4 ms·
For me, it would ultimately have to come down to the quality and caliber of the news within the app. I'd kill for high quality, diverse, informative, and mildly
by aspir 16y ago
For me, it would ultimately have to come down to the quality and caliber of the news within the app. I'd kill for high quality, diverse, informative, and mildly entertaining news. All the extra features are just thing that are built around the sweet spot of great news. At best, they're icing on the cake; in an absolute worst case senario then may distract- but its how they're developed, so it may not be an issue.
I use Fluent News and Time apps many times daily, and it's not about the bells and whistles. I just want plain old good news agglomerated from many sources. If you can do that better (more stores, higher quality stories), $1.99 is a steal. If it's just the same service with better packaging, it's probably not worth the money.
But, I do log onto my free news apps many times daily. That's ad exposure that someone would pay greatly for.
- bingbingbing 16y agoso the kind of news that we're hoping to deliver is breaking news. because we'll be push notifying you of breaking news, the goal would be to ONLY deliver good, quality news (in our opinion) and not everything that we can possibly find. we don't want to kill your device with 100 tweets a day. that's just way too much. what will be missing would be blogger opinions etc. that generally go everywhere - unless that opinion happens to become a story of its own. we're drop dead focused on simplicity and keeping the interface clean. i'll be sure to let you know when.