Count This・Counting Things App

Count This・Counting Things App analysis by Appwee

Counting a pile of similar objects sounds simple until the pile becomes large, messy, or oddly shaped. That is the problem Count This tries to solve: I take a photo, ask it to count the visible items, and use the result as a quicker starting point than pointing at every object one by one. In my experience, its appeal is not that it replaces careful checking in every situation, but that it can turn a repetitive visual task into a short reviewable workflow.

This is a business-focused app from AIBY Inc., available for free with optional in-app purchases ranging from $3.99 to $19.99 per item. It is rated for Everyone, so the basic idea is approachable even if the most useful audience is people dealing with stock, supplies, materials, or routine visual inventories. Its store summary mentions examples such as pills, pipes, coins, boxes, rods, and lumber, which gives a good sense of the intended range: countable objects photographed from above or from a reasonably clear angle.

From a messy starting point to a usable count

What I would prepare before taking the photo

The quality of the starting image matters more than I first expected. If I want to count coins on a table, I would spread them out so their edges are visible rather than leaving them in a deep overlapping heap. For boxes or pieces of lumber, I would position the camera so the objects do not disappear behind one another. This preparation is not a flaw unique to the app; it is the basic trade-off of asking a camera to distinguish separate items.

A practical habit is to make the objects visually different from the background. Dark items on a pale surface, or pale items on a darker surface, are easier to inspect than objects blending into a patterned workbench. I would also remove unrelated objects from the frame. A hand, tool, label, or stray piece can become part of the visual problem, especially when the target items have irregular shapes.

This is where the app is more useful than a generic calculator. A calculator can record a number, but it cannot help me obtain that number from a photograph. Count This sits at the input stage of the workflow, before a spreadsheet, inventory note, or handoff to another person. That makes it particularly interesting for small teams and solo workers who need a quick count without setting up specialized equipment.

The counting flow is quick, but the photo still needs judgment

Once the image is ready, the process is designed around visual counting rather than manual entry. I would frame the objects, capture or select the image, and let the app analyze what is visible. The important point is that the result should be treated as an estimate to inspect, not as an unquestionable measurement. If several items overlap or touch, the image itself may not provide enough separation for any camera-based counter to be certain.

For a straightforward group of coins, the workflow feels natural: arrange them, take the picture, review the count, and compare it with the physical scene. For a set of pipes or rods, I would place them in parallel rows with their ends visible. For lumber, I would avoid shooting along the length if that hides individual pieces. These small changes make the app more dependable because they improve the input before the software has to interpret it.

The most useful technique is to design the photo for counting, not for documentation. A beautiful wide shot of a storeroom may show context, but it is usually worse for counting than a plain, close view of one group. If a large collection cannot fit into a clean frame, I would divide it into manageable sections and count each section separately, keeping a written running total. That adds a handoff step, but it is safer than trusting one crowded image.

How I would check the result before passing it on

After the app produces a number, I would zoom in mentally by inspecting the original scene: are any objects hidden underneath another, are two touching items being treated as one, and are background shapes being included? The answer may be obvious for a tidy arrangement and much less obvious for a box of mixed supplies. The app can reduce the repetitive part of the task, but it does not remove the need for a human quality check.

That distinction is important in business use. If I am checking whether enough packaging pieces are available for a casual internal task, a fast visual count may be perfectly adequate. If the number affects a shipment, invoice, regulated stock record, or expensive purchase, I would use the app as a first pass and then verify the physical items manually. It is a time-saving aid, not a substitute for accountability.

Where the count goes next

The app becomes more valuable when the result has a clear destination. I might read the number to a colleague, enter it into an inventory sheet, add it to a work order, or use it to decide whether another supply run is needed. That handoff is simple, but it is also where mistakes can become invisible. If someone else receives only the number and not the image or context, they may not know whether the count came from a clear row of objects or a difficult pile.

For that reason, I would keep a lightweight record alongside the result: the item being counted, the area or container it came from, and whether the scene was easy or ambiguous. This is especially useful when several similar batches are counted during the same day. The app handles the visual question, while the surrounding note preserves the business meaning.

A useful workflow for a small shop would be to photograph one shelf section at a time, count it, write down the section name and result, then move to the next section. Another worker can later spot-check the sections with the most crowded images. That division of labor is more realistic than expecting one person to photograph everything and treat every generated number as final.

Everyday scenarios where it earns its place

Imagine receiving a delivery of identical boxes. Instead of counting a long row manually while a colleague waits, I would arrange the visible boxes into a clean pattern, use the app for a first count, and compare the result with the packing information. If the photograph shows every box clearly, the process could make receiving less tedious. If several boxes are stacked behind others, I would photograph each layer or count the stack by another method.

A different example is a workshop with rods or pipes waiting for use. Manual counting becomes awkward when the pieces are long and the bundle is spread across a bench. I would align their ends, take a top-down image, and use the result to prepare a materials note. The key benefit is not just speed; it is creating a repeatable visual checkpoint that another person can review before the material leaves the workspace.

For coins or small components, the app may be helpful when the items are separated on a contrasting surface. It is less attractive when the pieces are mixed, reflective, partially covered, or scattered over a large area. In those cases, a tray with marked sections or a traditional tally method may be more reliable. The best tool depends on whether arranging the objects takes less time than counting them.

Pills are a particularly sensitive example. Counting visible pills in a clean arrangement may be convenient for a non-critical check, but I would not rely on a camera result alone for medication administration, dispensing, or any situation where a wrong count could cause harm. The app can assist observation, yet responsibility for a health-related count belongs with an appropriate human verification process.

How it compares with familiar alternatives

The usual alternative is manual counting. That remains the strongest option when there are only a few objects, when the objects overlap heavily, or when the count must be certified immediately. Manual counting also works without arranging the scene for a camera. Its weakness is fatigue: repeated counting encourages skipped items, double counting, and loss of place.

A spreadsheet is better for organizing results across many batches, but it does not solve the visual counting problem. I would pair a spreadsheet with Count This rather than choose one over the other: the app helps create the number, while the spreadsheet stores the item name, location, date, and any verification note. For a larger operation, barcode scanners or inventory systems may be preferable because they identify products and connect counts to records. A visual counter is more flexible for unlabelled materials, but less integrated.

Manual tally counters are another sensible competitor. They are fast, dependable for objects passed one at a time, and unaffected by lighting or image clutter. They become inconvenient when the objects are already spread out and can be counted from a single view. Count This is strongest in that middle ground: a visible group of similar items that would take enough manual effort to make a photograph worthwhile.

Friction points that affect real use

The main limitation is the boundary between visible separation and visual confusion. Touching objects, shadows, reflections, transparent packaging, and uneven lighting can all make the scene harder to interpret. Even when the output looks plausible, a plausible number can still be wrong. I would be especially cautious with dark objects on dark surfaces, items partly outside the frame, and piles where only the top layer is visible.

Another friction point is the cost of preparation. If I must spread out every object, remove the background, retake several images, and then manually verify the result, the app may not save much time for a small batch. Its advantage grows with repetitive work and reasonably cooperative objects. It is not automatically the fastest choice simply because it uses a camera.

The free entry point makes it easy to try the workflow before committing, while the optional purchases mean that some users may encounter a paid boundary as they use it more often. I would test the kinds of objects I actually handle before building a business process around it. A tool that works well for clean boxes may not be equally useful for reflective parts or crowded stock.

Device compatibility is also worth checking before installation. The app requires Android 8.0 or later, so an older device may not be suitable. On a compatible phone, I would still consider camera quality, screen visibility, and whether the device can be positioned steadily over the objects. These practical details influence the result as much as the app itself.

What the current version means for a prospective user

The current version is 2.4.3, and the app has been available since July 1, 2022. Its average rating is 3.9 from around 13 thousand ratings, with 181 written reviews, while the app has passed 500 thousand installs. Those figures suggest a product that has attracted a meaningful audience but should still be approached with realistic expectations rather than assumed to be perfect for every counting job.

I would read the rating in context: a visual counting tool can be excellent in controlled images and frustrating in crowded ones, so experiences naturally depend on the objects and photography habits involved. Before using it for an important workflow, I would run a small trial with representative items, compare its results against a manual count, and decide where a second check is mandatory.

Who should use it, and who should skip it

I would recommend trying Count This if you regularly count similar physical objects, work alone, and want a faster first pass without investing in dedicated inventory hardware. It is a good fit for workshops, small stockrooms, craft materials, packaging supplies, and occasional receiving tasks where the objects can be arranged clearly.

I would be more hesitant for high-volume warehouses, mixed-product inventory, heavily stacked goods, or any process requiring direct links to product codes and accounting records. In those settings, barcode scanning or inventory software will usually provide stronger traceability. I would also skip camera-based counting as the sole method for medication, safety-critical materials, or financially sensitive quantities.

For casual users, the decision is simple: if counting a group by hand is already quick, the setup may not be worth it. If the same tedious count appears repeatedly and the objects can be separated in a photo, the app has a sensible role. The best result comes from treating it as one step in a workflow rather than as an all-purpose inventory manager.

My final take after following the complete workflow

What I like most is the clear handoff from physical objects to a usable number. I can prepare the scene, capture it, review the result, and pass that result into a note or stock process. That is a practical idea, and it addresses a real annoyance that ordinary business apps often ignore: the number is not always available until someone counts what is in front of them.

My reservation is equally clear. The app cannot see hidden objects, resolve every overlap, or understand the business consequences of a mistaken count. Its success depends on thoughtful framing and a verification habit. Once I accepted that, the tool became easier to judge: it is not magic, but it can be a helpful visual shortcut.

Count This is worth trying for clean, repeatable counting tasks, especially when the alternative is tiring manual repetition. I would start with the free version, test it on real materials, and keep a manual check for ambiguous or important results. If your work needs product identification, audit trails, or guaranteed precision, choose a more specialized system; if you simply need help turning a clear photo of similar objects into a quick count, this app can fit neatly into that process.

Count This・Counting Things App Pros and Cons

Count This・Counting Things App Frequently Asked Questions