I think context is important here. If I google for “Lifeboat” and check out a page for Tim’s Lifeboat and end up at the Lifeboat Society of Wales then I can click away in under 4 seconds … and it doesn’t matter how well that page is made. If it IS Tim’s site, then he has a LOT longer than 4 seconds.
So that 4 seconds is simply the time it takes to leave a page visited in error.
That’s the trouble with PR - they love their soundbites (and that’s what everyone remembers), but nobody remembers what is was really about.
I have been selling on the web since 1996, and on Amazon since 2007. I can tell you the 4 seconds average is a reality. If a visitor does not see what he is looking for in 4 seconds, he usually will click to go somewhere else.
Being able to close the deal in that amount of time is paramount for sales performances. That is the reason why well conceived pages offer a purchase button close to the top, and usually contain calls to action (Buy Now) in the two to paragraphs.
The 4 seconds rule is recognized all over the web.
Now, there are exceptions to the rule, and development tools like Lifeboat usually require a lot more reading. Besides, potential users also need much more information.
In keeping with the thread’s topic, selling software requires learning. Like any business.
Isn’t that exactly what I’m saying? If I look for Tim’s Lifeboat app and don’t see it I leave.
But you are asking the wrong question. If you do NOT have what the visitor is after - does it make a difference THEN. Because THAT is what you guys are implying. Aka “The customer is looking for cakes. I don’t have cakes, but if I dress up my roller skates really nicely so that I can grab him within 4 sec then I can get him to buy.” … THAT is how the 4 sec rule is sold. And I don’t buy that.
There is a nice sticker that you can buy in Germany: “BILLIONS of flies can’t be wrong! Eat more sh*t!”.
In other words: it might be “recognized all over the web”, but I’m missing the critical thinking here … the 4 sec rule is sold with a meaning that it was never meant to have.
It’s not about that. It’s about how the 4 sec rule was derived and how it is interpreted today - and those two don’t match.
I don’t think that’s quite right. It means you do have cakes, so you have 4 seconds to convince the customer that your cakes are better than the guy next door. Maybe your cakes are better tasting, but if your competitor has done a better job making them look delicious, they’re going to make more sales.
You experience this yourself all the time. In the case of SnippetsLab, the site design was good enough to keep you interested beyond that 4 seconds. The first impression was made. You decided that you like Dash better, but that’s besides the point. We’re talking about that 4 second first impression. If I visit a site that has no screenshots, or screenshots below the fold, or a wall of text, then I’m thinking “I don’t have time for this” and I’m moving on to the next result. That’s what the 4 second rule is all about.
Let’s say I am looking for a cake, and come to a website that sells cakes. It will take me a LOT longer than 4 sec to decide whether this website is or is not for me.
The 4 sec rule simply wasn’t derived from this scenario, but from getting to a wrong site and how long does it take to leave.
But that “rule” is applied in the wrong context all over the web. It’s a soundbite that people regurgitate without thinking about it critically, and consequently apply it in the wrong context.
As for my case with SnippetLab: I already knew what it was, and I went there looking for the feature list - which took more than 4 sec anyway. Nothing to do with how the website looked - sorry, but I’m simply not that superficial. And when I found it doesn’t have a feature I find important, it didn’t matter one iota how pretty it looked …
There are always exceptions to a rule, though. Some people, perhaps yourself, will spend much more time on a page. But overall, a page that does not provide off the bat what people are searching for will lose visitors and sales.
Chances are if the visitor does not find right away what he is looking for, or if the verbiage is convoluted and not to the point, he will leave fairly fast as well.
I made some mobiles apps iOS native and Android/iOS using Flutter. It’s very hard to make money with mobile app. I win ± $150 by year essentially with advertising, it just cover Apple subscription
For the next few month I will try to make Xojo App’s about Money and Document management and a few midi tools. I need those app for my company. Even if I can’t sell it I will earn money on my software purchases.
My dream: become a full time developer but it’s a long path…
I currently sell iOS and Android apps and make much, much more money than $150 a year
But selling software requires more efforts than simply posting to an app store.
May I suggest you get XDev 17 for the excellent article Jeremie Leroy wrote about selling iOS software. The same method can successfully be applied to Android.
Selling software is somewhat of a trade. The best app without the proper promotion will not sell well, unless it is exceptionally useful and alone on the market.
I can only advise Jeremie’s article.
I can also share that I systematically provide a free, limited version of each app, so people can try before they buy.
In the iOS apps Store or the Play Store, it is paramount to have a free app with in app purchase. I systematically make sure to have it listed in all software repositories with Appvisor.
Thank you Michel for referring to the article @Marc_Zeedar and I wrote.
I know other developers who did not follow my advice but went a different route (massive social media postings and contacting many journalists and bloggers).
Both solutions to promote an app are good, but mine takes less time and resources.
well lately , we had do dismiss Xojo for developing Native apps, not what they are looking for I guess, they look to new technologies, scalability RAD and so on, so supporting old apps until new Web apps will be done I guess is short time, but in general people look not to depend on pc’s different versions of OS , libraries and so on, even if in some cases Web is less secure they prefer flexibility in favor of security and go with different platforms.
I guess if you have the right app and right customers you can still develop desktop apps, now with the increasing market of Macs due to their prices becoming more affordable you could get some I guess, but as said , depends on what the app does and how much people need that on Desktop and cannot be replaced by a web app.
