Hacker News Reader

Comment by tensor | Hacker News Reader

A brief look at the market shows that you have competitors. At the least, OI Shopping list appears to have a lot of downloads as well. Your app does show up in the side bar, and in the top free category.

This doesn't sound like a market problem so much as a business model issue. If one of the free apps does what people need, they won't pay for a $5.00 version, even if it's slightly prettier. Hell, a quick look at the Apple app store lists apps that range from free to $3.00. I'd suggest changing your business model.

Try in-app ads with a lower cost ad-free version (say $1). Or add features that are both extremely useful and hard to duplicate for a competitor that is working for free. Some ideas: GPS proximity alarm when passing a grocery store, or a tie in to a desktop client or website.

View on HN

Off topic?

You completely missed the point.

He's not complaining about his business model, free competitors, or price.

He's venting his frustration with dealing with the Android Market as a developer:

1) Stats seem to keep breaking which seem to affect visibility and rank of his app.

2) Search is a problem. He went from top 10 to 200+ and with no understanding as to why that would happen - and so abruptly.

3) The comments system on Android is a mess. (sorted strangely, randomly?)

4) Google has a serious lack of good support for its developers.

I'd like to add:

5) There needs to be more game categories.

6) We want to be able to reply to comments in order to support our customers.

I understood those complaints and I'm not disagreeing with them. However, I don't necessarily agree that these issues are solely responsible for his lack of profits as he seems to be implying.

as an android developer myself...hes hit every point on!! im experiencing the exact same problems...its crazy!!

I won't pay for an application with Ads period.

You mean to say you won't pay for an ad-free version of an application for which the free version contains ads? That seems rather strange.

I think he meant that developers should provide a paid, ad-free version and/or a free, ad-supported version. An ad-supported version that also costs money (even if it's less money) kinda sucks.

Ah. The former model is what I suggested in my original post. I must have worded it poorly. I too, will not use ad-supported apps beyond testing functionality. It drives me crazy when there is no paid ad-free version.

Read what I was replying to: "Try in-app ads with a lower cost ad-free version (say $1). Or add features that are both extremely useful and hard to duplicate for a competitor that is working for free. Some ideas: GPS proximity alarm when passing a grocery store, or a tie in to a desktop client or website."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com