That would actually be quite sad. I personally can’t stand customized apps. I think they are a possibility in theory but they have to be extremely – and I mean extremely – well done.

The likelihood that somewhere something is screwed up or not as good as the default is just so high. I have found that my personal standards are nearly always higher than the developers’.

I can’t believe, though, that I’m typical in that respect so ugly apps that stick out may well sell better.

Based on my experience, your tastes are definitely not typical (at least of app store customers). Customized UIs are very popular, and in my opinion they are definitely not ugly. But opinions matter very little in the marketplace...

It’s not the customized apps themselves that are (to my eyes) ugly – though that may sometimes be the case – it’s the inconsistencies, the lack of polish and the lack of thought that usually comes with having a customized UI.

Sure, but my point is that buyers don't know whether the UI is consistent or not until they actually buy it. All they have to go off of are screenshots, and if they see screenshots of standard looking SDK components they'll gloss right over it. The app store is essentially window shopping, that's why overdesigning sells. So given a choice between pleasing UI snobs and actually making money, it's not a tough decision to make =)

EDIT: Re trials: most paid apps (mine included) have limited free versions that you can try.

Sure, I can understand that.

The app store really needs trials. I have more than once bought an app that turned out to have a horrible UI.

What matters most is distribution and solving a problem that customers have. It can be an advantage in a crowded segment to have an extremely well polished app for differentiation purposes. But without distribution any app is going to die.

In your case, your app seems to be distributing mainly because you have a customer base from previous apps, which boosts your inherent distribution (pools are created by groups of friends which will talk about your app) and your search results in the app store. Also, from what I can see you are the only one that supports both Yahoo and ESPN, which is pretty cool :)

I released an app recently. First, a quick prototype with a stock UI, then a "beautiful", custom UI. Changes in downloads = 0. Still, I'm not saying it does not matter, because it clearly can, but it's very hard to pull it off. In your case, we can't really tell, unless you released a version with stock UI? Hard to prove that your UI affected sales without a test.

Congrats for your apps.

> Do you know why? Because overdesigning SELLS.

Isn't that an assumption though? You haven't built two versions, one overdesigned and one not, and then A/B tested them right? It could just be that over factors besides design makes your app sell.

I don't think this is possible without jumping through hoops, releasing multiple versions of effectively the same app probably wouldn't make it past the review process.

I don't think your app would be considered over-designed - check their "police scanner codes" example.

Your app still uses normal buttons, and even the "tabs" are close to Apple's toggle-button-array design. Your search field is exactly like the OS standard. Compare that to the article's examples.

I would also point out that Apple is doing a lot more "overdesigning" itself these days. I think the address book in Lion or the Reminders iOS 5 app are evidence.

Agreed, I don't find it overdesigned at all, whereas I do think the example in the article is a bit overboard.

How do you know that it is the design that sells it? Did you A/B test with the native controls vs your controls?

No, it does not. It's what the application DOES that sells the app. I can almost guarantee you that you would sell more if you didn't have such an ugly (in my opinion) UI. I bought MotionX because it was only $0.99. A few weeks later I stopped using it because I could not stand to look at the UI any longer. Now I'm just back to using the Maps app that comes with the iPhone despite it not having turn-by-turn directions.

Sorry, but I just can't take one person's armchair quarterback opinion over hundreds of thousands of paying customers. If you have actual sales data to back up your theory I'm all ears but your opinion seems to be an untested hypothesis. I've A/B tested my UI many times and I have 16 months of sales data to back up my argument that app store customers love "overdesigned" UIs. This is not mutually exclusive with good UX btw.

EDIT: I realize there are less "overdesigned" fantasy apps that rank higher but one is sold by the NFL and the other by MSNBC (I think I actually outrank Rotoworld on iPad). Hardly a fair comparison from a marketing muscle point of view. I can only make judgments based on my own sales data. And all of it points to the fact that all else being equal, users are more willing to buy apps with interesting looking UIs.

The two fantasy football apps above yours in the iTunes store (Rotoworld and NFL Fantasy Cheat Sheet) are less "overdesigned" than your app. Doesn't this suggest that you're making a spurious correlation between the level of an app's sales and its level of "overdesigned-ness"?

The app store doesn't do demos so it is certainly not what your app does that sells it. How could it be, no one who buys your app has ever run it before. The only thing that sells your app is the advertising.