There's another angle on this that you haven't covered. Despite having big name founders who can easily get coverage, apps like Path and Oink all have something else in common. Design matters a lot these days, particularly when it comes to iPhone apps, and unfortunately it's something that your app is lacking in a big way. This is something that's immediate from the screenshots, and I'm sure would put any tech blogger off straight away.
Nerds seem to think they can just slap a UI together and users will be blown away by the code's modularity and spectacular unit-test coverage. Devs who ignore Joel's iceberg principle are in for it, because normal people think if it looks crappy, it probably is crappy. Plus potential users probably had no idea what the heck this thing is even for. The more I look at this and think about it, the more flabbergasted I am that it was launched in this state.
You can get away with a less than stellar design if your app provides a lot of utility in an under-served niche. Group messaging is not an under-served niche
I can't disagree more strongly. Neither of those apps is successful because they look good. "Good looks" implies an exceptional attention to detail, a deep understanding of the medium, and a solid experience.
More often than not, a beautifully designed piece of software will be easy to use, intuitive, and full of surprises. It makes me want to install it because I _know_ that I'm in for a treat. And when I launch it, my suspicions are confirmed with an app that works exactly as expected without hassle or surprise. Good design is a side-effect of lovingly crafted code and a well-thought out process.
Its a psychological effect called Aesthetic-Usability effect (as noted in the book Universal Principles of Design). Given two equal equipment/software/things/etc, the user will perceive the more-aesthetic designs to be easier to use than its less-aesthetic counterparts.
This is because "beautiful" designs help fosters a positive attitude between the users and the product. This then translate to feeling of affection, loyalty, and patience in the product -- all of which are critical factors in long-term usability and overall success of a design.
Its a well documented cognitive/psychological phenomenon. "Design of Emotional Things" dedicated an entire chapter to this concept.
I don't think they get success only because of good looks, but because they do something useful or fun.
Between a dozen similarly useful apps, the ones that look good are the ones that will get coverage and be popular.
If your idea is truly as revolutionary and unique as you think, it could probably look like shit and still be popular.
The bottleneck they overcome (that you don't) is that they get the user to download the app. Once a user has downloaded an app, it matters much less how much friction there is to start using it. It would take a lot to turn them away from using the app at that point.
Don't overestimate their success too. Oink has gotten lots of downloads, but little revenue to show for it. Focus on your own battles, and don't think everyone out there is winning.
Belittling others' successes is bad form and indicative of a a sense of entitlement and superiority.
Oink is interesting and beautiful, Kevin Rose is smart and decent. Your app is neither and you sound bitter. It is not surprising to an objective observer that you were ignored.
A little more humility might allow you to learn some lessons here.
