Some of the recurring comments I got were:

-The lack of practicality in the app in terms of it not suiting a public environment, such as public transport for example, where apps are most likely to be utilised.
-The distinction between the free package and the one that cost, some people felt the free package was too restricted and did not think the idea of only allowing to play with facebook friends was a good idea.
-The lack of mass appeal of the app, as they did not feel it is something that a large amount of people would be interested in.

Do you think these comments are fair? There were positive comments for your app as well and a quite a few people who voted, but most of these seemed to be more focused on how it sounded like a fun and unique idea. I think really where you fell down is the fact that there would be too many issues in terms of people actually wanting to play this app in real life. In hindsight do you wish you'd gone with a different idea?

Im shocked i liked our idea and we was all agreed it would be popular

Also Lord Sugar may i ask what the positive comments was?

So in short, it was the idea itself that was our downfall.

As you lost we will be focusing more on the negatives as it's more relevant to this boardroom, but more positive comments included how they thought it was a more original, interesting and unique idea and something they would be more likely to play with potential to grow.

We had about 12 different ideas, and the reason I went with it was because the whole team went on board with it and much of the market research felt the same way as a creative and unique idea. And we felt it would be a simple app to implement - as all it requires is a notepad-like screen for someone to jot the name of a song down. It sounded so simple and so innovative that I thought it would be an excellent idea straight away. And I have always thought singing is an activity which most age groups do and enjoy, so I feel a bit clueless as to why people felt it would be restrictive.

We could have gone with my live concert application idea which was also received favourably by market research as well as the whole team but Shadi pointed out a particular concern to me that the app would require high tech equipment and sound engineers so it did not feel like a realistic idea. The personal stylist app was another app that Shadi had the idea of but Zak was the one who pointed out the fact that a scan of a wardrobe itself and the app somehow finding clothes to suit weather, occasion did not seem feasible or realistic as an idea we could implement. I was going to go with Beat the Celeb another idea of mine before Shadi introduced us to the idea of Sing Something but then he pointed out that there was already a similar game to that. I personally think the app felt like a good idea but perhaps we could have gone for a different approach?

I think it's clear to me that an issue was definitely the fact that having to sign would have reduced opportunities to play this app, can anyone in this team really tell me they would have been comfortable singing into your phone in any place other than your home?

Also to address the point about the packages, do you think it would have been a better idea to have made the free package include adverts and also a few less features, with the full cost app including no adverts all features? I certainly think this would have been a more logical choice.

Sorry about the abundance of questions, but regarding BIB what exactly did you do for your market research? Did you use members from this forum who would have been likely to vote? A good thing I noticed about the other team was that they implemented aspects from what the viewers had said in market research into their final product, and I think this pleased a couple of viewers. Did you do this, or consider doing it at all?

I also feel that the app itself was carefully scrutinized by members of the public coming up with quite abstract questions to what is a relatively simple concept.

I don't understand how public transport is the main place used for applications or why it was even mentioned? The most popular apps in Britain such as Minecraft and Doodle Jump are actually used in bedrooms more frequently than public transport. I personally have rarely seen people use their phones for apps - they mostly seem to listen to music?

It was mentioned by a few voters, that they mostly use their phone for apps when they're out in public places, not necessarily public transport but that was just an example given. I do think the issue mostly was that it seemed to reduce the amount of places you could comfortably use the app.

While obviously we can only go on our own experience, on the four train journeys I've taken in the last month, I've seen numerous people playing Candy Crush-esque games on their phones, which I think is what Aptitude were tapping into.

However the process of signing up for an account onto Game Center is used for nearly every game - and nearly all of the popular ones. I do not understand how the process of signing up itself can be a point of contention here considering most gaming apps rely on you to do that.

Also I have to say the questions seem a bit abstract to the actual concept. The whole point of the app is for social interaction. You don't use Facebook, Safari, or Youtube the apps - another three for example on public transport where you can barely get an internet connection. Yet they are also among the most frequently downloaded apps. I do not understand this point unfortunately.

Again the point of having packages is so that people buy the actual game itself otherwise there is no point. Also clogging up a screen where you have to write a name of a song using a finger with adverts which you'd be potentially clicking at nauseum would make it unplayable. I do not get the issue of the packages at all really - I mean what would be the point in getting the full edition if all the best interactivity was already given to the player?

Personal experience is fine but again one person's personal experience to another. Where is the evidence that people actually play more in public transport? And Alex do you use Facebook, Youtube or Safari while on a bus with sporadic internet connection? Yet they are incredibly successful feasible realistic apps which don't require use on public transport. And I cannot imagine anyone playing Doodle Jump or Minecraft - two of the most successful apps on the planet - in public places with other people. Like you would not go to a dinner and start playing Doodle Jump whereas with our app you could do that and involve the whole family actually.

We mentioned it - or in my case while I was editing it actually dropped in a few times that the our app was intended to be for any kind of social situations so situations intended to be among other people such as family gatherings or parties.

Initial money would be gained through advertising, and the irritation of the advert would give people incentive to buy the full package if they enjoy the game. Lots of apps and products work like this, it's not exactly rare...

I have to agree with Roxie. At one point, it just felt that some questions were pulling at straws. We wanted to be original and to fill a gap in the market. We could've been unoriginal and safe, but we opted with going with an idea that was colorful and enjoyable.

I personally liked the social aspect of your app, but to give you a flavour of some of the voters' comments:


You didn't lose by much so you may have just been unlucky, but it does look like that this home/travel issue is part of what cost you the task.

Games which I'll mention again like Doodle Jump, Angry Birds and Minecraft don't do this as far as I know and these are games which require lots of finger interaction. I do think this is a real nitpicking point.

I also do not understand why the continuous onslaught of the 'restrictive' word was thrown about especially in regards to the . How would being able to play with your friends via Facebook be restrictive? Especially considering that so many people own a facebook account in this day and age be restrictive. Is Facebook itself a restrictive app for doing this?

And one member of the public was saying how we were being too restrictive for not letting older people play? When we have had a set target demographic outlined and targetted - ie the younger market, the people who most frequently actually purchase and play these games all the time. I completely agree with Zak here to be honest when it comes to being specific about target demographic. You could frankly make the same argument for Minecraft and Doodle Jump about how they alienate older viewers yet they are here and are flourishing more successfully than any other app.

And there is not actually anything about the application itself which is alienating older viewers? Do older demographics who play app games not own Facebook now too? Why is this such a matter of contention when we have already outlined several times very clearly who our target market is.

Okay, well I think we've scrutinised the idea thoroughly enough and determined why the result went the way it did. I get that you may disagree with some of the things the viewers stated but at the end of the day this was a viewer voted task and this was their feelings regarding the app, I don't see much point in stating issue with it now votes have already gone through.

Roxie, can you please tell me which two team members you are bringing back to the final boardroom with you and why?

Personally I thought voting was for the idea as a creative, realistic idea - and I do not think that this viewer was talking or voting about the idea itself at all it seems but rather whatever is easiest to play? It was as if our idea was not realistic at all to play?

This boardroom has dragged for too long !

Apologies for the wait, but there's not really anything I can do until a decision is posted...

The viewer feedback makes it difficult to pin the blame on anyone really as to be completely honest the public place issue was never an issue that popped into any of our heads and that we would expect to be an issue in the first place. Of course I address part of that fault to me and I should have tried to focus more on making the app more feasible for use anywhere rather than focusing too much on the ideas themselves and the unique aspects of our application and seeing this task more about the most unique/creative idea that would be feasible.

So I will do this based off how much I felt people contributed to what I perceived this task to be about - realism and creativity. Based on realism I thought Zak was my best source of advice, giving constructive criticism to various ideas and seeing in a similar way to myself in making sure the app would be as realistic as possible to use in the real world. In terms of creativity, I thought one person was simply instrumental in being the source of so many unique ideas and felt really passionate about the idea. I am afraid with the deepest of regret, based off these two factors I will bring back Emma and Steve for helping the least i feel with making this product as creative and realistic for use in the real world. I am sorry guys this was such a difficult decision and I absolutely hate having to bring you guys back in when you are both great team mates.

Thank you for the kind words and good luck to you, Emma, and Steve.

Roxie, I don't blame you for nominating me as one of the two.

I contributed my advert speeches to the advert but perhaps I should've done much more than that such as bouncing off on ideas and giving advice when needed.

I don't think I should be fired as I feel that this is my first time doing something like this and I'm just about settling into what it takes to be a successful team member. I have shown my creative side and have been loyal to the team so far and I don't plan to change that.

I am however willing to improve the flaws I have as a team member as communication and ideas of being a team leader is where I seem to stumble. But I have no problem in learning those new found skills, there is so much more I can give and I don't wanna go this early on.

I think I surprised myself by how involved and dedicated I was to this task especially as PM. I did try really hard too. I made sure to let everyone brainstorm at least 10 ideas - a couple of them like a live concert app, a similar artists app and a piano tutor app were mine . Then I made sure to do some market research on my fb account to find what people seem to like the most. Then I delegated responsibilities based off strengths (Emma with design, Zak with target demos etc). I myself did the introduction/conclusion, the pricing, the packages, how the app works and why people would be interested in buying the app but I helped everyone out with their own stuff too such as Emma with the design insisting on putting two teens there and finding the word art. I also was the one who came up with the idea of targeting younger people and also many of the unique selling points.

Once I had all parts, I edited everything to include some of my own ideas (some of the USPs, the design and bits of the target demo e.g.), just made sure it flowed, it was clear, nothing contradicted each other and ensured everyone had a master copy of the pitch a day before so that everyone could read through - everyone could understand what was going on, we could clarify any last minute issues (such as Zak raising up a point about target demos). Then I posted the pitch in one go (just to make it look all organized and professional). The idea behind the questioning was that each person responsible for each area would answer the questions but a few people disappeared unfortunately so I had to answer most of the questions myself too.

In fact I have to say most of the task after the first day was dealing with absences, and lack of people coming up any more ideas and I do feel that I had to do most of the work from after the drafts were sent in to me like the pitch and questions for example. I think people themselves can see how hard I worked for this really.

If you are looking for someone who is always creative and coming up with ideas like I have proven every task; a person who is both a team player who gets along with their team and ; a good team leader as someone who tries to bring out the best in the team; but moreover someone who works really hard as I showed by this three day period. I feel that part of the failure of the task did lie with me for not focusing on the more feasible aspect of the task and being more invested in the creative side of it but at the same time I feel I am a strong candidate and will improve in that respect.

Both for me are lovely people but this BR has told me something very important, that Steve's ideas in the advert were well liked by the public and I have to say he did do a good job but he did also let Shadi's idea completely overshadow any part he had in it - he should have made it more his own and more related to the target demo. I have to say based off contributions of ideas Emma did not help me unfortunately. I like you Emma and you know that. You are a wonderful person but I do not feel like you contributed many ideas to this task - also as the only two people online last night, I asked you to help me answer some questions and you did not. You are great to work with but from where this task went wrong which is making this product as realistic as possible, you did not contribute.