3 comments

[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 19.9 ms ] thread
Wow, the article and the embedded ABC video are embarrassing to even look at. It makes me lose faith in journalism.

   1. No where is it mentioned that Bubble Ball only surpassed the
      *free* version of Angry Birds on the top *free* app chart. The
      article even links to the paid version of Angry Birds, saying
      that it was "de-throned" (spelled wrong); this is not true.
   2. They call him a "tween" in the video. He's 14 (four*teen*) years old.
   3. The video says he would have made $2 million if he had charged
      $1.00 for the app (which isn't even in possible) - I hate to break
      it, but I'm not sure if even a 1000 of them would have still
      downloaded the *Wake Up the Box* clone.
Come on journalism!
The difference between a 14yr old and older devs, the older devs would have tried to monetize it (ads in the app).

Although I haven't played his app, does he have any ads? I'm assuming not after watching the video. Sounds like a pretty smart kid.

That's not entirely true. Most developers don't think about monetizing their apps until they've been on the store for quite some time and have show to be popular. It's a common mistake among many people, but it also shows that the developers are thinking about the users first (and not money). It's easier to monetize an already successful free product than to turn a monetizing product into something successful.