Across 70k apps, just finding ones you might want to deal with and investing in dealing with them is a chore for the consumer. Especially with so many derivative/clone apps, the "best" will get some money and the rest basically none. With so little real value add by so many, you might need a good micropayment system. If we can't be bothered to pay more than USD 0.001 per song play to a musical artist, why would we pay more than that for an app use?
1. That makes up a sizeable share of all apps
2. Those apps actually over-perform versus the overall app population (if you’d take “all apps” they’d do slightly worse)
There are 181,000 apps with subscriptions out there, not millions
That number (as the “in general RevenueCat apps overperform” statement) are based on the data from app performance tracking companies like data.ai, Apptopia, Appfigures, etc - it’s these companies jobs to index apps and their performance. How those work and how that compares to where our data comes from is worth a whole seperate post
I work at RevenueCat (shared that info before, by the way, + this is the same handle I use in most other places)
Probably worth writing about how this data compares to “the whole” at some point, but I’m going to decompress from working on these 263 pages for a bit, first
> There are 181,000 apps with subscriptions out there, not millions
You said "That makes up a sizeable share of all apps", not "That makes up a sizeable share of all subscription apps". Whereas I said, "there are literally millions of mobile apps", not "there are literally millions of subscription apps". So you've offered two red herrings in a row.
My original point was that RevenueCat's report covers only subscription apps—a fact that I think nobody is disputing—and thus it's kind of bizarre to suggest, as the article title does, that a report exclusively about subscription apps explains "why devs beg for subscriptions", especially since the report itself says that the majority of those subscription apps are not doing particularly well.
To be clear, I was not arguing with RevenueCat's report; rather, I was arguing with the article's spin.
Oh, the whole 'begging for subscriptions' line was definitely a bit much
Not to argue the point to death, but subscriptions make up the majority of in-app purchase revenue. If you exclude games, 96% of iap revenue was subscriptions in '23. We saw a definite trend of folks mixing in consumables / one-time purchases, so that revenue split probably shifted quite a bit for 24
The 'elephant in the room' is probably that 2/3 of mobile revenue is made through ads, though a lot of those ads are apps advertising in other apps. Unsure if it's technically a ponzi scheme, but it's close
Thing to also note is that over 2/3 of all mobile iap revenue is made by 200 apps. It's a super top-heavy industry to be in
I do have some sympathy for app developers trying to make a living off of their app, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to pay $4 a week for an app to pick someone randomly. It’s not ever going to be worth that, sorry.
And that’s just one app. If I let them, I’d be paying hundreds of dollars a week for app subscriptions.
Are you actually using an app to pick someone randomly? If yes, why not paying? I certainly pay the apps I am using (even when some have free tiers) but I'm also using less than 20 - I have honestly no idea for what would somebody use hundreds of apps.
> Are you actually using an app to pick someone randomly?
Yep, ‘cause the kids respect the will of the app. If I pick which kid showers first, there will be lots of complaining. But if Chooser picks? No complaints.
Also for board games, which is what it was originally for.
> If yes, why not paying?
Because while its a nice product, it’s still not worth $4 a week.
Across 70k apps, just finding ones you might want to deal with and investing in dealing with them is a chore for the consumer. Especially with so many derivative/clone apps, the "best" will get some money and the rest basically none. With so little real value add by so many, you might need a good micropayment system. If we can't be bothered to pay more than USD 0.001 per song play to a musical artist, why would we pay more than that for an app use?
Supply/demand. More apps, less revenue per app.
The article title is strange and misleading, because RevenueCat's report covers only apps that use its subscription platform.
1. That makes up a sizeable share of all apps 2. Those apps actually over-perform versus the overall app population (if you’d take “all apps” they’d do slightly worse)
> 1. That makes up a sizeable share of all apps
No, there are literally millions of mobile apps.
> 2. Those apps actually over-perform versus the overall app population
Citation needed.
3. Can you explain why the majority of your 8 total comments are related to RevenueCat?
https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=HHaan
There are 181,000 apps with subscriptions out there, not millions
That number (as the “in general RevenueCat apps overperform” statement) are based on the data from app performance tracking companies like data.ai, Apptopia, Appfigures, etc - it’s these companies jobs to index apps and their performance. How those work and how that compares to where our data comes from is worth a whole seperate post
I work at RevenueCat (shared that info before, by the way, + this is the same handle I use in most other places)
Probably worth writing about how this data compares to “the whole” at some point, but I’m going to decompress from working on these 263 pages for a bit, first
> There are 181,000 apps with subscriptions out there, not millions
You said "That makes up a sizeable share of all apps", not "That makes up a sizeable share of all subscription apps". Whereas I said, "there are literally millions of mobile apps", not "there are literally millions of subscription apps". So you've offered two red herrings in a row.
My original point was that RevenueCat's report covers only subscription apps—a fact that I think nobody is disputing—and thus it's kind of bizarre to suggest, as the article title does, that a report exclusively about subscription apps explains "why devs beg for subscriptions", especially since the report itself says that the majority of those subscription apps are not doing particularly well.
To be clear, I was not arguing with RevenueCat's report; rather, I was arguing with the article's spin.
Oh, the whole 'begging for subscriptions' line was definitely a bit much
Not to argue the point to death, but subscriptions make up the majority of in-app purchase revenue. If you exclude games, 96% of iap revenue was subscriptions in '23. We saw a definite trend of folks mixing in consumables / one-time purchases, so that revenue split probably shifted quite a bit for 24
The 'elephant in the room' is probably that 2/3 of mobile revenue is made through ads, though a lot of those ads are apps advertising in other apps. Unsure if it's technically a ponzi scheme, but it's close
Thing to also note is that over 2/3 of all mobile iap revenue is made by 200 apps. It's a super top-heavy industry to be in
> It's a super top-heavy industry to be in
Yes, and this disparity exists even within the subscription subset of apps.
Google & Apple's version of "commoditize your compliment".
I do have some sympathy for app developers trying to make a living off of their app, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to pay $4 a week for an app to pick someone randomly. It’s not ever going to be worth that, sorry.
And that’s just one app. If I let them, I’d be paying hundreds of dollars a week for app subscriptions.
Are you actually using an app to pick someone randomly? If yes, why not paying? I certainly pay the apps I am using (even when some have free tiers) but I'm also using less than 20 - I have honestly no idea for what would somebody use hundreds of apps.
> Are you actually using an app to pick someone randomly?
Yep, ‘cause the kids respect the will of the app. If I pick which kid showers first, there will be lots of complaining. But if Chooser picks? No complaints.
Also for board games, which is what it was originally for.
> If yes, why not paying?
Because while its a nice product, it’s still not worth $4 a week.