3 ms·

Nowadays the issue with app devlopment is not only having two OSes two develop for (and I doubt that Flutter is a real help here), the much bigger problem is us

Nowadays the issue with app devlopment is not only having two OSes two develop for (and I doubt that Flutter is a real help here), the much bigger problem is user acquisition. User acquisition got so insanely expensive for apps that there are few to none business models where you can justify or break even the user acquisition costs.

DJN 9y ago
I wish I could upvote this twice. Distribution is the biggest problem in mobile. I'll add that even after acquiring a user, engagement, apathy, and not being a 24-hour uninstall statistic are close seconds. I'm working on a solution that's currently in private beta but it should be in public beta in a few weeks.
- pjmlp 9y ago
  It is no different than anywhere else, there are tons of web sites and packaged software to chose from. The only thing is that the gold rush of the app stores is gone.
  - thinbeige 9y ago
    I disagree. Yes the web is also competitive but it's 100x easier for a simple reason: The next site ia just ONE single click away. The next app is few clicks and a download away, even without any sign-up, an app install is a gigantic conversion breaker. This is not comparable with websites at all. Anyone who does new apps in 2017 must have a good plan.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - pjmlp 9y ago
      I don't agree, just because it is a click away don't mean the user stays long enough, does anything meaningful or even returns.
      - thinbeige 9y ago
        We primarely discussed the user acquisition costs in this thread and I pointed out a huge conversion breaker in the acquisition funnel of mobile which just let the costs skyrocket. If users stick or not after being acquired is as important but another discussion (rentention & churn).
        pjmlp 9y ago
        If they click on link and close the window without doing anything relevant, they weren't acquired.
        thinbeige 9y ago
        But the funnel till this point you mention is MUCH cheaper on the web than on mobile (where people also install and deinstall right away or never use that app). And this 'being cheaper' is the whole discussion around.
        pjmlp 9y ago
        Well it is a matter how much marketing money you have spent to make them click on the link in first place.
nine_k 9y ago
Two key questions: * Are you providing enough value? * Are you charging enough for it?
- thinbeige 9y ago
  We can spare this discussion. Of course there might be use cases which have a healthy CAC to LTV ratio. But almost none of them is B2C, except scammy dating apps and addictive fremium games. And some one-hit-wonder games which cannot replicate their success. On the B2B side it's a bit better because of higher LTVs but all B2B apps have a web version where leads are generated anyways. So, mobile is just complementing but not in the user acquiring role. But maybe you tell us if you are so lucky and have a, from a business-POV working, app which provides enough value and charges enough for it AND can acquire users for less than their LTV. Give us your example, we are curious to hear how you make money in the app stores (which is just hard to believe).
  - nine_k 9y ago
    CAC > LTV = "not providing enough value", to my mind. That is, people are not willing to pay for it enough. This, to my mind, also means that small paid apps indeed is not a reliable market. Either you need to go viral (a rare stroke of luck), or you have to complement an existing business of some sort (and it has a web site which is a powerful lead generator, this goes without saying). So no, I don't have a good example, for these very reasons. When I will have executed on a a million-dollar idea (which is, of course, peanuts for a startup but could be a great side project), and it would happen to be in the mobile-only space, and won't be a freemium game, I promise to write a post.
j45 9y ago
User acquisition is always what makes a project into a product.

DJN 9y ago

I wish I could upvote this twice. Distribution is the biggest problem in mobile. I'll add that even after acquiring a user, engagement, apathy, and not being a 24-hour uninstall statistic are close seconds. I'm working on a solution that's currently in private beta but it should be in public beta in a few weeks.

pjmlp 9y ago
It is no different than anywhere else, there are tons of web sites and packaged software to chose from. The only thing is that the gold rush of the app stores is gone.
- thinbeige 9y ago
  I disagree. Yes the web is also competitive but it's 100x easier for a simple reason: The next site ia just ONE single click away. The next app is few clicks and a download away, even without any sign-up, an app install is a gigantic conversion breaker. This is not comparable with websites at all. Anyone who does new apps in 2017 must have a good plan.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - pjmlp 9y ago
    I don't agree, just because it is a click away don't mean the user stays long enough, does anything meaningful or even returns.
    - thinbeige 9y ago
      We primarely discussed the user acquisition costs in this thread and I pointed out a huge conversion breaker in the acquisition funnel of mobile which just let the costs skyrocket. If users stick or not after being acquired is as important but another discussion (rentention & churn).
      - pjmlp 9y ago
        If they click on link and close the window without doing anything relevant, they weren't acquired.
        thinbeige 9y ago
        But the funnel till this point you mention is MUCH cheaper on the web than on mobile (where people also install and deinstall right away or never use that app). And this 'being cheaper' is the whole discussion around.
        pjmlp 9y ago
        Well it is a matter how much marketing money you have spent to make them click on the link in first place.

nine_k 9y ago

Two key questions: * Are you providing enough value? * Are you charging enough for it?

thinbeige 9y ago
We can spare this discussion. Of course there might be use cases which have a healthy CAC to LTV ratio. But almost none of them is B2C, except scammy dating apps and addictive fremium games. And some one-hit-wonder games which cannot replicate their success. On the B2B side it's a bit better because of higher LTVs but all B2B apps have a web version where leads are generated anyways. So, mobile is just complementing but not in the user acquiring role. But maybe you tell us if you are so lucky and have a, from a business-POV working, app which provides enough value and charges enough for it AND can acquire users for less than their LTV. Give us your example, we are curious to hear how you make money in the app stores (which is just hard to believe).
- nine_k 9y ago
  CAC > LTV = "not providing enough value", to my mind. That is, people are not willing to pay for it enough. This, to my mind, also means that small paid apps indeed is not a reliable market. Either you need to go viral (a rare stroke of luck), or you have to complement an existing business of some sort (and it has a web site which is a powerful lead generator, this goes without saying). So no, I don't have a good example, for these very reasons. When I will have executed on a a million-dollar idea (which is, of course, peanuts for a startup but could be a great side project), and it would happen to be in the mobile-only space, and won't be a freemium game, I promise to write a post.

j45 9y ago

User acquisition is always what makes a project into a product.