Count This・Counting Things App

Counting a large number of similar objects is one of those small jobs that can quietly waste a surprising amount of time. I have counted pills, coins, boxes, pieces of lumber, and other items by hand, only to lose my place, start again, or wonder whether the final number was reliable. Count This・Counting Things App is built around removing that repeated effort. You take a photo, let the app examine the objects, and use the result as a faster starting point than manual counting.

That simple purpose makes this a very focused business utility rather than an all-purpose productivity app. It comes from AIBY Inc., is free to install, and is rated for Everyone. The app has reached over 500 thousand installs and carries an average rating of 3.9 from around 13 thousand ratings, which suggests useful appeal but also leaves room for individual results to vary. In my experience, its value depends less on how impressive the idea sounds and more on whether the photo gives it a clean, workable view.

Where Count This saves the most time

The recurring counting problem

The app is aimed at a very specific kind of annoyance: a pile, row, shelf, or batch contains too many similar objects to count comfortably, but not enough to justify a complicated inventory system. Counting manually may seem easy when there are only a few items. The trouble begins when objects overlap, when several batches must be checked, or when the count needs to be repeated later.

A photo-based counter changes that workflow. Instead of touching every object or marking groups on paper, I can frame the scene once and ask the app to do the repetitive visual work. The store summary mentions examples such as pills, pipes, coins, boxes, rods, and lumber, and those examples reveal the intended range well: the objects should be visually distinct enough for an image-based count, yet numerous enough that manual counting feels tedious.

This is not a replacement for careful stock control in every situation. I would treat the result as a practical estimate or a quick operational count unless I had personally checked the image and result. For a warehouse record, medication process, financial reconciliation, or any task where one missed item creates a serious problem, I would still use a second check. The app removes repetition; it does not remove the need for judgement.

A useful first setup

The first improvement I would make before taking a picture is to prepare the scene rather than blame the app for a difficult image. Spread objects apart when possible, avoid placing similar items directly on top of one another, and choose a background that contrasts with them. A bright coin on a pale table is a harder subject than the same coin on a darker, uncluttered surface.

Lighting matters for a practical reason: shadows can make one object look like two shapes, while glare can erase edges. I would also keep the camera as steady and level as possible. A slightly wider view is often more useful than a close-up that cuts off an edge, because an incomplete frame can make the result misleading even if the visible objects are easy to recognize.

My preferred workflow is to arrange the items into manageable groups, photograph one group, review the result, and then continue with the next. That may sound less dramatic than photographing an entire room, but it creates a record that is easier to inspect. If the count looks questionable, I know which group needs another look instead of having to search through one crowded image.

One non-obvious advantage of this approach is consistency. When I use the same surface, camera angle, and grouping method for repeated counts, I reduce the visual variation that can make image recognition less dependable. The app is therefore most useful when it becomes part of a repeatable routine, not when it is treated as magic that can interpret any cluttered photograph.

Everyday scenarios where it earns its place

Imagine preparing orders in a small workshop. A customer needs a certain quantity of fittings, rods, or packaged components, and the items are spread across a worktable. Manually counting them while switching between a packing list and the table invites mistakes. A quick image-based count can provide a first pass before packing, helping me notice whether the physical batch is roughly aligned with the order.

Another realistic use is checking supplies after a delivery. If several boxes contain similar pieces, I can separate the contents into visible groups and use the app to speed up the initial inventory. I would still compare the result with the delivery paperwork, but the tedious part becomes faster. This is especially helpful when the objects are uniform and the only question is how many are present.

At home, the same idea applies to sorting coins, craft materials, hardware, or small household supplies. The app is more convenient than opening a spreadsheet for a one-off count. It can also help when counting is physically awkward, such as items laid out on the floor or a large table where repeatedly bending down and pointing at each object would be irritating.

The pill example needs more care. A visual counter may help someone organize a clearly separated batch, but I would never rely on an unverified image result for medication safety. Pills can be similar in color and shape, can overlap easily, and can have consequences far beyond an ordinary inventory error. For that use, I would verify the count manually and follow the relevant instructions from a pharmacist or healthcare professional.

For construction or workshop materials, the trade-off is different. Long objects such as lumber or rods may extend beyond the frame, overlap at the ends, or appear as one shape when stacked. I would place them in parallel rows with visible ends rather than photograph a dense pile. The app can save time when the arrangement supports counting, but it cannot infer confidently what the camera cannot see.

What friction it removes

The clearest benefit is attention. Manual counting requires me to remember where I stopped, especially when objects are nearly identical. A photo gives me a fixed reference, while the app handles the initial recognition. Even when I verify the answer afterward, checking a result is usually less tiring than producing the entire count from scratch.

It also reduces unnecessary handling. Coins, small parts, and packaged goods do not need to be moved one by one just to produce a number. That matters in a work setting where touching every item slows down packing or sorting. It is also useful when the objects are dirty, delicate, or arranged in a way that I would rather not disturb.

Another practical gain is speed during repeated checks. If I am comparing a batch before and after a task, taking separate photos and reviewing each result can be simpler than making handwritten notes. I would name or organize the photos outside the counting process if I needed a long-term record, but the app can still serve as the quick counting step in that larger workflow.

There is also a psychological benefit: the app makes a tedious task feel more manageable. That sounds minor, but repetitive counting is exactly the kind of work people postpone or rush. A tool that lowers the effort can encourage more frequent checks, which may be valuable for a small business that cannot justify dedicated inventory software.

Where the experience becomes less dependable

The main limitation is the image itself. Count This works best when objects are separated, fully visible, and visually similar in a helpful way. It becomes a weaker choice for mixed piles, heavy overlap, transparent items, reflective surfaces, irregular shapes, or scenes with distracting background objects. In those cases, I would expect to spend time correcting the setup or verifying the result, reducing the time saved.

Small objects can create another problem. A photo may technically contain every item, but the objects may occupy too few pixels for their boundaries to remain clear. Moving closer can help, yet getting closer also increases the risk of cutting off part of the batch. The right compromise is to use several clear images rather than forcing one crowded shot to do everything.

Irregular objects deserve caution too. The app is naturally more comfortable with repeated shapes than with a collection of objects that differ in size, orientation, or color. A pile of identical boxes is a sensible test; a mixed drawer of hardware is not. For mixed inventory, a spreadsheet, barcode workflow, or manual grouping system may be a better choice because those tools are designed around identification rather than visual quantity alone.

I would also avoid treating the result as an audit trail by itself. A number without a clear photo, date, batch label, or human check is difficult to defend later. If the count matters to a customer, a financial record, or regulated work, I would preserve the image and record the verified number separately. This is one of the most important trade-offs: the app is excellent at reducing first-pass effort, but a serious process still needs documentation.

Choosing between this app and usual alternatives

The usual alternative is manual counting, and for a small number of objects it remains the simplest option. There is no setup, no concern about framing, and no need to interpret an image. I would choose manual counting when the batch is tiny or when every item must be inspected individually anyway. Count This becomes more attractive when the objects are numerous, repetitive, and clearly visible.

A spreadsheet is better when the task includes product names, locations, reorder levels, costs, or a history of changes. Count This can provide a quantity, but it is not a full inventory system. For a shop that needs stock valuation or purchase planning, I would use a spreadsheet or dedicated inventory tool and treat this app as a counting aid rather than the central record.

Barcode and QR-based tools are preferable when every product already carries a scannable identity. They can distinguish different items, while a visual counter mainly addresses how many visible objects are present. On the other hand, barcode workflows can be slower when the products have no labels or when many identical pieces are loose on a table. That is where this focused utility has a practical advantage.

A dedicated counting machine or industrial vision system is the better choice for high-volume operations, strict accuracy requirements, or continuous production. Those options cost more and require more setup, but they are built for controlled environments. Count This makes more sense for occasional checks, small businesses, workshops, classrooms, and household tasks where convenience matters more than automation at industrial scale.

Cost, compatibility, and the practical decision

The app is free to download, which makes trying it on a real batch relatively easy. It includes in-app purchases ranging from $3.99 to $19.99 per item, so I would pay attention to the purchase screen and decide whether the free experience covers my needs before committing to anything. For occasional counting, the free entry point is a meaningful advantage; for frequent professional use, the value depends on how much manual time it replaces.

It requires Android 8.0 or later, so compatibility should be straightforward on many still-used devices, although an older phone may produce a less convenient camera experience than a newer one. The current version is 2.4.3. I would test the app on the actual phone used at work rather than assuming that a compatible operating system guarantees equally comfortable results, since camera quality and screen size can affect the workflow.

The Everyone age rating makes it approachable for general household or educational use. A teacher could use it for a quick classroom counting activity with safe, clearly separated objects, while a family could sort coins or craft supplies. The age rating does not change the accuracy considerations, though: younger users may still need an adult to check the result when the count has practical consequences.

My verdict after weighing the trade-offs

Count This・Counting Things App is most convincing as a fast visual counting assistant, not as a complete inventory solution. I would recommend it to someone who regularly faces batches of similar, visible objects and wants to reduce the boring part of the job. Its strongest quality is focus: it addresses one recurring problem directly instead of surrounding it with features I may never use.

I would skip it if my objects are usually mixed, hidden, reflective, badly arranged, or too important to count without formal verification. In those cases, manual inspection, barcode scanning, a spreadsheet, or specialized equipment may be the more responsible choice. I would also skip relying on it alone for medication quantities, financial reconciliation, or any process where a missed object could cause harm.

For everyone else, the best results come from treating photography as part of the task. Clear the background, separate the objects, keep the whole batch inside the frame, work in smaller groups, and verify anything that matters. Used that way, the app can turn a repetitive count into a short visual check and save real time without pretending that judgement is unnecessary.

With its business-oriented purpose, free entry point, broad everyday examples, and accessible design, it is worth trying when manual counting has become a recurring nuisance. My recommendation is practical rather than unconditional: use it where the image is clean and the consequence of a small error is manageable, then keep a human check for the cases that demand certainty.