Designed to help Blackberry users stay connected to the MySpace social network, a new app from the Fox Interactive company has been downloaded 400,000 times in its first week. This goes a long way towards dispelling the unhipster Blackberry myth.
A Facebook app, which launched in 2007, has been downloaded 2.5 million times.
The Inquirer reportedly has knowledge of a Microsoft Phone, which we are dubbing the MicroPhone.
Thanks to MG Siegler for bringing this to our attention. The veracity of this report is pegged as “highly dubious”.
Either way as I see it at the moment the two key platforms to focus on for native, mobile Internet-focused apps are the iPhone and Android, given that there are already millions of iPhones out there in the wild and it is anticipated that there will be millions of Android-enabled phones out there next year.
Wouldn’t it be great if you could take a picture of a book someone is reading in your local coffee shop and before the sugar sinks into your cappucino you have all the data on it and where you can buy it.
Or similarly, what if you could snap a billboard as you hurtle down the 101 (preferably with someone else driving) and before you reach your destination you’ve already pulled up more details on the concert being advertized and bought tickets.
Palo Alto-based SnapTell has the solution. Their image matching technology handles real life photos snapped on the majority of cell phones and parses these against a growing database of products. They are also able to extract text from pictures and use this to drive search.
The company has recently launched an iPhone app – read Jason Kincaid’s review.
This evening I got a hold of Google’s Voice Search App for the iPhone. Something struck me as it was downloading – I had not even checked to see the price. In fact, up to a certain price point I doubt I would’ve balked at downloading it even had I checked.
I am perceiving, as are others, that there are certain price thresholds for iPhone, and in time – other mobile, apps.
Let me run through them:
* Blind at price
The combination of a trusted source and high anticipation results in a “blind at price” threshold. As with the Google app – I would not have hesitated, but see later for the upper ceiling. The caveat here is that subconsciously I may have anticipated the app would be free given it is Google’s modus to give apps away for free and make money off ads.
*Buy to try
$2 seems to be the common wisdom of a price point at which most people are prepared to front up with the cash simply to try out an app. It is also a price point at which you are not likely to make much noise if you don’t get sufficient value for money. Adam Ostrow, in reviewing PhotoArtist, agrees as do a number of the people who commented on his story.
In contrast, when I downloaded CameraBag for $3.99 I was disappointed with the initial functionality and seriously considered creating a stink. Thankfully the app has since wobbled straight and I am loving it. In fact it is the primary photography app for me on the iPhone, which I am experimenting with as my primary photography device at present.
* Excellent marketing
Between $2 and $5 an app needs to both satisfy an immediate need and promise sufficient value. This translates into having excellent marketing of the app – a great picture, brand and blurb about the app and most of us will download it. This is what hooked me on CameraBag for example. It took about three “look sees” before I decided to take the plunge, but their story eventually thresholded me.
* Trusted name, compelling app
Between $5 and $15 there aren’t many apps that get me interested. However, with Will Wright’s Spore app I had no hesitation in putting the cash. The combination of his name, the corporate behind him and the actual app’s reputation had me hooked.
Photos give good newsfeed. No doubt about it.
But tagging them with friends who are not featured in the photo purely as a way to disseminate the photo and whatever you’re pushing through it – that’s spam, baby! Dont do it – you are violating the principles of social media in so many ways it’s just not funny.
Sam Lessin explains the how and gives his opinion:
…people have begun to upload a photo of something they wish to promote (perhaps a candidate or event) and then “tag” the photo with the names of as many influential friends as they can. The tagged photo then shows up in the news feeds of the friends of those influentials as if the photo was of them. After people click on it they find out that, in fact, it is a message in support of some cause.
To be clear, the key here is that the people that the cause promoter has “tagged” in the image are not actually in the image and have not actively lent their support to the message. Rather, the individual supporting the given cause is hijacking a friend’s name to broadcast a message to the friends of their friend. Follow?
This is a really terrific idea for someone looking to broadly push a message. If you tag 20 people into a given photo with something you are promoting you can easily reach thousands of people directly in their news feed with a big splashy image that appears highly relevant.
Sam – this idea sucks. I’m with Sarah Perez on this.