Count This・Counting Things App

Analysis by Appcrazy

Counting objects in a photograph sounds simple until the pile is large, the items overlap, or you need a dependable result rather than a quick guess. Count This is a business-focused counting app from AIBY Inc. that approaches that problem through the phone camera: take or choose a photo, identify the objects you want counted, and let the app help produce a total. I found the idea most useful when the alternative was spending several minutes touching each item manually.

The app is free to download and is rated for Everyone, which makes it approachable for casual household jobs as well as light workplace tasks. It has reached over 500 thousand installs and carries an average rating of 3.9 from around 13 thousand ratings, so it has attracted a meaningful audience without feeling like a specialist inventory platform. Its current version is 2.4.3, and it works on Android 8.0 or later. That combination makes it accessible to many older phones, although the quality of the result still depends heavily on the photograph.

How the basic counting workflow feels in practice

The most sensible way to use Count This is to treat the image as part of the counting process, not as an afterthought. Before opening the camera, I would spread the objects out as much as the situation allows, choose a viewpoint that shows their edges, and avoid placing similar items directly on top of one another. A clear photo gives the app a much easier visual task than a rushed snapshot taken from an angle.

This matters for the kinds of objects the app is designed to handle. Pills, pipes, coins, boxes, rods, and pieces of lumber all have different shapes and textures. A group of coins on a plain surface is a very different challenge from a stack of lumber with dark ends, or a box of small parts where several pieces touch. The app’s purpose is broad, but “count any object” should not be interpreted as “count every arrangement perfectly without preparation.”

My preferred routine is to make one deliberate image, inspect whether the full group is visible, and then start the count. If the result looks questionable, I would not immediately accept it just because the number appears neat. I would retake the photo with better spacing or lighting. That extra moment is usually more useful than trying to mentally correct a poor count afterward.

A realistic example is a small workshop receiving a delivery of identical fittings. Instead of counting them one by one beside the packing slip, I would place the fittings on a contrasting surface, photograph them from above, and use the result as a quick check. For a low-risk internal estimate, that can save time. For a shipment record, I would still compare the result with a manual check, especially if pieces overlap or the image contains packaging debris.

Advertisements

The same habit works at home. If I wanted to estimate how many coins were in a jar after emptying it, I would separate them into a shallow layer rather than photograph the pile inside the jar. For medication, I would be especially careful: a photo counter can assist with organizing a visible group, but it should not replace checking labels, doses, or a pharmacist’s advice. The app counts visual objects; it does not understand whether two pills are medically interchangeable.

One useful distinction is between counting and documenting. Count This is strongest when you need a number from a visible group right now. It is less naturally suited to building a long-term stock ledger unless you create your own repeatable process for recording each result elsewhere. That difference is easy to miss because a successful image count feels like the beginning of inventory management, while the app itself is primarily focused on the visual counting step.

Take a Look at Our Blog

Settings and preparation that make the biggest difference

I would begin by checking the available in-app settings before relying on the first result. The exact options can vary with the version and device, so I would read each control rather than assume that a setting designed for one object type will help another. The important principle is to configure the app for the way you are working: a single photo, a repeated job, or a quick one-off estimate.

Camera preparation is just as important as an in-app toggle. A plain background helps separate the target from the surroundings, while even lighting reduces shadows that can make one object look like two or hide the edge of another. With coins, glare can be a problem; with pipes or rods, parallel placement can make boundaries difficult to distinguish. Changing the surface or angle may improve the result more than changing the phone itself.

I also recommend keeping the camera lens clean and avoiding extreme zoom. Digital zoom can soften edges, while a very wide shot may leave each object too small for reliable recognition. The best compromise is usually a frame that contains the entire group with enough detail to distinguish neighboring items. If the objects fill only a small part of the image, move closer while keeping all of them inside the frame.

There is a practical reason to check the image before submitting it: the app cannot count what the camera cannot see. A box partly outside the frame, a rod hidden behind another rod, or a coin under a shadow creates an information problem, not merely a software problem. Experienced use therefore starts with staging. I would take a second photo if the first one has glare, cropped edges, or a cluttered background rather than hoping the recognition step will compensate.

For repeated work, I would standardize the setup. Use the same surface, similar distance, and similar lighting each time. That does not turn the app into certified inventory software, but it makes your own checks more consistent. It also makes mistakes easier to spot because a sudden result that differs greatly from the usual pattern deserves a second look.

Another worthwhile habit is to keep the target category visually consistent within one image. If you are counting boxes, do not include loose labels, packing material, or unrelated objects in the same frame. If you are counting lumber, arrange pieces so the visible ends or lengths are not confused with background lines. A clean target is easier to review than a crowded scene.

Faster patterns for everyday and workplace counting

The fastest reliable pattern is not simply “take a photo quickly.” It is prepare once, capture consistently, and verify unusual results. For a repeated task, I would create a small routine: clear the surface, arrange the objects in a single layer, capture from a similar height, run the count, and compare the result with the physical group. This reduces the time spent correcting avoidable image problems.

When a group is too dense, dividing it into several photographs can be more dependable than forcing everything into one image. Count each clearly separated section and add the results manually. That approach takes more taps, but it can be faster overall when a single crowded photo produces an uncertain total. It is particularly useful for small items that touch, because separation gives the visual system clearer boundaries.

For a shop or workshop, I would use the app as a spot-check tool alongside the normal process. Imagine a shelf of identical boxes that needs a quick midday review. Photographing one shelf section at a time can reveal whether the stock is roughly where it should be. If the result affects an order, payment, or customer promise, I would confirm the total physically or with the organization’s established inventory method. The app can reduce routine counting effort without becoming the only source of truth.

For construction materials, orientation becomes a useful trick. Long rods or pieces of lumber are easier to inspect when their ends are visible and arranged with enough separation to distinguish one from the next. A diagonal pile with overlapping ends is visually ambiguous. If moving the entire pile is impractical, counting smaller groups may produce a more useful estimate than photographing the whole stack.

With coins, I would avoid mixing denominations if the goal is anything more specific than a total number of pieces. Count This can help count visible objects, but it does not turn a photograph into a value calculation. Separate denominations first if you need to multiply counts by their monetary values. That small workflow change prevents a common mistake: confusing “how many coins” with “how much money.”

For pills, I would use a clean, controlled setup and treat the result as an organizational aid only. Different colors, shapes, and sizes can complicate a mixed group, and safety matters more than speed. Keeping one medication type in the image at a time makes the visual task clearer, but the final decision about taking, dispensing, or discarding medication should come from the packaging and qualified medical guidance.

One of the more useful advanced habits is to preserve the same counting direction when manually checking the image. For example, I would scan from left to right and top to bottom, marking each object mentally or with a physical arrangement. This does not add a feature to the app; it simply prevents me from double-counting when comparing its result with the photograph. It is a small discipline that becomes valuable when reviewing a dense image.

Where the app reaches its practical limits

The biggest limitation is unavoidable: the app works from visual evidence. Overlapping objects, poor contrast, reflections, transparent materials, unusual shapes, and partial occlusion can all make a result less trustworthy. A clean, evenly spaced group is the ideal case. A tangled pile, a dark object on a dark surface, or a photo with several unrelated items is a much harder case.

I would also be cautious with objects that look almost identical but are joined together visually. A bundle of rods may appear to have fewer visible ends than actual pieces. Stacked boxes may hide one another. Lumber can create long edges that blend into the background. In these situations, changing the arrangement is usually more effective than repeatedly processing the same image.

Lighting deserves special attention because bright highlights can erase detail while shadows can create false boundaries. A phone flash may help in a dim room, but it can also produce glare on coins or glossy packaging. Diffuse room light or indirect daylight is often a better starting point. If the first result is surprising, I would test a different lighting angle before assuming the physical count has changed.

There is also a trade-off between speed and accountability. For a personal estimate, a quick count may be entirely adequate. For stock control, billing, laboratory work, or anything safety-related, the cost of an incorrect number may exceed the time saved. In those cases, Count This is better positioned as a second pair of eyes than as a replacement for a documented counting procedure.

The free entry point is convenient, but in-app purchases range from $3.99 to $19.99 per item. That means I would try the core workflow on the kinds of objects I actually need to count before paying for anything. A purchase can make sense for someone who uses the app regularly, but occasional users should first decide whether the visual results are dependable enough for their specific materials and whether the available tools fit their routine.

Compared with manual counting, the app’s advantage is speed when the objects are clearly visible and numerous enough to make touching each one tedious. Compared with a spreadsheet or inventory platform, its advantage is the rapid image-based count, not record keeping, barcode management, purchasing, or team coordination. Compared with a general camera utility, it offers a more focused purpose. The right choice depends on whether your problem is “how many are in this picture?” or “how do I manage stock over time?”

I would skip it if every count must be legally certified, if the objects are usually hidden or heavily overlapped, or if the main need is a complete inventory system. I would also avoid relying on it for mixed piles where the objects differ in size, color, or orientation and cannot be separated. In those situations, a manual count or a specialized business workflow is likely to be safer.

Who will get the most from Count This?

This app is a good fit for people who repeatedly face small visual counting jobs: a craft seller checking supplies, a workshop estimating parts, a household sorting coins, or a small team making a quick shelf check. It is especially appealing when the objects can be arranged into a clear group and the result is useful as an estimate or verification.

It is less suitable for users who expect a complete warehouse solution. The Business category may suggest professional use, but the practical value still comes from the photo-counting step. If you need product identities, prices, reorder thresholds, audit trails, or shared records, you will need other tools around it. Count This can fit into that process, but it does not remove the need for one.

The age rating of Everyone is reassuring for general accessibility, while the Android requirement of 8.0 or later keeps the technical barrier modest. I would still judge the experience by the phone’s camera and the physical setup rather than by the operating system alone. A newer device with a sharper camera may make difficult objects easier to photograph, but no phone can reveal items that are completely hidden.

After using it, my recommendation is straightforward: start with a small, low-risk test using the exact objects you care about. Try a clean arrangement, then a realistic arrangement, and compare the results with a manual count. If it consistently saves time without creating extra checking work, it has earned a place in your routine. If every result requires extensive correction, the app is not solving the right problem for you.

My final view is that Count This is most valuable as a focused visual counting assistant, not as an all-purpose inventory manager. I like the way it turns a repetitive task into a quick photo workflow, and the range of possible objects makes it more flexible than a tool built around one narrow category. Its success depends on preparation, visibility, and sensible verification, so experienced users will get much more from it than someone who simply photographs a messy pile and accepts the first number.

For occasional counting, the free app is easy to try, and for regular users the paid options may be worth considering after testing the real workflow. AIBY Inc. has kept the concept direct: point the phone at a group and use the image to help count it. When the scene is clear, that simplicity is genuinely useful. When accuracy carries serious consequences or the objects cannot be separated visually, I would choose a manual or specialized alternative instead.