Tag: mobile apps

#oneaday Day 28: A Developer Has Responded

In theory, the opportunity for developers to respond to user reviews on storefronts such as Steam, Google Play and the like should be a good thing. It should provide the opportunity for the developer in question to open a dialogue with a customer — be they satisfied or dissatisfied — and help move things in a positive direction in one way or another.

How it actually works, meanwhile, is quite different. Because most developers, it seems, can’t be bothered to do anything other than a stock response to everyone, even when it’s woefully inappropriate to do so.

I’d like to share with you a review I wrote recently, in which I found a “teleprompter” app for Android (this one, if you’re curious, which was recommended by one of the bajillion SEO-baiting “best teleprompter apps for mobile” articles festering on the modern Web) but was dismayed to discover it was asking for an extortionate subscription fee rather than a flat price. I am pretty vehemently against subscription fees for simple, single-purpose apps, particularly when they don’t have an online component, and I made this clear in my review.

A screenshot of a review on Google Play. The review is by Pete Davison and was posted on June 27, 2024. It gives the application one star. The text reads "This seems ideal for my needs, but it's a subscription-based app. I want to just purchase the software, not pay £4.99 every month. I would have paid £4.99 to buy a premium version of this app without hesitation, but asking for that every month is ridiculous."

Not unreasonable, I don’t think. Now let’s look at the developer’s response:

A screenshot of a developer's response on a Google Play app store review. It is attributed to "Norton Five Ltd" and dated June 28, 2024. The text reads "Thanks for your feedback Pete. The subscription model allows us to invest in continuing to improve the app and introduce new features. There is an annual subscription option, which does offer better value for money than the monthly one if budget is tight. You can also cancel at any time. Hope you'll reconsider and give the subscription a go." The text concludes with a smiley face emoticon and is signed "Phil".

Now this is an excellent developer response. “You think the monthly subscription is too expensive, so why not use the more expensive annual one” is a ballsy move, to be sure. “You don’t like monthly subscriptions, but it’s okay because you can cancel any time and lose access to the app you paid for” is also high up my list of “stupid things to say”.

More than that, it’s just plain bollocks. This comment is symptomatic of a widespread issue with all manner of software today, whether they be single-purpose mobile apps or more elaborate services. And that issue is that everyone seems to see a perpetual need to “introduce new features”.

I’ll remind you that when I came across this app I was looking for something that did one thing and one thing only: provide a “teleprompter” facility that I can use on my phone. To elaborate, that means provide the ability to display some text on the phone’s screen while the camera is recording, allowing me to make “eye contact” with the camera while reading from a script.

This app does that already. It does not need any new features. It is already fit for purpose, aside from the subscription fee. Therefore it does not need additional development or new features to be introduced. (Especially not a “Rewrite your script with AI!” feature, which it proudly boasts.) Perhaps a compatibility update every now and then to ensure it works with whatever current version of Android has been loaded onto my phone without telling me this week. But that does not warrant a fee of five quid a month or even twenty quid a year.

As I said, I would have quite happily paid a fiver up front for the app, and that’s being extraordinarily generous in the mobile space, given that most people don’t like paying more than 79p for anything.

The stock response from “Phil” about “introducing new features” and “continuing to improve the app” didn’t convince me in any way that the subscription fee was worth paying, and I suspect he knew that as he copy-pasted the words into the response box. So why did he bother posting it at all? Just so the fact he “responds to feedback”, even if it is with utterly stupid suggestions, is visible to anyone browsing the page and not looking too closely?

A few minutes later, I found another teleprompter app that does just charge once and then doesn’t bother you again. So I bought it without a moment’s hesitation. Don’t stand for exploitative, predatory subscription models, particularly on mobile where it’s extremely easy to forget about them. And support those folks who are actually providing a good, useful piece of software without trying to fleece you.

And Phil? Eat a thousand cocks.

Want to read my thoughts on various video games, visual novels and other popular culture things? Stop by MoeGamer.net, my site for all things fun where I am generally a lot more cheerful. And if you fancy watching some vids on classic games, drop by my YouTube channel.

#oneaday Day 962: Signal to Noise

We’re reaching saturation point with social media. In fact, I think we got past that point a long time ago, meaning that we’re at the “completely sodden and dribbling all over the carpet” stage.

There is too much social media. There are too many possible places for people to share things that nobody cares about with people they don’t know. And it seems that every day some bright-eyed startup CEO decides that what we really need is yet another social network service of some description.

I’ve indulged in a few of these superfluous social networks over the years. GetGlue was a bit of fun, allowing you to “check in” to movies, books, games and even “topics” that you were interested in, leave comments and discuss things with other community members. This was at the height of the “gamification” craze, so there were plenty of achievements to collect, and you could even get some real-life physical stickers sent to you if you collected enough achievements.

Similarly, Foursquare and the now-defunct Gowalla proved fun for a little while. During the period of time when I was unemployed and quite spectacularly depressed, I made extensive use of Gowalla to “tag” various places around Southampton and assist with building up a crowdsourced map of places of interest. I even made some actual real-life friends through it, but since then location check-ins have lost their lustre — what’s the point, really?

Then I tried Path, which promised to be a high-quality mobile-focused social network. But since you can access Facebook, Twitter and Google+ — the biggest social networks in the world — via your mobile phone, why on Earth would you need a mobile-specific one? Sure, Path had a lovely interface and the bizarre ability to track when you woke up and went to sleep, but it was ultimately pointless.

Today, I reviewed an app/social network whose purpose remained completely obtuse to me even as I made use of it — and even as an employee of the company frantically tried to convince me that the service was worthwhile via both Twitter and the service itself. (I’m not going to name it as I really can’t be bothered to be chased further — I gave it a fair shot, I explored it, I found it to be a complete waste of time. Sorry.)

The service in question allows users to, like GetGlue, “Like” things. Any things. Like cake? Then “Like” cake. Like Tori Amos? Then “Like” Tori Amos. Not sure whether you like broccoli and stilton soup? Then add it to your “To-Do” list, then “Like” it if you like it. Great. Sure. Fine. One question: why?

This questionable usefulness was only further obscured by the fact that the app also, for some utterly unfathomable reason, allows its users to “plant” “Likes” at actual physical locations, meaning you can claim to have hidden, say, an iPhone 5 in your local McDonalds, or Jedward in your local sewage works. Fun for about five minutes again, sure — and a means of seeing who lives vaguely near you and likes Jedward — but again… why?

There’s too much noise and not enough signal in social media these days, in short, and this fact is a big part of why I stripped back on all “non-essential” social apps a while back. I keep Facebook, Twitter and G+ around because there are people I regularly speak to on all of those, but outside of those “big three”? There’s really very little reason for a lot of these services and apps to exist, but the amount of money being thrown at them by venture capitalists is terrifying.

Kind of makes me think that I should come up with an “innovative” idea for a mobile social network in order to attract several million dollars’ worth of funding.

Okay… give me a minute.

Thinking.

Eureka! I got it. Everyone likes taking Instagram photos of food, right? Well, I propose a social photography network that is nothing but pictures of food with a selection of retro filters (some of which are available via in-app purchase). You can “check in” to the food you’re eating, discuss it with other people and share photographs of your lunchbox. It’ll be a big hit. I’ll call it “füd”, all in lower case, naturally.

That’ll be two million dollars, please, Mr Venture Capitalist. KTHX.