I think the app boom is in decline, but I really don't see how illustrating lower growth for the 20 most well known apps demonstrates this. Less people downloading Facebook, WhatsApp, or Instagram? Account for how many people already have it! There could be a saturation of those very well-known apps.
There's a lot more to consider once you look at how the entire app market is changing, rather than just the very top.
Anecdotal, but I don't use an app for any service that offers substantially similar service on their website. For instance, Facebook and Amazon have horribly bloated apps. They run in the background and eat up my battery. Their apps ask for permissions for unfathomable reasons. I place a link to the website on my desktop instead, since I can at least trust my browser won't eat up all my battery after I thought I closed it.
While I'm more tech savvy than most people I know, a lot of my friends have uninstalled the Facebook app as well, for a variety of similar reasons. Several have noticed what a battery hog it is, others got pissed off when Facebook added the messenger app, and others did it for privacy reasons.
Interestingly, I've noticed I use Facebook a lot less since deleting the app. I should see how my friends usage trends compare. I wonder if the friends who deleted the app have noticed a decrease in their Facebook usage, or if all my friends have decreased their usage and it's just a function of us being older/in different stages of life.
Yeah it is one of those things that puzzle me. Everyone involved with finance to some degree or other seem to ignore, willfully or otherwise, that we live on a finite earth.
Meaning that there are only so many people on this planet, only so many of us have a smartphone, and only so many of them again will be interested in installing a certain app.
Meaning that sooner or later that growth curve will flatten out.
And apps are just one example, the pattern repeats across all markets.
I agree, it's not a great analysis, although top apps aren't a horrible proxy either, there's a lot of arguments missing from the article.
I do think it's somewhat likely though that top apps show similar trends as the rest of the apps. Saturation plays a role, but it's probably limited. Many of the top apps like say Facebook were likely to be on a very high percentage of smartphones 5 years ago, as they are today. Yet they used to grow faster than they do today, which indicates that there was significant growth in the number of actual smartphone users driving the growth of app installations. In short, not just market share but market size, too, and that latter factor affects apps regardless of popularity.
That raw smartphone user growth has dropped off significantly.
Let's not forget that smartphone sales have been linear for a while, not exponential, and in some cases (see Apple's latest results) even shrinking. And that's sales, which includes replacement units. If you actually look at new active smartphone users, by very definition that growth factor lies below sales growth. In rich economies (those where the ARPU is an order of magnitude greater than low-income regions where you're still seeing substantial new smartphone user growth, driving much of the app economy), the growth of new users is way down. Between 2010 and 2015 the US saw smartphone users triple, it's forecasted to only grow by a quarter from then on to 2019. And that plays a role for any app regardless of popularity.
What I do think is crucially missing from this article is that if you talk about the app economy, you can't just talk about user growth. The app economy is users * ARPU. That latter part is completely ignored, despite signals (particularly among the top apps they're analysing) that ARPU has grown quite substantially.
For example, Facebook grew its worldwide ARPU by roughly 30% in the year ending on Q4 2015, about 6 months ago. In the US it grew 50%. So even the raw smartphone growth figure I referenced to grow by about 25% in the US between 2015 and 2019, is blown out the water by a single year of FB revenue per user growth.
Here however I think there is a big difference between top and 'other' apps. Without any data, I'd guess that ARPU may actually be down for non-top apps, due to a flood of competitor's driving prices to zero, whereas top apps tend to get better at monetising their user base. I wouldn't be surprised if the app economy is more lopsided in terms of revenues than it was a few years ago.
App boom is definitely over, but not nearly as 'over' as user growth slowdown would suggest.
Sure the gold rush, get-rich-quick-cause-there-are-two-of-you era for mobile apps is over. But the boom for mobile apps will never be over, much like web apps will never be over. How many billion dollar websites emerged a decade after everyone said the web boom was over?
Apps are merely a distribution platform for services. As the world evolves, we will never run out of needs for services.
As long as you're solving a need and you're capable of communicating it to your target market, you will make lots of money.
Apps and software in general will forever be more efficient than their predecessors, and thus, IMHO, the app boom has only begun.
that is, by definition, not a boom. A boom is a period of unusual, unsustainable growth. The boom is over and the app market is shifting into a normal sustainable market where good products and services are valued and low-effort or less useful apps have a hard time succeeding.
The headline wasn't "apps are dead" - just because you misunderstood it doesn't make it clickbait.
> But the boom for mobile apps will never be over, much like web apps will never be over. How many billion dollar websites emerged a decade after everyone said the web boom was over?
I don't think the author was arguing that there can never be "billion dollar" apps, just that the "boom" is over. Similarly, people still say that the "web boom" ended a very long time ago, but they aren't saying "You cannot make billion dollar websites now that the web boom is over", they are just saying that the boom is over.
Just look at a definition of the word boom to understand it better: "of a business or industry : to grow or expand suddenly" [0]
This article's primary source is a ComScore report purporting to show a decline in mobile app downloads per user.
Is there any reason -- really, any at all -- to believe that ComScore has accurate data on this?
I can't think of one. (And I did want to read about their methodology but spam is the price of the "Whitepaper" download, so I didn't get there yet.)
Does Apple give them this information on their customers' habits? I don't think so.
Does Google? That wouldn't be as exotic as Apple doing it, but still -- I don't think so.
Facebook?
So what exactly is this data based on?
I'm not even arguing that the conclusion isn't true. I'm arguing that ComScore, and Quartz, and Recode, and Peter Kafka too have NO IDEA what they're talking about here. They are pulling numbers out of thin air, waving their hands, and declaring their suppositions confirmed.
Oh wait, as a secondary source they have "Ad Intelligence" from "SensorTower."
So, self-reporting by ad-focused app companies that don't crunch their stats internally? And nothing at all about every other app in the world?
OK, to be fair maybe it's not just "thin air." Maybe it's more like hot air.
Anyway, as a programmer who has several times almost-but-not-quite gotten into the app world, it strikes me that you'd be crazy to do an indie app as a means to financial glory, but if you have a Big Idea these days in the consumer space you probably have to have a good app for it. Maybe several. Which means the "boom" or lack thereof depends a lot on what you think the "app business" is.
My source: anecdotes and extrapolation. Which admittedly may not be more accurate than dodgy pseudo-statistics, but I'm sticking with it.
I'm tired of all these useless (for me, I'm sure they're probably useful for others) apps. Recently I uninstalled most of the third-party apps from my phone, and it's been great. I've noticed my battery life has improved, and it reduces the number of companies that track and nag at me.
I'm down to ten non-Google apps, and three of em are work-related. This means that, excluding Google (which I've already accepted tracks my every move), only seven apps are solving some problem of mine. And out of those seven, I only use two on a daily basis.
The most important app I have on my phone is Firefox. You can install addons for uBlock Origin and HTTPS Everywhere, which makes mobile web very pleasant.
My biggest problem with native apps is that they often show a total lack of respect for my time and attention. I don't want useless notifications that try to increase my engagement (looking at you Twitter and Instagram). I don't want you running in the background for ANY REASON at all unless I've given you explicit permission.
There's too much focus on trying to jam more and more features into apps. I want very fast and highly stable applications without any bullshit, and I'm willing to pay a high price tag if that's what it takes.
Google Instant Apps will fade away after a couple of years because nobody gets it and it's a solution looking for a problem again. They specialise in auto-failing ideas like that.
Google didn't invent apps not being installed to run, and it hasn't really taken off. I don't see it doing so, outside of corporate settings (which is where others, like Microsoft have targeted.)
At what point is it pointless to have such an "instant app" service for general consumers? Why not just have a web app in that case? Then you can do cross platforming instead of having multiple teams. It makes sense for enterprise because it can lower cost of sysadmin, security, etc...not seeing the benefits of it for general consumers on either side of the issue.
I also don't think that relates to the article. Apps will still measure their success on MAUs not downloads.
The data in the article doesn't really show anything people didn't already know. There's no surprise that the download rate of the top 20 apps will eventually decline. I mean, look at their saturation amongst users, it's still ridiculous.
What's interesting is going to be the new subscription model incentive that gives publishers an extra 15% for subscription retention after the first year. Don't forget, App Store 2.0 is just around the corner and it could change the game. Not saying that it will, but it could.
how can you say anything about a market when all you are looking at is the top 15 apps? Seems absurd. Maybe the bottom 50 pct have seen increased adoption? We don't know.
An extremely strong app market would actually produce the same results as a weak one for the top few products.
If people are eager to download apps, high-profile products like Instagram hit saturation quickly and a drop-off in downloads even though their user base is massive. If people are hesitant, they get some downloads and slow-but-steady growth. If people are unwilling, they don't get users at all (but we know what hasn't happened).
There's really no value for anyone else in a top-apps evaluation - the rest of the world isn't plastering Times Square in ads.
A big part of preferring a website over an app for me is sandboxing. A website via safari can't access and email all of my contacts, or record my location via GPS, or any other nefarious thing I'm constantly on my guard against.
By forcing everything through Safari I have reasonable protections against these privacy violations, as well as good blocking of ads and trackers.
The best of Web came after the dot com burst. In fact to gain maximum from a platform it is not enough if the platform got popular what matters is how many people trained to write software for that platform are available and how cheaply. Both Android and iOS developers are expensive compared to PHP developers.
So all they determined was everyone already has the top installed (and often pre-installed) apps already installed? What a surprise.
Also I would love to install more apps but to do so I have to clear space on my phone, and the apps I already have are slowing my phone down and eating my battery. For me it's always a matter of resources.
I am not in the loop for latest in Android development. Can someone, who is, comment towards whether they think the recently announced Android Instant Apps will reverse this trend significantly?
It should be a good thing. As is, there are lots of one-off use cases for apps where people simply choose to do without.
As an example, if I'm buying a product online (and not from Amazon), there's probably an app for the marketplace that's more mobile-friendly than the website. But right now, I still choose the website because it's not worth actually downloading something. With Instant, I can pick the better one without the hassle and commitment of adding something to my phone.
If apps are $1 per download, you need 100,000 downloads a month to have $100k a month in revenue. That's what you need for an office space and a few people working full time.
How many apps have 100,000 downloads a month.
Apps need subscriptions to survive, that App Store change can't happen soon enough.
I certainly have no interest in accumulating more of them. It's actually nice to delete one whenever I realize I don't need it. Why do I even have so many to begin with? I hate these damn things.
Shouldn't this article have focused on number of downloads per person per month or year or whatever? It seems like that would tell a better story about the app boom being over.
Many of the ads that ad-supported apps use to monetize are ads for other apps. That's not sustainable, and the end of that will be the end of the boom in ad-supported apps.
I think "interest in apps" (i.e. people experimenting with, talking about, and sharing apps) plateaued in 2012. You can see this effect on Google Trends.
Only so many people are single and looking, and of them, only so many want what the app offers to single people. Even if the second number is 100% of the first, it's limited.
...and are way, way more limited in terms of leveraging device functionality.
I'm not hating on mobile-optimized web apps, just making the point that they aren't a one-size fits all solution, and as such, I don't think a blanket statement like "Progressive Web Apps make way more sense" really works.
Some of the iOS apps I use have been "updated" from native to something wrapping a web view, and the experience is noticeably worse. I hope you're mistaken.
Do they make more sense? Mobile-accessible web applications just have different delivery method, they are otherwise pretty much just "apps" and the same forces are at work. If your flappy bird clone is HTML5 that doesn't make anyone more likely to find and use it.
A few months ago I might have agreed with you. However given the growing power of React Native and the recent announcement of Android Instant Apps, I think there is going to be a surge in app "downloads".
[+] [-] rangera|9 years ago|reply
There's a lot more to consider once you look at how the entire app market is changing, rather than just the very top.
[+] [-] Declanomous|9 years ago|reply
While I'm more tech savvy than most people I know, a lot of my friends have uninstalled the Facebook app as well, for a variety of similar reasons. Several have noticed what a battery hog it is, others got pissed off when Facebook added the messenger app, and others did it for privacy reasons.
Interestingly, I've noticed I use Facebook a lot less since deleting the app. I should see how my friends usage trends compare. I wonder if the friends who deleted the app have noticed a decrease in their Facebook usage, or if all my friends have decreased their usage and it's just a function of us being older/in different stages of life.
[+] [-] digi_owl|9 years ago|reply
Meaning that there are only so many people on this planet, only so many of us have a smartphone, and only so many of them again will be interested in installing a certain app.
Meaning that sooner or later that growth curve will flatten out.
And apps are just one example, the pattern repeats across all markets.
[+] [-] IkmoIkmo|9 years ago|reply
I do think it's somewhat likely though that top apps show similar trends as the rest of the apps. Saturation plays a role, but it's probably limited. Many of the top apps like say Facebook were likely to be on a very high percentage of smartphones 5 years ago, as they are today. Yet they used to grow faster than they do today, which indicates that there was significant growth in the number of actual smartphone users driving the growth of app installations. In short, not just market share but market size, too, and that latter factor affects apps regardless of popularity.
That raw smartphone user growth has dropped off significantly.
Let's not forget that smartphone sales have been linear for a while, not exponential, and in some cases (see Apple's latest results) even shrinking. And that's sales, which includes replacement units. If you actually look at new active smartphone users, by very definition that growth factor lies below sales growth. In rich economies (those where the ARPU is an order of magnitude greater than low-income regions where you're still seeing substantial new smartphone user growth, driving much of the app economy), the growth of new users is way down. Between 2010 and 2015 the US saw smartphone users triple, it's forecasted to only grow by a quarter from then on to 2019. And that plays a role for any app regardless of popularity.
What I do think is crucially missing from this article is that if you talk about the app economy, you can't just talk about user growth. The app economy is users * ARPU. That latter part is completely ignored, despite signals (particularly among the top apps they're analysing) that ARPU has grown quite substantially.
For example, Facebook grew its worldwide ARPU by roughly 30% in the year ending on Q4 2015, about 6 months ago. In the US it grew 50%. So even the raw smartphone growth figure I referenced to grow by about 25% in the US between 2015 and 2019, is blown out the water by a single year of FB revenue per user growth.
Here however I think there is a big difference between top and 'other' apps. Without any data, I'd guess that ARPU may actually be down for non-top apps, due to a flood of competitor's driving prices to zero, whereas top apps tend to get better at monetising their user base. I wouldn't be surprised if the app economy is more lopsided in terms of revenues than it was a few years ago.
App boom is definitely over, but not nearly as 'over' as user growth slowdown would suggest.
[+] [-] frozenport|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anysz|9 years ago|reply
Sure the gold rush, get-rich-quick-cause-there-are-two-of-you era for mobile apps is over. But the boom for mobile apps will never be over, much like web apps will never be over. How many billion dollar websites emerged a decade after everyone said the web boom was over?
Apps are merely a distribution platform for services. As the world evolves, we will never run out of needs for services.
As long as you're solving a need and you're capable of communicating it to your target market, you will make lots of money.
Apps and software in general will forever be more efficient than their predecessors, and thus, IMHO, the app boom has only begun.
[+] [-] notatoad|9 years ago|reply
that is, by definition, not a boom. A boom is a period of unusual, unsustainable growth. The boom is over and the app market is shifting into a normal sustainable market where good products and services are valued and low-effort or less useful apps have a hard time succeeding.
The headline wasn't "apps are dead" - just because you misunderstood it doesn't make it clickbait.
[+] [-] jamescostian|9 years ago|reply
I don't think the author was arguing that there can never be "billion dollar" apps, just that the "boom" is over. Similarly, people still say that the "web boom" ended a very long time ago, but they aren't saying "You cannot make billion dollar websites now that the web boom is over", they are just saying that the boom is over.
Just look at a definition of the word boom to understand it better: "of a business or industry : to grow or expand suddenly" [0]
[0] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/boom
[+] [-] nickbauman|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] biztos|9 years ago|reply
Is there any reason -- really, any at all -- to believe that ComScore has accurate data on this?
I can't think of one. (And I did want to read about their methodology but spam is the price of the "Whitepaper" download, so I didn't get there yet.)
Does Apple give them this information on their customers' habits? I don't think so.
Does Google? That wouldn't be as exotic as Apple doing it, but still -- I don't think so.
Facebook?
So what exactly is this data based on?
I'm not even arguing that the conclusion isn't true. I'm arguing that ComScore, and Quartz, and Recode, and Peter Kafka too have NO IDEA what they're talking about here. They are pulling numbers out of thin air, waving their hands, and declaring their suppositions confirmed.
Oh wait, as a secondary source they have "Ad Intelligence" from "SensorTower."
So, self-reporting by ad-focused app companies that don't crunch their stats internally? And nothing at all about every other app in the world?
OK, to be fair maybe it's not just "thin air." Maybe it's more like hot air.
Anyway, as a programmer who has several times almost-but-not-quite gotten into the app world, it strikes me that you'd be crazy to do an indie app as a means to financial glory, but if you have a Big Idea these days in the consumer space you probably have to have a good app for it. Maybe several. Which means the "boom" or lack thereof depends a lot on what you think the "app business" is.
My source: anecdotes and extrapolation. Which admittedly may not be more accurate than dodgy pseudo-statistics, but I'm sticking with it.
[+] [-] TheAceOfHearts|9 years ago|reply
I'm down to ten non-Google apps, and three of em are work-related. This means that, excluding Google (which I've already accepted tracks my every move), only seven apps are solving some problem of mine. And out of those seven, I only use two on a daily basis.
The most important app I have on my phone is Firefox. You can install addons for uBlock Origin and HTTPS Everywhere, which makes mobile web very pleasant.
My biggest problem with native apps is that they often show a total lack of respect for my time and attention. I don't want useless notifications that try to increase my engagement (looking at you Twitter and Instagram). I don't want you running in the background for ANY REASON at all unless I've given you explicit permission.
There's too much focus on trying to jam more and more features into apps. I want very fast and highly stable applications without any bullshit, and I'm willing to pay a high price tag if that's what it takes.
[+] [-] scarface74|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Kinnard|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adrusi|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vthallam|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ProxCoques|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] partiallypro|9 years ago|reply
At what point is it pointless to have such an "instant app" service for general consumers? Why not just have a web app in that case? Then you can do cross platforming instead of having multiple teams. It makes sense for enterprise because it can lower cost of sysadmin, security, etc...not seeing the benefits of it for general consumers on either side of the issue.
I also don't think that relates to the article. Apps will still measure their success on MAUs not downloads.
[+] [-] kin|9 years ago|reply
What's interesting is going to be the new subscription model incentive that gives publishers an extra 15% for subscription retention after the first year. Don't forget, App Store 2.0 is just around the corner and it could change the game. Not saying that it will, but it could.
[+] [-] 0x6c6f6c|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thesimpsons1022|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Bartweiss|9 years ago|reply
If people are eager to download apps, high-profile products like Instagram hit saturation quickly and a drop-off in downloads even though their user base is massive. If people are hesitant, they get some downloads and slow-but-steady growth. If people are unwilling, they don't get users at all (but we know what hasn't happened).
There's really no value for anyone else in a top-apps evaluation - the rest of the world isn't plastering Times Square in ads.
[+] [-] matt_wulfeck|9 years ago|reply
By forcing everything through Safari I have reasonable protections against these privacy violations, as well as good blocking of ads and trackers.
[+] [-] tn13|9 years ago|reply
I think the best of Mobile is yet to come.
[+] [-] emitstop|9 years ago|reply
Also I would love to install more apps but to do so I have to clear space on my phone, and the apps I already have are slowing my phone down and eating my battery. For me it's always a matter of resources.
[+] [-] Zombieball|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Bartweiss|9 years ago|reply
As an example, if I'm buying a product online (and not from Amazon), there's probably an app for the marketplace that's more mobile-friendly than the website. But right now, I still choose the website because it's not worth actually downloading something. With Instant, I can pick the better one without the hassle and commitment of adding something to my phone.
[+] [-] notatoad|9 years ago|reply
And instant apps is only a solution for free apps that don't require a sign-in.
[+] [-] abritinthebay|9 years ago|reply
This is actually a good thing but not if you were looking for a quick buck.
[+] [-] ido|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brianwawok|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jpeg_hero|9 years ago|reply
How many apps have 100,000 downloads a month.
Apps need subscriptions to survive, that App Store change can't happen soon enough.
[+] [-] draw_down|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] noer|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] palakchokshi|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] greglindahl|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sehugg|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] leroy_masochist|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jonlucc|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] epeus|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] king_magic|9 years ago|reply
I'm not hating on mobile-optimized web apps, just making the point that they aren't a one-size fits all solution, and as such, I don't think a blanket statement like "Progressive Web Apps make way more sense" really works.
[+] [-] millstone|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wvenable|9 years ago|reply
This isn't a technological issue at all.
[+] [-] abritinthebay|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Zombieball|9 years ago|reply