I think you are the person who has achieved the most here on hacker news. You lack the ego of a lot of the people who are constantly writing advice articles on how to run a startup (where they don't even have a startup). And you started with small doable things, and worked your way up to a pretty high income (for where you live).
The courage to go through this, and the lack of ego in selecting the products is quite inspiring for me. I think people like you should be our real heros, not the people who constantly write comments for upvotes and write fluffy articles about startups.
Like I always say: making money on the internet is not hard! If you want to make money on the net, there are many many ways to do so. But most people are out there trying to do stuff that will impress hacker news users. Just keep your mouth shut, make money and forget about all the critics here.
There are many, many people who really just care about being lauded by their peers. These are people that are trying to insert themselves into a startupy group of people. They are more interested in the social than in the money. The ones interested in the money are not writing idle comments about various unimportant stuff.
Kreci is doing it right. He has found ways to make money, he keeps finding new ways and every month his income keeps growing. Is that not what this game is all about?
Kreci is doing something right, but I don't think 'cracked screens', 'fake x-ray scanners', 'beauty tips' or 'nuclear buttons' are pushing the envelope on android development in ways that matter. All of them are clear rip-offs (or should I say re-implementations) of similar (useless) apps for the iphone.
I'd put the bar a bit higher and say, ok, you've found the way, now make something really impressive instead of a series of knock-offs of 0 utility apps.
The virtual drums and the wp stats apps are more like it.
Some HN users motivation for side projects is to impress other HN users, "make something really impressive". Others are trying to make money and this is how Kreci succeeded (a la Notch).
Who defines what is 'useful'? I have a cousin, he sits at home all day, watching TV. When he buys apps, he does not want or care for things like 'currency bot'. Why would he care about that, he never needs to convert currency. But if he sees something like the x-ray stuff, he'd be quite entertained by it.
For him, it's much more useful than a VIM clone for android. Your definition of useful is not the same as most of the worlds definition.
You can't be serious. Just because people are willing to pay money for it doesn't mean it's worth your time. There's nothing wrong with making money on the side with a couple of apps like this, but just as AIDS or cancer research is more "useful" than penis pills or breast enhancement surgery regardless of profitability, there are many ways for mobile developers to "push the state of the art" without making more fake cracked screen apps.
> Just because people are willing to pay money for it doesn't mean it's worth your time.
By definition, if someone is willing to pay money for something, it's worth _their_ time, which is the whole point of making products.
We preach "Making something that a customer finds valuable. MVP and iterate. Get lots of feedback to build something the customer wants." So kreci builds something people want.
> ust as AIDS or cancer research is more "useful" than penis pills or breast enhancement surgery regardless of profitability
This is where the main discrepancy comes in. You guys are talking about two different things: 'value' within a capitalist framework and 'nobility' within your particular moral one. Neither one is necessarily 'better', but that's the core difference.
> This is where the main discrepancy comes in. You guys are talking about two different things: 'value' within a capitalist framework and 'nobility' within your particular moral one. Neither one is necessarily 'better', but that's the core difference.
I think this is something that is confused all the time, even by people who realize the distinction. It is something I (and I suspect others) find hard to keep track of without actively thinking about it.
Absolutely. I think it's a common trap that we all fall into; I know that I do, for sure. We assume that something doesn't have any value unless it solves a hard problem. In reality, there's a ton of low-hanging fruit out there just waiting to be exploited.
As the web matures, I think we'll look back and realize that this is an era where the problem space looks like a tree: a trunk has sprung up of problems that we're solving, and then we're going to the highest levels of difficulty, branching out. Eventually, more will start doing what some people (like kreci) are just starting to do: working on easier problems. There's a whole world out there of things that we can easily be doing to help people with their day. They may not be 'noble', but even fart apps have their place in people's lives.
Numerous fortunes have been made from pornography, professional wrestling, and soap operas. We'd do well to remember that.
> ... these apps are useful to someone, otherwise, kreci wouldn't be making money from them.
this logic only works out if you approach things myopically.
do you think drug dealers provide a useful commodity? they're certainly making a lot of money.
the apps described take advantage of some neurological disposition to gimmicks / novelty - it's not a given that the world is a better place because of them.
I guess you're calling capitalism myopic. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but that's the framework we've set up.
(And yes, I do think drug dealers provide value. It's a service, people want it. In any other context, we'd be writing articles about how a perceptive entrepreneur rose up from a simple upbringing to rolling in cash, it's just that we look down upon the product.)
There's a pretty decent sibling of mine who's dead. You may want to turn showdead on temporarily.
yes, capitalism is myopic and you can justify many myopic conclusions by limiting yourself to its framework.
> ... it's just that we look down upon the product.
that's an amusing misdirection. it's actually more about the lives ruined and suffering experienced by way of the product.
> What is your definition of wealth? Paul Graham says, and I tend to agree with him, that wealth is "things people want". If people want these apps (or drugs), then the apps (and drugs) create wealth.
wealth is control over other people. having lots of money in a capitalist system is a proxy for being able to control lots of other people in this system.
taking advantage of neurological hooks (chemical in the case of drugs, or sensual in the case of advertising / apps / etc) is certainly one way to gain controller over others (by the proxy of money).
i suppose if your concerns are entirely contained within the bounds of playing that game (very much the case for many entrepreneurial types) there's no motivation to challenge its definition of "value".
> it's actually more about the lives ruined and suffering experienced by way of the product.
This is an 'amusing misdirection,' to use your own words, about you forcing your own morality on others. There are plenty of people that use drugs without ruining their lives, no need to get high and mighty about it.
> wealth is control over other people.
Hey man, I'm an anarchist. I understand exactly what you're saying. But regardless of my own personal thoughts on the subject, that's not the way that this country is set up.
As I said over here[1], it's just that we're talking about two different things. Within capitalism, kreci is creating value. If you'd like to discuss a different system, then you need to tell everyone that you're talking about something else. When on a forum about startups, I assume people are discussing the current system by default.
> I've never seen you comment on someone else's success without coming across as bitter.
Is that so?
Wow.
References please, and don't pull your punches. Then, for an encore go search for those cases where I've done my utmost to get HN'ers stuff launched and helped them with goods, time, funds, traffic and whatever else I've got to give.
What would you rather have, my unvarnished opinion or do you think it would be helpful if I fawned over what I essentially perceive to be a bunch of fart apps?
I think the fact that my post dipped as low as -4 before bouncing back up to +1 in a 24 hour period shows I'm not the only one who holds such an opinion. I see no need to go trawling through your posting history.
I don't think he should follow your advice of making more useful stuff.
1) He has found a formula that works. Never change a winning team; follow the course until it fails.
2) The useless apps get more than 10x the number of downloads(from the apps he has shown).
3) Utility apps would generally require being paid for if they are to make as much money as a 'useless' app. He is currently living in Poland, so this is not an option available to him.
The useless apps get more downloads but I'll bet they're gone as fast as they're downloaded, the churn on that stuff must be enormous. Whereas if an app has real utility I think it will hang around a lot longer.
His marketing is great, I'm sure if that gets applied to a real blockbuster he'll clean up, and make quite a bit more than a few grand. Of course making a serious app with real utility is going to be a lot more work so in the end it might work out to these being still 'easier money'.
As for him living in Poland and not being able to put his apps in the 'paid' section, that's a really nasty thing and should be remedied asap. The playing field is definitely not level in this respect.
People get enjoyment out of these things and are willing to pay the maker for that joy. These sorts of apps are literally toys — yeah, they're not "pushing the envelope" of tech but they bring a smile to people's faces. Seems like a noble line of work to be in, whether there are fancy algorithms involved or not.
All of that is true, but it hardly detracts from jacquesm's point. I would call them not toys, which are truly good and meaningful, but novelties, which are cheap throwaways that appeal to fairly base senses of humor.
founders behind citydeal in Germany a group on knock off made lot of money by using similar approach. they knocked off several successful business models, got traction and flipped for millions of dollars. unimpressive? not useful? I don't think so.
Thanks for great comment. I am trying all my best to make a living and to inspire some more people to do what I do. As it is really great to be your own boss... =)
I'm not going to get into blowing smoke up your ass or tell you that you should be saving the world. Remember, there are three types of apps: useful, popular, and money-making. Unless you are independently wealthy, #3 is a must-have: the others are optional.
Now -- take what you've learned with these apps and figure out where the next level is.
On a side note, I've found that the best projects to launch are projects that turn other programmers off -- much less likely to have competition there and much more likely to find a need to fill. "Programmers don't like it" is quickly moving up my list of tags for a successful startup. It's probably around #4 or so now.
That's an interesting tip about what turns programmers off. I've been operating under a similar motto, if it's hard to do, keep doing it.
My best apps in the Market do some stuff that takes a lot of work and talent to complete, and those are the things that have the least amount of competition and make the most money.
There are developers looking to make a business of the Android Market, and there are some that just want a quick buck. Do something hard to avoid the quick-buckers in my opinion.
Many of these apps were ported to the iPhone on the basis of previous success on dumbphones. I don't know what it's like in the US, but these were a big business in Europe. Jamba/Jamster was a big name and their adverts on music television have been bugging me for years:
The most interesting part of the post for me was that how these totally non-useful apps had a lot of downloads and how the only meaningul one had a fraction of the others. (OK, one can say that the virtual drum is also a meaningful one.) I mean no offense at all, as (unlike with the post from a few days ago with the 4-hour work-week iphone guys) these apps are free and of course anyone is free to sell or buy anything.
However it tells a lot about this market. I mean the newly found smart phone market. People run to buy and download totally meaningless apps most of which could have been done (and probably has been done) on other smart phone platforms (or plain j2me) at least 5 years ago. But this is just a small market disturbance, now as iphone opened the eyes of a lot of people that these gadgets are not merely (or mainly...) phones they download every stupid app. But this will go away soon.
How did you get users? Did you do any promotion or marketing? Or did you just upload to the android market with a 'build it and they will come' attitude?
If app is good (funny or useful) people will come. As I have been experimenting most of online promotion is not worth efforts/time or money that it may cost.
Kreci, you used to do monthly income reports. It looks like you're not doing those anymore? I'm probably not alone in being curious how your photography and other streams are doing lately. Thanks for the interesting Android report!
Just as a point of reference from the iOS world. My free apps have < 80K downloads total but last month I generated 4K from ads. You really can't beat the eCPMs from iAds.
Android is a great platform, but the app market really is miles behind iOS. Rampant piracy, poor app market organization, and difficulty for most users to purchase paid apps means that if you want to actually make a living developing apps, iOS should still be far and away the #1 choice imo.
I'm curious on this too. I wasn't even aware it was possible to implement ads into an Android app. How would views be tracked? Is it a pay-per-click system? Passing just over $1k for October is impressive in such a small (but rapidly growing) mobile market.
You can use an ad provider such as AdMob or Mobclix, and integration into your app is pretty straightforward.
Some services also support dynamic allocation between multiple ad networks. This is useful if you want a higher-paying ad network to serve ads most of the time, and defer to other networks if an ad is not available. Mobclix supports this, as well as the AdWhirl library.
Nicely done. I recently released my first app in the app store, EasySal Calculator. As I live in America, I uploaded both a paid (adfree) version and a free (with ads) version. I noticed that my free version makes more money as well.
I like to hear stories like these. I have been gaining a strong interest in Android Development and these stories make me think that maybe I can be semi-successful at it as well. I don't expect to make loads of cash, not even close to what you're making, but even a little bit makes me feel good.
I think it would be possible but this is not my current business model anyway. Apps I make may do much more as free with ads in it (I do not consider changing it until google add my country to the list...).
I am making updateds about once a month (I add real features) to keep current users happy (they use my apps again just do discover new options). Another thing if you update your app after some defined by google period your app is shown on the top of new apps again (this does not work if you update too often).
Apps in the Market will naturally get more attention after they've been updated and appear in the "Just in" lists. So yes, it's a crude way of bumping the app a bit.
This used to happen on the Apple app store as well, but they stopped it to prevent spurious updates. It was getting out of control. Expect to see this happen in the google marketplace as well.
Good article, it is good to show that there are lots of indie devs that earn money with Android.
We started last year with Android, and we are making around $2000/month (1M downloads in total) with really simple applications. The majority of the revenue comes from ads, but more and more paid apps revenue is higher!
I'd be interested in the difference in CPM for something like this in comparison to similar download stats for the iphone. My hunch based on figures we have seen on here from time to time that similar numbers would monetize better on the iphone.
What makes the biggest difference on the iPhone is the sheer number of downloads. There are more iOS users, and each user uses a lot more apps.
So an app that gets 200,000 downloads on Android, might get 2,000,000 downloads on iPhone. (These numbers are roughly based on actual figures for my apps, like Brain Tuner [a simple game I created], which are available on both iOS and Android.)
Even if the CPM stays the same, revenue would be 10x because there are about 10x the impressions.
It would be interesting to see how your profits may differ if you were able to sell the apps on the Android Marketplace (without ads). I've been leery about trying ad-based monetization, but it looks like it is working fairly well for you.
You wrote the "Cracked Screen App". I installed it and love it... it is so realistic. Haven't really had to install it and I didn't notice any ads in it - oh wait... that's probably because I have an adblocker installed on my phone.
i wish he will earn more money doing this way. there is a news here about Quoc Bui and Mike Moon from thefreeapps.com who did earn 80k/month by ads from their iphone apps.
i hope android apps will yield the same.
This is good news. Even with simple apps that aren't games he's making a decent amount of money off ads alone.
Too bad he didn't mention what ad network he's using.
I'm getting ready to launch my game/app (http://developingthedream.blogspot.com/) in the next few months and I'm going into it with no expectations.
Good to hear i may gain a bit of extra cash from this project. I'm using mobclix and it was really easy to integrate into my app. However, I don't like that the view doesn't auto resize or fill the parent.
The courage to go through this, and the lack of ego in selecting the products is quite inspiring for me. I think people like you should be our real heros, not the people who constantly write comments for upvotes and write fluffy articles about startups.
Like I always say: making money on the internet is not hard! If you want to make money on the net, there are many many ways to do so. But most people are out there trying to do stuff that will impress hacker news users. Just keep your mouth shut, make money and forget about all the critics here.
There are many, many people who really just care about being lauded by their peers. These are people that are trying to insert themselves into a startupy group of people. They are more interested in the social than in the money. The ones interested in the money are not writing idle comments about various unimportant stuff.
Kreci is doing it right. He has found ways to make money, he keeps finding new ways and every month his income keeps growing. Is that not what this game is all about?