Transcript
Approximate read time: 36 minutes
Orren: Hi Dave. Welcome and thanks for making the time to talk today.
David: No problem. Nice to be here.
Orren: I’ve known you for a long time now; I really want to keep this into you of with you talking about who you are and a bit of your background. And specifically at the point of Startup Weekend Melbourne and how that got you started on your journey? For example “Maths with Springbird”, “Educating Eddie” and the “Broccol-e-games” brand. And then how you moved on to “Anglecube” on to “Startup Chile”, moving to San Francisco and “App.io”. and some of the other apps you did like “Sinkers” and “Newton” under the “Redu.us” brand.
David: All those feel like quite a while ago, I think two and a half years ago, or about three years ago, when we started on our “Startup Weekend” in Melbourne. I suppose that was a Hackathon essentially over the weekend. So, I went to Melbourne, met with the team there and we created this prototype of Maths with Springbird. Which is basically a little bird cartoon character that would jump up the trees to collect worms as you answered arithmetic questions correctly. From that event we won some sort of prize. I can’t remember what it was. But we won some prize from it and we decided to keep going as a team. There was four people initially. Eventually one person dropped off due to work commitments. And then from Startup Weekend we decided to apply for Angelcube and a few other accelerators in Australia. We got accepted in two and we decided to go with Angelcube because it was based in Melbourne and two of the guys were based in Melbourne already. So, I made the move out to Melbourne to Angelcube as an accelerator. Basically gives you I think 20,000 for ten percent of the company with network and resources and rather a structured program from over a three month period. From there we completed the Math for Springbird product and released it. We had a quite a good launch. I think about ten or twenty thousand downloads on the first week that we launched it and then as like most startups we had some co-founder issue and I guess we all within management. So, basically what happened was, I ended up taking over the project. Which at the time was called Broccol-e-games. We got accepted to a program called Startup Chile. Which is a government funded incubator in Chile. Where they basically give $40,000 dollars equity free. So, we continued that program for six months, produced a few more games and few more products. And once we finished that, I moved up to San Francisco. By that time, Broccol-e-games turned into some sort of like a lifestyle business, I would say, that was making revenues, making profits. But it wasn’t scaling as fast as and as quickly as I would want for a Silicon Valley based startup. So, I decided to join a friend startup that were coincidentally also from Angelcube, called App.io. So, that is when I worked in Silicon Valley with App.io as Head of Business Development.
Orren: Can you talk to what App.io is, as well?
David: Sure, so App.io began as a developer portfolio. Sort of like, put developer landing pages of their apps. And part of the core technology of the developer portfolios was being able to have an interactive version of your app. So, you here is my developer page then here are the app I built and here is how you play with my apps. What I found was that people really didn’t care about the developer profiles but they cared about the what the instructiveness of the app, of the demos. So, we basically ripped off that functionality out of the developer portfolios and we created a company around that. That was acting like an interactive technology. There was few products that came out of that. For example the product that we are passionate about was the ad tech product. Its having interactive mobile ads. Instead of a static video or static picture, you would have something interactive that would be an actual demo of the game. And there were other use cases for that aswell. So, that was my role in the valley when I was there. And worked for them probably within about a year. And then after that I decided to move to London with my girlfriend which is where we are now based.
Orren: Can you give a summary of how Sinkers and Newton that you created? How they fit into the picture?
David: With Broccol-e-games, the focus with Broccol-e-games was always four to eight year olds. So, we created mathematical educational games, on iPads and iPhones for four to eight year olds. And that was always the focus. Hence, that is why the Broccol-e-games had the fun sort of child-like brand. And the games, Springbird and Educating Eddie, they are all around that concept, cartooned, friendly that kids would like it and parents would love it. And I always had an idea of… always had a incline that I wanted to created something more consumer friendly. Not just products towards children but also potentially adults or just the general consumer and just a test to see how it would go. So, that is where Sinkers came in initially. That was sort of an experiment under a different brand called Bitzerland. That me and my colleague Diesel created. So, that was just focused on creating a casual game. Just as a test. Just to see what have we learned from creating educational games, what’s our passion with design and user experience then use it to create a fun strategic game. And to see how we would do with it. So, we created that. And then Newton came after Sinkers. Newton was headed back towards education. But not just for four to eight year olds. It was probably trying to be more for general consumers. We were implementing the same sort of UX and UI and game gimmicks that we learned from Sinkers.
Orren: Excellent. So you mentioned just before that when you launched Math With Springbird, you did about 10 to 20 thousand downloads on launch and I know today, two and a half years later, a million plus downloads and just more that ten million plus players. What out of that suit of app products has been the most popular?
David: That is a good question. Depends who you are asking. If you are looking at a vanity metrics, from perspective of just raw amount of players, with a look at the raw amount of players of Sinkers. So, the Sinkers has been played a lot just because we were opened as a casual game. It started towards general consumer anywhere would pick it up and play it. But if you look at retention metrics which I think are more important, so that is how many people would reopen it, play it, and hence, it maintains a lot better. That has been Maths With Springbird. So, the level of success depends on what you are building or what you are aiming for. Sinkers has been monetized. Well, ad like it stopped at monetizing, but it had a very wide initial user base.
Orren: What was the monetization strategy used for Sinkers? And why do you think that worked?
David: Like I said before, Sinkers started as a test, so we really didn’t know what we were doing. So, we were just experimenting with a lot of things. At first why we thought of doing it was having sort of like power-ups in the game. So, the whole concept was freemium games. my belief is that it should always be free for players that want to play these casual games. so, you can keep playing for as long as you want without having to pay. But you might get more difficult if you pay. But the way we created the Leavers and the game mechanics was that the free players just could keep playing for ever essentially without paying for anything and if they did pay, it didn’t give them a huge advantage in the game. So, there for there was no incentive for people to actually pay for another in-game uprights.
Orren: Was this something that you actually worked out during the actual launch and test or was this something that you had an intuition about prior to actually creating the game?
David: It has been both. I mean, it has been an intuition and sort of a thesis that we think that people would pay it this way and we did a bit of testing with people and they ended just keep on playing. We had a lot of internal discussions between us, between me and my colleagues as well and we decided to just leave it as is. To release it and see what happens. And when we released it, we found that, we got a lot of metrics in that said it just didn’t convert well at all. And after we experimented with few other thing, we said ok what if we just had in-game purchases for different modes in the game. So, everyone can play the game for as long as they want sort of arcade mode. But if you want to play timed mode or Zen mode which is sort of just play for as long as you want and then you pay a dollar for it. That had bit of a backlash count of people that downloaded the game, so that also didn’t monetize too well. And yes the apps has a thing with people downloading things for free and expecting things to be forever. So, the people didn’t quite like that there was an update and that they had to pay for the update to get to get the functionality of the update. Yes, and now we have just changed to an ad supported model.
Orren: Hopefully we can come to how the App Store works a bit later on in the conversation. I wanted to ask you about how you identified the target audiences for all you app products and I know that there is common thing that runs through which is education. Can you give me a bit of synopsis of what you were doing in terms of identifying those people but then also creating something that would match?
David: These were sorts of questions we were identifying. It is quite easy to detect from a business sense. And from an analytical perspective. I think where it should start is from a passionate perspective. So my passion was in education to begin with. So, it wasn’t so much that I saw a market opportunity and went for it, it was that I had a passion for education, work in schools doing technology integration and I saw where was the place that I could have the most impact. when I start targeting high school students, and why not high school teachers. There was a fundamental part that mathematical education was missing and that was fundamental mathematics, multiplication, addition, arithmetic and things like that. So, that is where it came from and that I went like ok normally children learn arithmetic when they are quite young. So, that is where the passion for my market was. And once I had that and then I said ok this is the market, let’s create something around that area. So, I think all markets and all niches that you find will have some sort of market. There wasn’t a specific that this market is worth billions of dollars and whatever else is worth more. It was the passion that there is a need or a problem that needs to be solved in this part of the market.
Orren: How did that insight then translate into how the app looked and worked? Because all of your apps look really great. The graphics and user experience is totally on the top-end of what is out there.
David: Yes, thanks very much. I think with games specially there is always a lot of intuition and a lot of gassings. So, there isn’t much that we could do from a, you know, you can’t ask a child what sort of game do you want to play? Or how do you think the game should look. You just sort of have to intuitively think. And that is what we did is sort of came up with this concept. We have had a number of other concepts as well. Well, we built many other concepts and when we played them ourselves, but when I played them myself, I just didn’t like it. It just didn’t stick with me. So, I just trashed that project entirely so, it is a lot of intuition and testing with myself and thinking would I have enjoyed it? If I enjoy it then we can ad in the part that would make a child enjoy it. And that might be making things more brighter and more funny parts and sounds. And things like that.
Orren: You’ve mentioned intuition a couple of time specially when we were talking about Sinkers from that perspective as well. How much of it has changed for those apps once they have been launched.
David: With Maths With Springbird and Educating Eddie, I think that was quite intuition based in those first sort of a games that we produced. But we just released it. And a bit quite of a doubt that I had with things since I was quite new. And I guess, the customer education wasn’t so high and there wasn’t so much of a variety. So, students wouldn’t know who. So, people went ok that is cool, let’s play it and try it up. By the time Sinkers came around, the market changed quite a bit. So, with Springbird, from conception and creation to delivery, the user interface didn’t quite change that much. I didn’t go out to Federation Square in Melbourne with a prototype of this game. So, children and their parents let them play and watched them. And then simple things like, a child would try to press a key, o you know that but to press buttons while animation was happening, so I though take out the buttons while animation was happening. So they know that they can’t press anything. Little UI things like that, it wasn’t anything significant to the game mechanics. On the other hand with Sinkers, we developed that over a four or five month period. And we probably developed for about three and a half months, of going a certain direction for three and a half months and we kept testing it within the team and then one day we realized that it just wasn’t working the game. It just wasn’t working. It wasn’t fun for anyone opening and sticking with it. So, at that point, we just decided to change it. We changed the game mechanics dramatically and the UI as well. So, that was the big thing before we had any customer for early testing. So, we changed it basically entirely. Probably 90 percent of it was changed within one month. And then once we released it to the public, it probably remained, I would say, about 90 percent of the game of what is now is how it was after that one month of us fully changing it. There might be very small tweaks to it like monetization and…With Newton, I released a Newton School’s version and that was based on feedback where they wanted different timing instead of two seconds per say, they wanted to choose 5 seconds or 10 seconds. So, you get those small things and not so much UX or game mechanic changes.
Orren: Ok. So then in terms of game play production, market research, how much of that factors in do you thing as oppose to distributional marketing or is there sweet spot or balance between both of them?
David: I think that probably there is a sweet spot. From my experience it has been probably a sweet spot between both of them. There is half of the battle was distribution marketing and the other half was producing something that you love or other people love to play and engage with. Although I have heard other stories of where people were just fully focused on the product side. And if it is a fantastic product, then the distribution would come with that. So, naturally all that work on the distribution of a product …
Orren: This is probably a good segue into distribution. Can you give a synopsis of some of the launches and why you think they worked the way they did??
David: One of the successful apps I intuitively feel is Math With Springbird for various reasons. What we did that went pretty well when we launched that was riding some market trends or trends just in hardware, and when you are working in iOS and with Apple, Apple make their money from pushing hardware and selling hardware, so when they are releasing new hardware like new iPads or new iPhones, they want us to be compatible. With that new hardware or if there is a new feature on a new ATA as part of iOS 8, you should use that if you can. So, a lot of the success for Maths with Springbird came with timing the release with the iPad Retina. So, when the iPad Retina released, we were one of the first education things to have an Retina version. That meant out game looked clear and crisp on the iPads. And then when the kids category came up in the iOS we were one of the first as well to conform to the kids category. So, that helped a lot. Riding those market trends or hardware trends. One of the things that I learned from releasing Maths With Springbird app applies to the other games was that with Maths With Springbird what I found was that it was, even though it was only in English, and the meta data and the description were only in English, there was still a lot of downloads from Russia, Europe, and a lot of none English European speaking countries. So that was quite interesting for us so with Newton, I decided to localize and translate the entire app based on the user’s language settings on their device so that included the meta data and description the title and everything. And that resulted in pretty good success internationally with Newton. And I think Newton definitely wouldn’t be as good as it is now… I knew that really Newton probably let’s say maybe sixty percent of downloads and revenues comes from outside the Australia and the US. We’ve got quite a bit from Japan, Korea, and also other countries as well.
Orren: And that is because it has been localized for different geographies?
David: Yes exactly. It has been translated. So, it is not like Google translate. We actually hired professional translators to translate this phrase and this alert and this things. I think that is really important specially these days, I think that is the market trend now, is that, there is something like 700 million iOS devices out there. Something like that, close to a billion iOS devices are out there and that is like all of the world. So, there is a lot of people that don’t speak English that use these devices and they are looking for localize apps. So, that is one of the big trends that I see. So, that is what we applied with Newton. One other thing that if I can compare and contrast the launches between Newton and Springbird, it is a bit tuff because Springbird was free and Newton was paid. I think, those separate, paid and free categories are different beasts as well. I think in high side, if we only have experience in freemium, I’d probably try to stick with freemium, or if I had experience and knowledge in paid I’d stick with paid and just try to do one thing really well. I think it would probably be ambitious thinking that we could swap the models and test that is a whole different beast with its own different unique changes as well.
Orren: Ok that makes sense. What about Sinkers. Why did that get the volume of download and use within that small amount of time while Maths With Springbird may be took 18 months to go to where it was. What do you think the one thing that that was …
David: Absolutely. It is so I get some contacts on that. The Sinkers did really well. I think in the first one week we have about 200,000 downloads. So, it was massive compared to 10,000 plus on Springbird. The thing with Springbird, Springbird was launched and fated in Australia and New Zealand mainly, and quite heavily. Both markets are tiny compared to the US. With Sinkers it was featured and launched worldwide. So it’s featuring in the US was that is a lot of reaches. 100x larger. And the UK stores are probably which is probably 50x larger than the Australian store. So, that made a big impact. Other part of Sinkers was that Sinkers is a casual game. A free casual game that buries downloading and buries entering really, really low. For someone to download Maths game, even for like Newton when we set it up free as a test, people just didn’t, obviously not as many people downloaded Newton because it was a math game and you know when you are looking at games to be able to play, you are probably not going to download a math game. Unless you specifically need it for a reason. Obviously that is about the difference of Sinkers. It was just a different product category.
Orren: Sure, that is really clear. So, what was some of the bottom metrics that you were monitoring during some of these launches? Can you break some of those down? I know that you mentioned a few different things in passing, but what were the main ones that were jumping out for you? I know you were talking about retention, and the daily use and thing like that.
David: Before I jump into the metrics, it really depends on what stage you are at than different metrics matter. So, on the launch phase, launch time, for the first small startup, small indie developer like us the vanity metric that mattered and made us excited was just the download when we see that move and of course the revenue and I think revenues definitely came and we can still get a lot of revenues from free games, because people generally make in-app purchases on their first or second day of downloading the app. So, you do see revenues come in quite quickly. After the launch and all that sort of excitement is over, then the important metrics are retention, when retention is basically “how many people come back to you app after day one, day second, day 30?” or whatever arbitrary number that you want. The industry stand is like days you know, seven, thirty… and there is a lot of metrics that you can probably find on the internet that say like you should have X amount of retention after day thirty and that really depends on the category, say for games, if you want an engaging game like CandyCrush or Crashallcards or Angry Birds, you’d expect probably about 40 percent, I think to come back after day thirty. If forty percent come back after day thirty then you’ve got yourself a pretty successful product because a lot of the people wined up buying or converting. So, that is sort of the metrics that we look a bit as well and it will vary from product category. But we probably with Maths With Springbird and the education games were higher than industry standards. Just because ours were educational games that were downloaded by parents with encouragement to reopen them so their engagement was very high. So, yes the retention I think, retention, revenue, downloads just for the motivation within the company just keep our thing moving. We got retention and revenues are definitely the biggest ones.
Orren: Ok, so how did you focus your resources on things that were working and things that weren’t? particularly on distribution and marketing and perhaps you could talk to some of those on the issue of downloads? What was the ratio between organic and stuff that were driven internally to get people to use those products?
David: well, people that I guess are new to the App Store and new to iOS and thing like that. I think a lot of people under estimate the power of these feature. The power of feature is huge. It can overtake any sort of acquisition that you don’t own unless you have like a hundred million dollar budget. So, the way we knew this and the way we measured was we released on something like a Tuesday or Wednesday and we got featured on Thursday or Friday. So we had it down instead of doing our own things to actually see the results. The acquisition efforts that we would make were tiny compared to what happened when it was featured. But for me, from my experience, the acquisition that we did that is sort of a long type things like personal forums or engaging the community, talking to teachers, talking to schools. Things that are more like long-tail marketing. So, that is what brings the downloads and engagement now and these days, specially with an education product, I have schools probably making purchases every now and then. Buying 100 copies here or two hundred copies there or like that. So, that does help me a lot but that is long-tail. So, that helps. The things that we tried. We did the Facebook ads. We tried Google ads. Facebook ads were by far the most effective for us. I think Facebook is doing a good job with their mobile ads. The great thing about Facebook ads, is that you can target exactly the customer. And we knew exactly who our customers were. We had mothers, children, staying home, trying these sort of games or having these sort of activity on Facebook. So, that was really effective. So, that was the main thing that we did. We had an email blast. The email blast, though it went also a long-tail, it didn’t have an immediate effect. But I think it help bring brand awareness.
Orren: So, besides the stuff that you did in between those couple of days of launch, would you say that the market dynamics things like the device and catering to those factors were the things that you hoped to get the Feature?
David: Yes, I would say, officially there is no realt for success, for indie developers at least. There is no official process for featuring and well. So, that is sort of a black box. So, catering with certain hardware specs, it doesn’t guarantee anything. Even contacting Apple doesn’t guarantee anything. So, it is all a bit of sort of a guessing game and hoping and praying. So, it did definitely increase the probability that you will get featured. Catering towards that narrow new hardware or certain categories or features or something like that.
Orren: Excellent, so how did you capitalize on some of the apparent success like for example did you build an existing fan base? That gave you the ability to launch new products where they had been quite separate. I know you under the Broccol-e-games brand there has been a bit of continuity. How have you been able to capitalize on that? Or bring them into a cohesive hope?
David: Yes, under the Broccol-e-games brand, I think you are right that we do have some continuation of customers moving from Maths With Springbird, add and subtract with Springbird, Educating Eddie, maybe Newton down the line of that. So, there is some cross promotions between them. So, apps now in what we call a parents’ corner which is basically the settings button, that is sort of above apps, so people can get there and download other apps. The thing with games, education games specially, but specifically games titles of which are children, you can’t have ads showing to the children. So, that restricted our cross promotion a little bit. So, we had to put it behind what is called the parent gate. But with Sinkers, since it is not specifically tied up with children, we’ve been able to put up ads and other cross promotional things. So, with Sinkers we’ve been able to capitalize on that user base by putting sort of a button on the hi-bred screen, that is sort of a plus sign that says more games, so you can click that and it brings up Newton. If later on we release other casual free games, I think that would be a big drive up of downloads of casual free games. So, it is a big help to do that. I think from my conversations with customers and what not, what I found is there is a lot of organic cross promo that happens when people like the game and they go to the App Store and they look on the Broccol-e-games and see what other apps we have. I want to say, I’ve had other parents and users reach out to me and I suggest to them that hey have you tried this game as well? So, that sort of stuff happens as well. There is quite a bit of cross pollination. There hasn’t been a lot that we pushed hard on. I’ve sent out email blasts to current users saying that hey we have just released this product and that this products have been released. So, there is awareness. Much of it is due to the nature of children’s games. firstly, we can’t track a lot of things that happen in children’s games. and we can’t advertise. Naturally we can’t advertise.
Orren: Sure. You mentioned that you are planning on launching so many games in the future. Where are you at right now? What would be some of the main lessons learnt? What are the takeaways to whatever you do next both in creation and distribution?
David: Besides the things that I’ve already said, like quality control and making sure that I love the game and the early testers love the game, the things that we are focusing our attention is that we are making sure that there will be a long period of testing between myself and the early testers. And, making sure that a month later I’ll still be picking it up and wanting to play it. If I’m the creator and I’m bored of it then other people are definitely not going to pick it up again and not want to play it. The other thing I think will be the monetization model. I’ll decide on whatever monetization model I think works best for the game and stick with it. With Newton, we dropped and changed quite a bit. The same with Sinkers. I think that was to the detriment to the game and to the brand and to users that had bought at certain moments in its lifetime. So, I’d choose a monetization method and then stick with it and just iterate to improve it. Yes, I’d just focus a lot on the product and the product experience. If there is another game, I think gaming is, specially gaming, is all about retention. And the fun aspect.
Orren: So, if you were to distill down almost like a step by step process from start to finish what would that look like or what would your thinking process be if you had a blank bit of paper and you want to create something new? How would you go about that in a kind of broad brush strokes?
David: For a new company?
Orren: Or a new product.
David: Let’s say it is a new app in general. I’d probably find a problem that I’m passionate about. Or, something that annoys me. I’ve got another app that I’m producing at the moment that is not a game. It is just a general app. It is just something that I’d find useful that solves a problem for me. So, I’d find that problem and I’d just see what is on the market. And if this thing is out there, it doesn’t mean that I won’t do it. It just means that “how cool that” other people have that problem as well. So, it is a market validation in a way. Then I look at them and see what they are doing and most of the time I won’t be satisfied with what they are doing because mine is quite specific. And, then I normally sketch out on my notepad, sort of sketch out the UI and the UX and write out features. I sort of write all the features of how that app or game or product should be in a year or six months. And once I have that, then I step back and say what should I have in the first version? And I might cut it down to one core feature. That it just does one thing. And once it does that one thing, then we probably release it and it will be a prototyping stage. Then as friends and families will be able to test it and that is when I might add out other features if needed or I might release it as one focused product. So, that would be the main thing, that once it is towards being finished, I mean the UI and the UX and I’m happy with the experience and happy with some of the early metrics, and then I start to think about the marketing, the distribution and things like that. Because I’ve been in the game for quite a while, I have contacts at Apple and contact in various media outlets and things like that. So, that is where I start. Reaching out to them or letting them know. If I was just starting out and didn’t have any of that, I would start that process a lot earlier. Or I’ll be attending a lot more events and networking events and things like that.
Orren: Would you be an advocate of niche forums and niche groups that pertain to that problem as well if you didn’t have those contacts.
David: Yes, absolutely, that will be quite question in process. So, as a prototype, if I have friends and families that this problem also applies to then they’ll be in no doubt part of the beta testing group. If not, because a lot of times they are not, then I’ll just reach out and apply my problem with communities and find people. And, if it is a problem that they have, and they will now be really passionate about testing it because they’ll go “yes, that really helps me.” And you are giving it to me for free. Absolutely. That is always a good tester as well.
Orren: Would you reach out to media or you’ve got contacts at Apple and or you start reaching some of the users that may want to use it? Is there any other steps in between that and submitting to the App Store?
David: Let’s say I’ve reached out to some of the contacts and you say that in a months or two months in the future, that is sort of the release date, and you’ve got feedback, you’ve got feedback from Apple, and everything seems all good and gravy, and yes it is going to be launched and that is when I would definitely be looking at localizing and just translating everything. Translating doesn’t take that long if you’ve built the product in a way that makes it really marginal. It is basically ripping out all the text into a separate file and being able to just translate that file really quickly. So, I would definitely do that. Localize everything. Get the translations in to like the major languages. I think there are 12 major languages on the app store. You could probably do more as well. Probably 12 to at least 15 languages of localizing for. Because you can do that as the app is in review. So, yes, that is what I’ll do. And, then just keep posting on to communities and forums and things like that. Let’s say if you are planning to release your app in a month’s time, you can submit you app, get it approved within a week, so they can be held, their developer held, for let’s say three or four weeks. When it is in that developer held stage, you can handout coupon codes that allow people to download that app, so I’d give that to communities and give that to beta testers. So, it is sort of like a preview version. It is like it is unreleased but I still can go to the App Store and download and get it. I think that is a huge advantage and things that journalists love as well.
Orren: So, what circumstances or what type of a person do you should go down this path of creating and developing an app and under what circumstances and what type of a person should just give it a miss do you think?
David: That depends on how hard you want to jump into it? If you’ve got a quite a large risk appetite, and you are supper passionate about solving some problem and you have some savings, probably you could jump into it and just try to develop it and learn it. Depends on if you are creator as well. And if you have a team behind you. The other thing is, that if you are not a creator and you don’t have the skills, you can go part time and if you have some money, you can pay for developers to help you develop the idea and they’ll help you and do a good product development for you. I think for most people that will be an easily acceptable option to just fund it from their fulltime job and in their spare time just contribute to it.
Orren: Ok. So, if someone wants to go out and grab what they have listened to in this, what is the next one or two action steps that they should just go out and do immediately? To get a bit of traction and to get the wheels moving?
David: the first thing would be to write down a few problems that they are already passionate about. And that could be on producing a game it might be. I have five minutes every morning when I’m at the bus stop and I have nothing to do. And all the games suck and I want something to do or a certain problem with that and that they are passionate about. So, writing that down and may be a few of those. And then once they’ve got some of those problems and thinking about does an app or mobile device suit this sort of thing. But those are probably the first few steps. Once I’ve got that, then they can start sketching out how it looks and how it feels and that is when you go to a developer or trying to mock it up yourself or create it yourself.
Orren: let’s see, I want to wrap it up there. Where can people find out more about you and how can they get in contact with you if they need help with this process?
David: Yes, I’m happy to help. They can reach me at david at relaunch dot io so me and my friend, we’ve created a number of apps and games as well together, and we do a little bit of consulting as well,. So, we do all types of consulting service. So, to find out more just go to relaunch.io.
Orren: Cool. Thank you for making time to talk.
David: Thank you.