6 ms·

Thanks for the brutal honesty. >Without some sort of web+mobile experience, you are way behind everyone else that is established in the space (runkeeper, runta

Thanks for the brutal honesty. >Without some sort of web+mobile experience, you are way behind everyone else that is established in the space (runkeeper, runtastic, strava, mapmyrun). perhaps, but I'm not convinced the web features are that exciting or necessary for success. (Note that I make apps for a living, but I don't need 1 app to carry all of the weight. It would be nice to have a huge success that turns into something more, but it isn't required) >The competitors are well-funded and start-uppy Yeah that sucks. I agree. >The app ends up being a demo because of the restriction on number of runs, while the competitors offer something fully functional, including Vima's paid features, for free. Is this going to work? I have no idea honestly, but I've had success with this style of limitation in the past. I STRONGLY considered no limits, but I wanted to do it this way to start. I can remove the limits later and only make people happy. Can't start with no limits and go back easily. Also, I hate banner ads. So ugly. So not useful. With no limit I'd really have to put ads in it. which may happen, but I'd love for this to work. It's an experiment. >The name is probably bad - take it from the guy who likes greek mythology for names. If it's a running app, you might as well say so. Runtastic, Runkeeper, MapMyRun - there's a theme here. Possibly, but you've also got Strava and Endomondo as counterpoints >I don't consider this an "MVP" for a running app. I think that's pretty harsh. We are obviously competing against mapmy and runkeeper etc, but that doesn't mean we have to make the same app. I believe that there is a market for a simpler version that does the basics (time, distance, maps, etc.) with an easier to use interface. We have some more advanced features planned, like interval training and more charts etc, but the idea we were going for was the simplicity. Now, the monetization strategy was an entirely new experiment that may or may not work. It's a lot cheaper than the competitors options, but as you pointed out doesn't do as much.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- clarky07 12y ago
  Thanks. I will definitely plan a follow up. The recurring model is the big experiment. I think it could do just fine as a 1 time 2.99-4.99 app. Where "just fine" is a relative term that means I have to keep working on several projects but brings in some decent mostly passive income. Recurring on the other hand, could potentially allow me to spend significantly more time giving it the attention it deserves. We have a lot planned for it, and the more income it brings in the faster those updates will come. The app store race to the bottom has been an interesting phenomenon (that has made me a good amount of money) but there was a time when people paid more than FREE for software. The competitors you pointed out, while being unlimited free with ads, all also have recurring or significantly higher IAP options. Someone out there is willing to pay for good software. I'm hoping we can find some of those people as well. And I do think this is a pretty good piece of software. It's possible I'm biased though.
  - hluska 12y ago
    This question may sound silly, but do you live/run in a place that is ice free most of the year? I wonder because I live in a part of the world where, if I'm lucky, I can run outside for about six months of the year (1). I love running for those six months, but the rest of the year, it is so icy that the risk:reward of running outside is too high. Because of this, the moment I see subscription, I know that I won't become a customer. In my mind, it doesn't make sense to subscribe to something I'll only use for half the year. I know I could likely unsubscribe in November, but realistically, the odds that I'll subscribe again in April are almost zero. I wonder if you could pivot into more of a safety app for seniors? My Grandma, for example, loves to walk but she has had two heart attacks and she is in her 90s. Personally, I'd subscribe to an app (and pay almost anything) if it meant that I'd get a text message if my Grandma stopped walking and stayed still for more than x minutes. (1) - Clearly, I don't think things through and likely shouldn't be trusted...:)
    - clarky07 12y ago
      I live in the middle of the US where we get a winter, but it doesn't snow/ice much. Too cold to run comfortably for 2-3 months but still possible. That's really probably a good point though. We have been considering giving a bigger discount to the yearly option. To your point, 9.99 isn't really a discount over the .99/month if the weather is only nice enough to run for 6-8 months. What would you think of a $5.99 yearly option? It has nice positioning at 50% off next to the .99/month, but also reasonable if you can only run ~6 months a year. P.S. I highly recommend moving if it's reasonable for you. I used to live in one of those cold climates and I am so glad I moved. So much nicer here.
      - hluska 12y ago
        At $5.99 a year, your app would be very hard to beat. The upsetting part is that at $5.99 a year, you'll have trouble running a business. But, at that price point, you offer one heck of a service at an impulse price. I'll keep an eye on your app. Best of luck!
    - clarky07 12y ago
__xtrimsky 12y ago
I'll add just one thing to this. For me the web interface is essential and I think it is for a lot of other people. People like to share their life with everyone. When I go running, I post a live tracking to facebook (not necessary), and then when I finished running I post automatically the data to Facebook. I want everyone to know I just spend X calories and ran for X miles. I enjoy the fact that everyone can click on the link, and view the map of where I was running. I'm sure this is not a requirement for everyone, but a web interface is for me.
- clarky07 12y ago
  I'm not sure why the web interface is needed for that, or am I missing something? The app has a post to facebook option, including screenshot of the map trace. I guess having the ability to scroll and zoom the map might be interesting, but it doesn't seem like it'd be a requirement. I could very well be wrong on that though. Let me know if I'm missing something. EDIT: Here is a screen grab of what the facebook post looks like for reference http://cl.ly/image/2O3d2Q1v2i1b http://cl.ly/image/2O3d2Q1v2i1b
- nedwin 12y ago
  Not a requirement for me at all. I use both Runkeeper and Strava (long story) and occasionally post times to social media but mostly use them for personal tracking and connecting with friends around running. Posting an image of my course + time to web would be enough for me and prevent the need for building a web version when some novel functionality might be a better investment.
  - clarky07 12y ago
    That is my thought. We've already got the post a screenshot of map and times in there. I'd rather work on adding interval training stuff and more charts and graphs than build a web version.
  - x1798DE 12y ago
    I'll actually go one further and say that if something has a web gateway that is mandatory, I specifically won't use it. I've used MyFitnessPal in the past, but when I tried to use it again recently, opening the app presented me with a login screen, so I deleted the app. I think Endomoto also forces me to log in, so I deleted it. If I recall correctly, RunKeeper also has a login gateway and they imply that you won't be able to use it without signing in. I almost deleted that one too, but I think that once I got around the login screen they stopped asking me actively to sign in.
davidcollantes 12y ago
I agree that the web features are not needed. I do not want them, for example. I don't want logins, relying on a server backend, etc. I want a simple app, and yours seems to be. My only complain? Subscription. I do not mind paying a fixed amount one time, but the subscription method kills it for me.
- clarky07 12y ago
  Understandable. It's an experiment, and it may not work. If it does though, it will allow me to make a much better app for our users. Would you prefer unlimited runs free with ads, or as is and just make it a 1 time paid app? Also, what would seem reasonable for that 1 time number, for you?
  - davidcollantes 12y ago
    I would prefer a 1 time paid app. Reasonable is subjective, but I would be willing to pay $5 or $10 for it.
    - clarky07 12y ago
      Not sure it helps, but this thread and my partner convinced me to drop the yearly to $5.99. Taking into account bad winter weather, $9.99 isn't much of a discount on the yearly option.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

clarky07 12y ago
Thanks. I will definitely plan a follow up. The recurring model is the big experiment. I think it could do just fine as a 1 time 2.99-4.99 app. Where "just fine" is a relative term that means I have to keep working on several projects but brings in some decent mostly passive income. Recurring on the other hand, could potentially allow me to spend significantly more time giving it the attention it deserves. We have a lot planned for it, and the more income it brings in the faster those updates will come. The app store race to the bottom has been an interesting phenomenon (that has made me a good amount of money) but there was a time when people paid more than FREE for software. The competitors you pointed out, while being unlimited free with ads, all also have recurring or significantly higher IAP options. Someone out there is willing to pay for good software. I'm hoping we can find some of those people as well. And I do think this is a pretty good piece of software. It's possible I'm biased though.
- hluska 12y ago
  This question may sound silly, but do you live/run in a place that is ice free most of the year? I wonder because I live in a part of the world where, if I'm lucky, I can run outside for about six months of the year (1). I love running for those six months, but the rest of the year, it is so icy that the risk:reward of running outside is too high. Because of this, the moment I see subscription, I know that I won't become a customer. In my mind, it doesn't make sense to subscribe to something I'll only use for half the year. I know I could likely unsubscribe in November, but realistically, the odds that I'll subscribe again in April are almost zero. I wonder if you could pivot into more of a safety app for seniors? My Grandma, for example, loves to walk but she has had two heart attacks and she is in her 90s. Personally, I'd subscribe to an app (and pay almost anything) if it meant that I'd get a text message if my Grandma stopped walking and stayed still for more than x minutes. (1) - Clearly, I don't think things through and likely shouldn't be trusted...:)
  - clarky07 12y ago
    I live in the middle of the US where we get a winter, but it doesn't snow/ice much. Too cold to run comfortably for 2-3 months but still possible. That's really probably a good point though. We have been considering giving a bigger discount to the yearly option. To your point, 9.99 isn't really a discount over the .99/month if the weather is only nice enough to run for 6-8 months. What would you think of a $5.99 yearly option? It has nice positioning at 50% off next to the .99/month, but also reasonable if you can only run ~6 months a year. P.S. I highly recommend moving if it's reasonable for you. I used to live in one of those cold climates and I am so glad I moved. So much nicer here.
    - hluska 12y ago
      At $5.99 a year, your app would be very hard to beat. The upsetting part is that at $5.99 a year, you'll have trouble running a business. But, at that price point, you offer one heck of a service at an impulse price. I'll keep an eye on your app. Best of luck!
  - clarky07 12y ago

__xtrimsky 12y ago

I'll add just one thing to this. For me the web interface is essential and I think it is for a lot of other people. People like to share their life with everyone. When I go running, I post a live tracking to facebook (not necessary), and then when I finished running I post automatically the data to Facebook. I want everyone to know I just spend X calories and ran for X miles. I enjoy the fact that everyone can click on the link, and view the map of where I was running. I'm sure this is not a requirement for everyone, but a web interface is for me.

clarky07 12y ago
I'm not sure why the web interface is needed for that, or am I missing something? The app has a post to facebook option, including screenshot of the map trace. I guess having the ability to scroll and zoom the map might be interesting, but it doesn't seem like it'd be a requirement. I could very well be wrong on that though. Let me know if I'm missing something. EDIT: Here is a screen grab of what the facebook post looks like for reference http://cl.ly/image/2O3d2Q1v2i1b http://cl.ly/image/2O3d2Q1v2i1b
nedwin 12y ago
Not a requirement for me at all. I use both Runkeeper and Strava (long story) and occasionally post times to social media but mostly use them for personal tracking and connecting with friends around running. Posting an image of my course + time to web would be enough for me and prevent the need for building a web version when some novel functionality might be a better investment.
- clarky07 12y ago
  That is my thought. We've already got the post a screenshot of map and times in there. I'd rather work on adding interval training stuff and more charts and graphs than build a web version.
- x1798DE 12y ago
  I'll actually go one further and say that if something has a web gateway that is mandatory, I specifically won't use it. I've used MyFitnessPal in the past, but when I tried to use it again recently, opening the app presented me with a login screen, so I deleted the app. I think Endomoto also forces me to log in, so I deleted it. If I recall correctly, RunKeeper also has a login gateway and they imply that you won't be able to use it without signing in. I almost deleted that one too, but I think that once I got around the login screen they stopped asking me actively to sign in.

davidcollantes 12y ago

I agree that the web features are not needed. I do not want them, for example. I don't want logins, relying on a server backend, etc. I want a simple app, and yours seems to be. My only complain? Subscription. I do not mind paying a fixed amount one time, but the subscription method kills it for me.

clarky07 12y ago
Understandable. It's an experiment, and it may not work. If it does though, it will allow me to make a much better app for our users. Would you prefer unlimited runs free with ads, or as is and just make it a 1 time paid app? Also, what would seem reasonable for that 1 time number, for you?
- davidcollantes 12y ago
  I would prefer a 1 time paid app. Reasonable is subjective, but I would be willing to pay $5 or $10 for it.
  - clarky07 12y ago
    Not sure it helps, but this thread and my partner convinced me to drop the yearly to $5.99. Taking into account bad winter weather, $9.99 isn't much of a discount on the yearly option.