Holiday apps (Halloween in particular) and lessons learned

canadacow said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Daremo said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

canadacow said:

Sorry, I just call it as I see it.

Click to expand...

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 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

canadacow said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

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

canadacow said:

Sorry, I just call it as I see it. Besides, I think ezone would probably agree with me. See here and here

Click to expand...

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 said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

I like Carve3d

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.

eagecl said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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?

canadacow said:

This has grabbed my curiosity as well and I've been attempting to crack it. My other app, iSSH 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.

Click to expand...

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

moopf said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

moopf said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

eagecl said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

moopf said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

yalag said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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!

canadacow said:

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.

Click to expand...

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...