One thing I thought I'd mention (which might be a bit off topic) is that I recently contemplated the use of the "Zilla" suffix for a project name. But after doing a bit of research, it sounds like the owners of the Godzilla trademark are quite aggressive with when it comes to this. Particularly so if the logo/mascot is also some sort of reptilian creature.
Just thought you might want to look into this now before your service grows (in case you haven't looked into it yet).
Thanks for the good will and advice. This has been an issue that we've looked into and we're trying to find out how other companies (IE. Shopzilla) has handled this issue in the past.
Thanks again for the tip and appreciate the advice.
Interesting idea to get some visibility for app developers. Although for the app purchaser I think you may get some reluctance as they first have to pay for the app (using an iTunes account) and then get the refund through a different mechanism (Paypal). This may be a bit of barrier to usage for certain users.
My startup (self-promoting link-whoring: http://www.happybuy.com/) also helps to find price-reduced iOS Apps and tweets the biggest bargain product of the day. It's an easier mechanism for app purchasers to understand but obviously it doesn't address the value equation for the developer like TapZilla does.
The article says it costs the developer $1 per download. Who is actually paying the money that is credited back to the customer? Does the developer need to fund this (in addition to the $1 per download), or does TapZilla?
If TapZilla is funding the customer credit with the developer's $1 per download, can this be used for apps that are more than 99 cents? And how is TapZilla making any money?
If the developer is funding the customer credit, then the developer would need to pay TapZilla $1 + cost for each download? If so, is this prepaid or postpaid?
The developer pays $1 + app cost, they in turn will receive 70% of the app cost from Apple. So the effective cost per user acquisition for a $0.99 app is $1.30.
It's really hard to grab users' attention in the App Store.
If you have a great app but don't have a big brand associated with it, it's hard to crack the top 25 or even the top 50 in your category. As long as TapZilla can maintain high app quality in their daily deals, this can be a big deal for app developers.
Good point on the 24 hour refund and our Android strategy since the market mechanisms are so different. We're currently working on our Android story and looking at how to get the best distribution on the different Android AppStores that are out there right now.
Not exactly:
The developer pays $1 + app cost, they in turn will receive 70% of the app cost from Apple. So the effective cost per user acquisition for a $0.99 app is $1.30.
These coupon codes aren't the same as the ones from iTunes. These are generated by TapZilla and redeemed within the app itself so that it can inform us which user from our service downloaded the application.
Right now we support both PayPal payment and iTunes card redemption. Users can save their payments towards a iTunes card which we will email it to them. Other redemption others are in the works.
As for the tax, state laws vary and we don't collect information about the user's location. So far this hasn't been an issue with our users but we'll collect geo info if this becomes a concern.
I am bringing up a very valid question and I'm not saying that I'm gonna do that, but if I was in PG's seat during the YC interview, that would be my question and I like to hear the founder's response because it is a valid concern and unfortunately a reality too.
I'd say the barrier to entry for other startups would be the awareness and userbase that Tapzilla may manage to develop.
For instance if Tapzilla can say to a developer that they have 20,000 users with an average 20% redemption rate then Tapzilla is going to be a lot more likely to be successful in selling their service to a developer than a new operation with only 50 users.
To be able to do this successfully on a longterm basis Tapzilla will need to be able to get several case studies as evidence that, due to the freebies, a certain App went up the sales charts which then resulted in more visibility and more paid sales. Otherwise it could just be a losing proposition for developers.
I agree that user base IS a barrier for entry but hardly unique to any business, startups. Almost, and not ALL, business plan that I've seen cite "ability to achieve massive user base" and "first player in the market" as barriers, I choke almost every single time reading that.
