Paper detail

Sovereignty of the Apps: There's more to Relevance than Downloads

The value of mobile apps is traditionally measured by metrics such as the number of downloads, installations, or user ratings. A problem with these measures is that they reflect actual usage at most indirectly. Indeed, analytic companies have suggested that retention rates, i.e., the number of days users continue to interact with an installed app are low. We conduct the first independent and large-scale study of retention rates and usage behavior trends in the wild. We study their impact on a large-scale database of app-usage data from a community of 339,842 users and more than 213,667 apps. Our analysis shows that, on average, applications lose 70% of their users in the first week, while very popular applications (top 100) lose only 45%. It also reveals, however, that many applications have more complex usage behavior patterns due to seasonality, marketing, or other factors. To capture such effects, we develop a novel app-usage behavior trend measure which provides instantaneous information about the "hotness" of an application. We identify typical trends in app popularity and classify applications into archetypes. From these, we can distinguish, for instance, trendsetters from copycat apps. In our results, roughly 40% of all apps never gain more than a handful of users. Less than 0.4% of the remaining 60% are constantly popular, 1% flop after an initial steep rise, and 7% continuously rise in popularity. We conclude by demonstrating that usage behavior trend information can be used to develop better mobile app recommendations. With the proposed usage-based measures (retention and trend), we are able to shift sovereignty in app recommendations back to where it really matters: actual usage statistics, in contrast to download count and user ratings which are prone to manipulation by people.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access5 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.