an app called "Crazy Turkey" as well that will simply let you choose between white meat or dark. And then gobble.

LOL

[eagecl]

This is the paradox, you can't compete unless you have a free version but in having a free version, for most apps priced $0.99 - $1.99, what you're giving them for free is probably enough for them to have their fix and move on.

I think that's not entirely the case. I've had two experiences that illustrate when this is true and when it is not.

The first example is Cubicman Lite. I downloaded that app and played through all of the levels. By the time I had finished the "demo", I didn't want to play the full version because it would just be more of the same and I had already figured out the mechanics and the puzzles were no longer a real challenge. In this case, you're right, aside from the few people who played a level or two and enjoyed it and subsequently went out and bought the full version, I don't know how many copies they may have sold.

On the other hand, you have a game like Galcon, which also has a fun lite version. The value and benefit you get by purchasing the full game is substantial. You get multiplayer and fun variations of the two player game. This one got my $4.99 and I have never regretted this purchase. Even in this case though, I would imagine the developer/s would get more people buying their app if people were able to try out the multiplayer.

What we can draw from this is that if you follow the lite/full version model, You need to have a substantial reward for purchasing and a price point that works, which if you ask me is 1.99 - 2.99 for an app/game with alot of functionality and replay value.

Ultimately what we really need is for Apple to be more open about statistics.

[Rojo]

That statement was a hyperbole and I'm fairly confident that most people, including yourself, got the intent behind what I was saying in the context. Can we move on now?

I got what you were saying. But how we choose our words is very important. There are a lot of less-insulting ways you could have gotten your same point across. People have responded to what you said in a certain way for a reason. I'm fine with moving on, but you shouldn't be surprised if some people can't...

However further discussion on the thread revealed my additional frustration with Ezone. Their abuse of the system and their deluge of ultimately low quality apps in the store.

As you said yourself, to each their own. I haven't downloaded any other ezone apps (except for Crazy Dummy, and only when it was free, because I thought it was creeeeeeeeeeepy and I was curious. I've since deleted it) -- but as dumb as they look, I can see their appeal and why they have an audience. Just because it takes less code to write them than your Open-GL-whatever app, doesn't make them any less "worthy." Simple as they may be, they have a slick polish to them at least. I've seen far worse on the app store, and far more useless. The ezone apps fill a certain purpose, and obviously many people agree since they ARE being downloaded. Your constant putting down of their "lesser quality" does make you sound jealous -- which I'm sure you don't want to sound like.

As for their app store pricing policies, that's an entirely different thing. Though I think "abuse" is a bit strong to use here. If changing their pricing meant more people saw their app, and Apple allowed for this at the time, I don't think it's a criminal offense. Sneaky, maybe (and that's as harsh as I'll call the behavior), but abusive? No. Apple allowed it, so the practice was fair game. Apple wised up and has since made it so that can't be done anymore, and now the App Store is a better place for it (though as we know, it's still not perfect).

As you and others have mentioned, the app store is a tough place to get your app noticed. If I was a developer myself, I can't honestly deny that I wouldn't try and do every trick possible (that was within the rules) to get my app noticed too. Does that make me a horrible person? Maybe some users would think so, and therefore wouldn't buy my app. But that would be the price I paid, I guess -- or I would need to just be happy with people finding my app the normal way, but risk knowing that could be very few.

Would you have paid 0.99 USD for your iPhone dock-screensaver?

No, I wouldn't have.

At this point you keep missing one very obvious point. Both Crazy Pumpkin and Carve3D are free. Things like "markets", "merchandise" and "selling" do not apply here. I mean they do, but only in a "look at my numbers!" and not "look at my revenue!" kind of deal.

So because they're free they should ignore trying to appeal to as many people as possible? I know you've since explained your app was just a "learning experience" for you, but are you truly saying you're not paying attention to how well your app does? So you're basically just throwing your "experiment" out there, regardless of whether it appeals to anyone? Weren't you condeming ezone for deluging the market with useless apps? But what is yours then, if you're claiming to not care about markets, and it's just your learning experience?

Free, paid, whatever -- certain philosophies should drive ALL apps. The App Store isn't there to be your "experiment." You should be delivering something that's actually of use to someone. Otherwise you're just wasting space. And to deliver something of use, you need to understand your market, even if your app is free...

But like they say about the lotto, "Can't win if you don't play", the same as it is here, "Can't learn if you don't try."

Sure -- though don't you think that's what ezone has been doing? Trying everything out there and seeing what sticks? You just have a different approach about it, is all...

I'm definitely not short on ideas. Though I do think gold rush days of iPhone apps is pretty much already over.

I disagree. I still don't think iPhone apps have met their full potential yet, and with the RIGHT apps they will do well. We're not getting enough of the right apps out there, which is why they're not doing as well as they could.

With Google's phone coming on line and more competition added every day, there will still be a handful of winners, but it certainly isn't the pay dirt that was painted at the very beginning.

You use terms like "gold rush" and "pay dirt," which makes me believe that "markets" and "selling" ARE important to you after all. Again, it would help if you learned more about what appeals to a wider audience...

[canadacow]

Rojo, you make several good points here. Thanks for taking the time.

I got what you were saying. But how we choose our words is very important. There are a lot of less-insulting ways you could have gotten your same point across. People have responded to what you said in a certain way for a reason. I'm fine with moving on, but you shouldn't be surprised if some people can't...


Understood. My original comment was in hyperbole and I was actually surprised to find Ezone's marketing videos actually in agreement with my assessment. It was though I said, "John Doe is such a pig he could win a hotdog eating contest", and then later found out that John Doe was indeed a hotdog eating contest champion.


As you said yourself, to each their own. I haven't downloaded any other ezone apps (except for Crazy Dummy, and only when it was free, because I thought it was creeeeeeeeeeepy and I was curious. I've since deleted it) -- but as dumb as they look, I can see their appeal and why they have an audience.


I certainly won't doubt that the appeal exists. Existing as a paid app, however, is questionable. That was my rant and it bears out in Ezone's paid app reviews.


Just because it takes less code to write them than your Open-GL-whatever app, doesn't make them any less "worthy." Simple as they may be, they have a slick polish to them at least. I've seen far worse on the app store, and far more useless. The ezone apps fill a certain purpose, and obviously many people agree since they ARE being downloaded. Your constant putting down of their "lesser quality" does make you sound jealous -- which I'm sure you don't want to sound like.


Actually only their Crazy Pumpkin app has done well in the grand scheme of things. Their other apps did great as free apps but once they jumped, I would bet they don't get more than 5-10 downloads a day. And how can it be jealousy when the context of my remark was in comparison between three (at the time) pumpkin carving apps in the store? I panned mine because of the learning curve and stability issues. I panned Crazy Pumpkin because it's sheer simplicity and shallowness. Comparatively I applauded Pumpkins, by Josh Anon for striking a balance and putting together a polished app. How could this be taken as jealousy? Wouldn't I have panned Josh Anon's app as well?


As for their app store pricing policies, that's an entirely different thing. Though I think "abuse" is a bit strong to use here. If changing their pricing meant more people saw their app, and Apple allowed for this at the time, I don't think it's a criminal offense. Sneaky, maybe (and that's as harsh as I'll call the behavior), but abusive? No. Apple allowed it, so the practice was fair game. Apple wised up and has since made it so that can't be done anymore, and now the App Store is a better place for it (though as we know, it's still not perfect).


It's abuse as it takes advantage of individuals not so familiar with the quirks of the app store. For example, there is an ssh client (simply named "ssh") that is horrid. The reviews for developer's other apps are also 1 or 2 stars at best, simply due to quality complaints. Anyway, this one developer, in an unscrupulous act put white space in his company name, guaranteeing him a top spot in searches regardless of number sold or popularity.

Without reviews, people are suckered into buying his app and then only after the fact realizing it's of amazingly poor quality. The developer has also shown little interest in updating his apps. In the several he has released since the store has opened, none have been updated. Since "all sales are final", this is abuse.

As you and others have mentioned, the app store is a tough place to get your app noticed. If I was a developer myself, I can't honestly deny that I wouldn't try and do every trick possible (that was within the rules) to get my app noticed too.


Agreed. Though some of the tactics after the fact show they put more thought in how to cheat the system than improving the quality of their app (see above example.)


So because they're free they should ignore trying to appeal to as many people as possible? I know you've since explained your app was just a "learning experience" for you, but are you truly saying you're not paying attention to how well your app does?


I am, but not nearly as much as I am with my paid app in the store. I check it occasionally but if it sits at the bottom of the 5000 app stack or at #64 where it sits right now, it makes little difference to me. Ideally I'd rather hear back from people that they like it and they were amused. The popularity of my app right now could simply be a consequence of it being free and approaching Halloween.


So you're basically just throwing your "experiment" out there, regardless of whether it appeals to anyone? Weren't you condemning ezone for deluging the market with useless apps? But what is yours then, if you're claiming to not care about markets, and it's just your learning experience?


Sure. I'll also pull Carve3D from the store a few days after October 31st. I doubt Ezone will do the same.


Free, paid, whatever -- certain philosophies should drive ALL apps. The App Store isn't there to be your "experiment." You should be delivering something that's actually of use to someone. Otherwise you're just wasting space. And to deliver something of use, you need to understand your market, even if your app is free...


I would certainly hope my "experiment" is of use to at least someone. If it isn't I'd have pulled Carve3D long ago. Had I made it free and seen only 50-100 downloads a day I would have definitely removed it from the store. Right now it's doing closer to 10,000 a day, so I actually can't in good conscious remove it.


Sure -- though don't you think that's what ezone has been doing? Trying everything out there and seeing what sticks? You just have a different approach about it, is all...


Yes and no. They discovered the "paid to free" loophole and then abused it until Apple closed it on them.


I disagree. I still don't think iPhone apps have met their full potential yet, and with the RIGHT apps they will do well. We're not getting enough of the right apps out there, which is why they're not doing as well as they could.


I certainly hope so.


You use terms like "gold rush" and "pay dirt," which makes me believe that "markets" and "selling" ARE important to you after all. Again, it would help if you learned more about what appeals to a wider audience...

They are but only in the realization that I don't have the necessary resources to marshall the proper PR. My only alternative is to have an amazingly painfully original idea that people will discover and pay for. The paradox there is that amazingly original ideas usually need to manufacture their market first, which of course requires PR, again something I don't have.

[Pring]

Like I said, there seems to be a LOT of apps in this zone, and I think having more free, but ad-supported would be beneficial to everyone involved (as long as the ads were reasonable - like a short splash "this app brought to you by..." type thing).


Absolutely. I released an app yesterday called Sleeps To Christmas (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=293747050&mt=8) as the only competitor to it costs $0.99.

It took me four hours to do, so I didn't want to charge for it. I did use it as an opportunity to try out adverts though. One unobtrusive advert at the bottom. It's netted over $10 in the first 12 hours. Not a great rate of return but reasonable and it'll definitely shift more copies as a free app than paid. I reckon by the time Christmas comes I'll have earned maybe about the same as if I'd actually charged for it.

[canadacow]

Absolutely. I released an app yesterday called Sleeps To Christmas (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=293747050&mt=8) as the only competitor to it costs $0.99.

It took me four hours to do, so I didn't want to charge for it. I did use it as an opportunity to try out adverts though. One unobtrusive advert at the bottom. It's netted over $10 in the first 12 hours. Not a great rate of return but reasonable and it'll definitely shift more copies as a free app than paid. I reckon by the time Christmas comes I'll have earned maybe about the same as if I'd actually charged for it.

Just grabbed your app and for just four hours of work strikes me as already being very polished. Good stuff. Unfortunately, I have no use for it as my sleep schedule is erratic and I am known to go 40 hours or more without sleep. Is there any way you could release an insomniac's version? :D

[fungg3]

Absolutely. I released an app yesterday called Sleeps To Christmas (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=293747050&mt=8) as the only competitor to it costs $0.99.

It took me four hours to do, so I didn't want to charge for it. I did use it as an opportunity to try out adverts though. One unobtrusive advert at the bottom. It's netted over $10 in the first 12 hours. Not a great rate of return but reasonable and it'll definitely shift more copies as a free app than paid. I reckon by the time Christmas comes I'll have earned maybe about the same as if I'd actually charged for it.

How did you put ads on it? What tools to use?

[Rojo]

Existing as a paid app, however, is questionable. That was my rant and it bears out in Ezone's paid app reviews.

Well, to be fair, most of ezone's apps appeared before Apple changed their policy to ensure that only people that actually downloaded an app could review it. We all know quite well that almost every app before that which was NOT free, no matter how good it was, would eventually get negative reviews simply for not being free. ezone's apps, which I honestly believe are simple by design, became very easy targets. And of course their pricing changes didn't help them. If anything, I would say they were a bit naive in the way they handled their apps, and should probably have offered more for free (permanently), or rethought them a bit. However, you've been painting an impression that they're a lot more sinister -- doing whatever they can to "cheat the system." Honestly, I just see simple developers with simple ideas for apps and simple (and enthusiastic) ways of trying to get their app noticed any way they can. I think they're probably pretty harmless in the end, and not evil, mustache-twisting villains seeking world domination.
Yes, now I'M breaking out the hyperbole ;) -- but like I said before, the way we word things are important, and I think you've been painting a far worse picture of ezone than they probably are...

Comparatively I applauded Pumpkins, by Josh Anon for striking a balance and putting together a polished app. How could this be taken as jealousy? Wouldn't I have panned Josh Anon's app as well?

Well no, you wouldn't have -- because then you would have just looked foolish. ;)
I haven't downloaded Pumpkins, but I have Josh's amazing Flipbook app, which is one of the most amazing apps made for the phone so far. I don't even have to get Pumpkins to know that's it's probably a very good app...

It's abuse as it takes advantage of individuals not so familiar with the quirks of the app store.

Again, I'm not so sure I can really fault the developers who changed prices when Apple allowed it. True, it was annoying when it was happening, but the blame lied purely on Apple. They were wise to fix it.

Since "all sales are final", this is abuse.

Actually, not entirely true.
If an app doesn't work as advertised, or you are deeply unsatisfied for any reason, you can request a refund by e-mailing itunesstoresupport@apple.com

I (and tons of other people) got a refund for the ridiculously horrendous MobileChat app, and there have been plenty of refunds (or sometimes credit, depending on the case) given for other apps that have not lived up to what was promised.

The popularity of my app right now could simply be a consequence of it being free and approaching Halloween.

Sure. I'll also pull Carve3D from the store a few days after October 31st. I doubt Ezone will do the same.

Interesting. Though aren't you planning on making it paid again once your update is out? At least that's what your app's page on the store implies.

I would certainly hope my "experiment" is of use to at least someone. If it isn't I'd have pulled Carve3D long ago. Had I made it free and seen only 50-100 downloads a day I would have definitely removed it from the store. Right now it's doing closer to 10,000 a day, so I actually can't in good conscious remove it.

Congrats!
I know it would be much nicer if you had those kind of numbers and it was paid. But hey, you never know -- someone might download your app, like it, and look for other apps by you.

And by the way, just to be clear -- I wasn't implying that I felt your app was useless or should be removed from the store. I was responding to your statement where you were saying Carve3D was (as of now) a free app, and therefore understanding "markets" shouldn't apply. (Which was an even more confusing statement when you consider Carve3D WAS a paid app in the beginning, and plans to be again...so obviously "markets" and "selling" should matter to you).

They are but only in the realization that I don't have the necessary resources to marshall the proper PR. My only alternative is to have an amazingly painfully original idea that people will discover and pay for. The paradox there is that amazingly original ideas usually need to manufacture their market first, which of course requires PR, again something I don't have.

Some kind of PR is always helpful, but I don't think it's 100% necessary in this environment. I think the truly best apps out there will be found and ultimately generate their own PR, provided they really are original and well-made. I wish you luck in your future endeavors!

[Pring]

How did you put ads on it? What tools to use?

I use http://www.admob.com Download their libraries, hook it up to a view and that's you. Fairly easy to use.


Just grabbed your app and for just four hours of work strikes me as already being very polished. Good stuff. Unfortunately, I have no use for it as my sleep schedule is erratic and I am known to go 40 hours or more without sleep. Is there any way you could release an insomniac's version?

Thanks! I'll consider an insomniac's version but don't hold your breath. Or stay awake. ;)

[joshanon]

Hey guys,
I don't want to get into a debate about app quality of anything, but I wanted to give some information for comparison. FlipBook is over 20,000 lines of code and v1 took about 4 months to write. Pumpkins is about 1,000 new lines of code and maybe 2,000ish borrowed from FlipBook, and it took about 10 days. Honestly it was a small experiment to do something simple while I was waiting for some other stuff for FlipBook.

Pumpkins' costs were mainly having my graphics designer (Kate, www.thisiskate.com) do the different images and icon as well as my time (mind you I have a full-time day job that isn't flipping burgers and do occasionally attempt to have a life). Being featured this week definitely helped, but the sales are still so low on the whole that I probably would've come out ahead if I had been working overtime at my dayjob instead :) Last time I checked, Pumpkins hadn't even broken into the top 100 paid apps. Do I think it's worth $1? Yes. I'm personally not a fan of ads in software, and for $1, I'm not going to release a version with and without ads. Do I have any desire to do another little app like this? No, not really. Personally I think my time is more valuable, and I am not going to spend time doing something decent only to give it away. Sorry.

FlipBook has actually been more profitable on a daily basis, even though it's never been a staff favorite or what's hot featured app (although like I've mentioned elsewhere, aside from a charity donation, pretty much all of its profits have gone back into the app--did anyone see we're sponsoring the Daring Fireball feed this week?). Even though some people complain about the price, I think the people who buy the app will buy it if it's $10 or $5, and I remain convinced sales wouldn't double if the price were $5. And for all the hours and time it took to write (and continues to take), I don't think it's worth $5. But the plus side is that it keeps me motivated to work on improving it and working to build up the flipbook.tv community.

[Rojo]

Josh - thanks for the info. All very interesting to know.

As for Flipbook, I'm always showing it off to people, and have gotten at least 3 other iPhone users to buy it. It remains one of my favorite apps.

[canadacow]

Josh: I hope your sales have improved as things get closer to Halloween -- I saw that several other Halloween apps have also recently been made "Staff Favorites" so hopefully things should improve even more as more attention is brought to it in general. Fortunately the Mensa-targeted app that is "Crazy Pumpkin" again didn't make the list, further vindicating my jealousy of all the eggheads who downloaded it and the super-villains that created it.

As for me and Carve3D, the results of this discussion revealed that I'd be better taking a "trick or treat" attitude to my app. The "trick" is figuring out how to carve the $#@! pumpkins and the "treat" is that the app is free for good. Also, I think there's something intractably broken in my app in that I cannot, for the life of me, garner any significant non-one-star reviews.

I have one star reviews from back when I had stability issues. And, of course, I have one star reviews for carving difficulty issues. However missing are any significant number of moderate or high reviews, which means the app strikes most people as being tepid at best. At the same time, I can't quite figure out why I've given out more than 100,000 copies since it's been out and am averaging about 10,000 a day (worldwide) if my app sucks so averagely.

While I'd probably make some money if I converted it to paid, I just don't think it'd be right as I've decided the "average value" for my app is somewhere between free and $0.99 USD, a zone where iTunes does not have a tier. Oh well.

[Rojo]

Fortunately the Mensa-targeted app that is "Crazy Pumpkin" again didn't make the list, further vindicating my jealousy of all the eggheads who downloaded it and the super-villains that created it.

I’ve got to say, that having Crazy Pumpkin on my phone actually HAS made me a lot smarter and boosted my IQ!
Thank you, ezone!! :D :D

Also, I think there's something intractably broken in my app in that I cannot, for the life of me, garner any significant non-one-star reviews.

I’ve seen many developers on this forum worry about getting low-star reviews for their free apps.
I know many of these apps take a good chunk of time to produce, and so it’s disheartening to see devs wonder why customers trash their apps.
I feel bad for these developers when they can’t get a break in the App Store, and so from time to time, I’ll download one of these free apps -- even if I have no interest in it normally -- and try to offer a fair and objective opinion about it in hopes that it can raise their stars, and balance out any unfair reviews.

So I downloaded Carve3D today, and after playing with it for a while…



Um...


...I can sort of see why it has only a 3-star rating. :(
In fact, I would have expected a half or full star less, knowing that at one point it wasn’t even free and also had stability issues.

Most of what I’m about to say has already been mentioned in the reviews, but I’ll repeat them here:

First, the GOOD:

Decent overall “atmosphere.” The graveyard setting is cool, I guess.
Interesting sounds (though far too repetitive)
Very cute icon! My favorite of the Halloween ones I’ve seen so far.


And now, the BAD:

Confusing. Not in a “so-bad-it’s-impossible-to-figure-out” sense, but more in a “just-confusing-enough-that-it-makes-you-want-to-delete-the-app-right-away” sense. Sure, you have instructions on the app’s page, but who wants to keep their iTunes open in order to figure out what to do? Some kind of clear instructions WITHIN the app would help a lot -- and would not have been that hard for you to implement. The fact that you don’t have anything like that makes the app seem unfinished or amateur.
Really bad tools. And no, I don’t just mean having to draw with your finger. Many drawings apps require you to use your finger (including Josh Anon’s "Flipbook," and I assume "Pumpkins" as well), and each one takes a LOT of practice to use. That’s not the problem here. The problem with "Carve3D" is that it doesn’t seem to be as responsive as other drawing apps, which is frustrating when something like this needs to be even more precise. There’s no other optional tools to use (some pre-made basic shapes could have been nice). And the undo is pretty much terrible. It should be unlimited at best, and go back at least a handful of times at worst. But there’s only ONE undo. And unfortunately, once a “hole” is made, you can’t even undo that! You’re stuck with whatever mess you can make with the really hard to control tool that you have. Sorry -- but it just makes for one really frustrating and unpleasant experience overall. Certainly not “fun,” which is the first thing a pumpkin carving app should be. Carving a real pumpkin is sooooo much easier, so carving a virtual, not-as-nice-looking one should therefore not be harder.
Just “OK” graphics. Unfortunately the main draw of this app, the actual carving, looks the worst. Seeing the really jagged lines makes me not even want to carve the pumpkin at all. Overall, this app LOOKS like an “experiment” -- which you say it was. No one wants to play with an app (even for free) that feels like an experiment. It’s very obvious you wanted to try and create this 3D “scene,” but ultimately there seems to be little point for it. You would have been much better off just having only the pumpkin able to rotate, and that’s it. Seeing the graveyard from different points of view doesn’t really enhance the essential draw of this app (pumpkin carving), and looks merely like you just wanted to show off that you can make a 3D scenario. Yes, there is the ONE angle and rotation of the pumpkin that can show the carving and light from the pumpkin reflected onto the tombstone. While it’s nice, it’s not really THAT special. And if you went through ALL the complexity of making this 3D JUST to have something like that, well...I don’t know if it was ultimately worth it. A better thing to do would have been to just have the main part of the app focused on carving the pumpkin, and making it MUCH better, easier, and intuitive to do. Then, once the pumpkin is done, THEN it could be “placed” within a 3D scene, where the light from within it has an effect on its surroundings.
No way to save pumpkins -- the biggest and most shocking omission of all. Yes, iPhone-savvy users know that you can take a picture of your screen by pressing the sleep and home buttons simultaneously. But the average user (i.e., the majority of people likely to get this app) does NOT know this. And besides, you should be able to save pumpkins in order to go back to them later and possibly edit them. Honestly, what’s the point of going through the incredibly complicated process of trying to carve a pumpkin in the first place, if you can’t even save it???


I have one star reviews from back when I had stability issues. And, of course, I have one star reviews for carving difficulty issues. However missing are any significant number of moderate or high reviews, which means the app strikes most people as being tepid at best.

Sadly, I have to say tepid is probably accurate. :(
I would have LOVED to give this app a high rating (I'm serious!), because I’ve been busting your balls throughout this thread, and wanted to give you a break. But I can’t in good conscience give this app more than 3 stars at most. I would honestly probably give it 2 stars (or MAYBE 2 and a half if that was possible). In the end, I’m not even giving my review to the app store and only giving it here.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that you can use the most advanced coding in the world to make an app, but at the end of the day if it doesn’t FUNCTION well, all that fancy coding is meaningless. If I were you, I would team up your coding “know-how” with someone who understands functionality and marketability, which are the two things I think you need to improve on.

At the same time, I can't quite figure out why I've given out more than 100,000 copies since it's been out and am averaging about 10,000 a day (worldwide) if my app sucks so averagely.

Are you being serious?

First of all, you currently have a 3-star rating -- which isn’t really that bad. I bet a lot of devs would love to have a 3-star rating for some of their apps. Sure, the number of stars your app has can affect how it’s perceived and ultimately how many people download it. But the fact remains that’s it’s close to Halloween, and your app at least SOUNDS cool (if you’re interested in that kind of thing) and offers something the other pumpkin carving apps don’t (3D). Oh yeah, AND IT’S FREE! So if people are looking for a pumpkin carving app for their iPhone, chances are they’ll at least give your app a try since it’s free -- despite an “average” review. It’s really not that hard to figure out why you have so many downloads. Makes perfectly logical sense to me.

Most of the 1-star reviews are complaining about stability anyway, which your page says you fixed. So even if people ARE paying attention to reviews, chances are they believe the “average” rating is due to those complaints bringing it down, and that issue should no longer be a problem.

While I'd probably make some money if I converted it to paid, I just don't think it'd be right as I've decided the "average value" for my app is somewhere between free and $0.99 USD, a zone where iTunes does not have a tier. Oh well.

And that’s probably a good thing. Even though some apps probably deserve to be only 50 cents, I think adding another mid-tier would just complicate the store even more than it already is.

I think if you made your app paid again, you would just be inviting more negative reviews from the people who downloaded it. Unless you made it MUCH better -- but are you really going to spend the time fixing this with less than two weeks left until Halloween?

[Daremo]

OK, So I did it as well. I Downloaded the two apps in question. Crazy Pumpkin and Carve3D.

Crazy Pumpkin... Not horrible, not great. the faces could be better. Most are bland. I like the color change options, and sounds are OK. Deleted it after about 5 or 10 minutes.

Carve3D... Interesting concept, and overall, a cool little app. It's got a bit of a learning curve, and the drawing is difficult and not responsive enough, BUT I gave this to my 6 year old, and she loved it. She liked the ability to rotate the pumpkin and shine the light on the walls. Kept her occupied for a sold 15 minutes.

I don't think .99 is a lot to ask for this, considering the amount of coding that went into this to make it work this way. Sure, it's rough around the edges a bit, but seriously, this is a cool app to show what can be done. I gave you 4 stars.

[canadacow]

Thanks for the well thought out reviews. I can't really argue with Rojo regarding the difficulty in carving or how it ultimately looks pixelated. Translating a tap on the iPhone to a texture coordinate on the pumpkin was the hardest part of the entire app and it still isn't completely accurate or intuitive. This is also why dragging one's finger isn't the most responsive action as it's doing a ray/vertex collision test to find where on the pumpkin the individual is tapping. I didn't find out until a bit into the development that the iPhone does not have a math coprocessor unit so decimal math is very slow.

As for the jagged lines, this is a limitation of the iPhone and the maximum allowed texture size. I first heard this complaint before I even released it to the App Store as my wife automatically pointed it out when I first demonstrated it to her.

I had expected to do an enhanced, "step" undo, but the original way I was planning on doing it would have required too much memory. An alternative solution just now occurred to me, however implementing it and submitting it to Apple would probably get it in the store just in time for Guy Fawkes Day.

At some point I had actually wanted an online gallery of pumpkins but like I said, just getting the tool in the vicinity of where the user taps took most of my time with the app.

And I understand now what you mean with regard to having instructions within the app. And you are correct, this really isn't asking much. No one directly pointed out an ideal location for the instructions. Unlike iSSH, which generates a good bit of page hits on my site, Carve3D by proportion generates only a very small number.

Thanks for the great feedback. This has been really helpful and my next new app (which probably won't be for a while as I'm concentrating on iSSH at the moment) will take into account all these suggestions. Thanks again!

[Rojo]

As for me and Carve3D, the results of this discussion revealed that I'd be better taking a "trick or treat" attitude to my app. The "trick" is figuring out how to carve the $#@! pumpkins and the "treat" is that the app is free for good.

Well... not any more.
Not that I have a problem with you trying to get something for your app, but you probably shouldn't have said the above then...

[canadacow]

Well... not any more.
Not that I have a problem with you trying to get something for your app, but you probably shouldn't have said the above then...

Didn't really think anyone really cared or was watching anymore. The Halloween apps have really stopped selling--or being downloaded for that matter. The number of downloads Carve3D had for free yesterday was actually less than when it was for sale. At that point I figured, "what the heck, what difference does it make, with only 5 days to go? Either people will not download it or not buy it. Either way, the app is on it's way out."

At this point, the apparent price point for Halloweens apps seems to be, "you can't give them away." Strangely, my logic concluded it was either time to charge for the app and only attract people really interested, or pull it completely.

[Rojo]

That makes sense.
Interesting the Halloween apps are selling less the closer the holiday actually comes...

[Foxtrot Oscar]

Interesting thread.

Any chance you can make an app that can carve up maps, the US armed forces would pay through the nose for that little beauty.

Fox

[canadacow]

Interesting thread.

Any chance you can make an app that can carve up maps, the US armed forces would pay through the nose for that little beauty.

Fox

Very nice. I think they do a decent job of at least attempting to carve up the map as it is. The only thing my app would have to offer would be $0.99 price tag. (Though I'll probably rebrand it as "I am a $1,000 hammer" and sell it for $999.99!)