The App Economy Will Be Worth $6 Trillion in Five Years (recode.net) 92
An anonymous reader shares a report: In five years, the app economy will be worth $6.3 trillion, up from $1.3 trillion last year, according to a report released today by app measurement company App Annie. What explains the growth? More people are spending more time and -- crucially -- more money in apps. While on average people aren't downloading many more apps, App Annie expects global app usership to nearly double to 6.3 billion people in the next five years while the time spent in apps will more than double. And, it expects the average app spend -- including app-store purchases, advertising spend and, most importantly, commerce -- to increase from $379 per person to $1,008 in 2021. The 800-pound -- or $6 trillion -- gorilla in the room is mobile commerce.
So... (Score:4, Funny)
I still do not get spending much money on apps (Score:2)
Re:I still do not get spending much money on apps (Score:5, Informative)
I can see a few here and there for functions you need or want but I can't see people spending 3x-10x more in apps in the future.
People, of businesses? We're having to start installing apps for work now, VPN apps, online conference apps, business apps for once we get the VPN app running, and even apps to replace those secure code dongles as everything is going towards two factor security. Personally, yes, I don't expect to spend any more on apps, even less as I have all I want. Work and other businesses however, seems to be spending more on such things and integrating them into the normal workflow.
Re: (Score:2)
Seconded. It's like the story that there'll be 27 trillion twitter accounts by next Wednesday.
I propose a rule: before suggesting that "the market for foo will be X" ... or "there will be Y number of bar", divide it by 7 billion. Then ask yourself if you can reasonably imagine one person buying/eating/having that quantity.
There should be a name for this. Malthus' quotient?
P.S. The speilchucker suggested Maltese or Maltose. Does anyone know of one for Firefox that has a vocabulary better than a typical
Re: (Score:3)
1) The market cap value... meaning that how much are the idiots who actually need help from a guy in a blue shirt to logon to his iTune account willing to gamble on the stock market. Consider that the companies making apps and the stocks are totally unrelated, we've moved past
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe the author of the article got married today [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If they're just counting money spent on buying apps, then I'm 100% with you.
If they're also counting in-app purchases and money spent via apps, then it could add up. Think people ordering fast food, buying stuff from Amazon and eBay, Uber rides etc etc.
And a quick look at the article; "And, it expects the average app spend — including app-store purchases, advertising spend and, most importantly, commerce — to increase from $379 per person to $1,008 in 2021." So they are indeed counting those thi
Re: (Score:1)
It is crazy. If my bank has an app that allows me to pay my mortgage through it, my house isn't being paid for with app money. We didn't have a special "telephone economy" when people called in mail order purchases. We didn't have a special "mobile browser economy" when e-commerce sites rolled out mobile browsers. The only major shifts were mail order, which removed the need for physical contact, and e-commerce, which broke from the physical catalog interface (electronic ordering was just an incremental upg
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Hipsters & millenials.
Re: (Score:2)
I have started using AliExpress, mainly because I can find items there which local retailers mark up the price anything from 5 to 15 times.
Tho I think I do most of that on my desktop via the browser, I installed the phone app just out of curiosity. They have an interesting technique to inspire app use, with daily special discounts for app users only. I guess that could attract more app purchasing if the goods & prices are exceptional.
Our government will try to mess this online shopping up by charging
Re: (Score:2)
I can see a few here and there for functions you need or want but I can't see people spending 3x-10x more in apps in the future.
I cant even see that. Quite a lot of apps these days are just poor copies of a web portal with a cut down feature set.
And mobile devices are getting better and better at handling web content. I don't use my banks app because it's a pain in the backside, slower than the website and has half the features (including one I use regularly).
I think that the app craze is going to wane. Apps are only for companies that cant produce a decent website. Of course the artilce is a marketing fluff piece for an app m
Only apps can app apps! (Score:5, Funny)
Apps!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Only apps can app apps! (Score:5, Funny)
Hold on, I'm trying to find a mod app...
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need an app for that, just delete that pesky kernel file.
Hey, maybe we need an app for that!
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't find any, try searching for an XM, IT or S3M app.
Re: (Score:2)
Modern app appers app other apps using apps, NOT LUDDITE software!
Apps!
A valiant effort, but it's just not the same. Only the original had that authentic unhinged feel, that certain je ne sais quoi only achievable by being so far around the bend, the bend isn't visible from there.
I can totally see this... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Hey . . . (Score:4, Funny)
There's an app for that.
6.3 billion is impossible (Score:1)
Unless apps become available to the very poorest and also the people who don't want to use apps, over 90% of the world using apps is impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
So is the notion that advertisers will somehow decide to spend 3x more for the same pair of eyeballs.
I'm flattered, really, but advertisers already know the trash my eyes are used to seeing. They know I ain't picky, and spending 300% more to reach my eyeballs is a waste of money.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. I can't figure out how they didn't even spot-check that number. Sure the number of people on earth has nearly doubled in the past 100 years or so, but that's more of a fluke. At 6.3B people, that's a good chunk of the population (over 7B) most of whom are not able to get a smartphone capable of running apps that support the app economy.
It's not like the po
Re: (Score:2)
More like the past 50.
Such a shame... (Score:1, Offtopic)
that we don't have any money for healthcare because that would be "big government" but we have trillions for "apps". -_-
Re: (Score:2)
Well, maybe they're using healthcare logic:
We already pay $60,000/year for the generic version of some drugs -- and those drugs were priced at $19k/year while they were still patent protected in 1997. It's insane, but yes, prices have gone up several hundred percent for an old and outdated drug. The market has reached the point where instead of trying to undercut the competition, a company will raise its prices to match the competitor's. And the same is true for surgeries, X-Ray's, hospital stays, doctor vi
*faaaart* (Score:1)
Money, please!
halp (Score:2)
I need to buy an app, can someone recommend one?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes,
but it is the most expensive App I ever bought: ThaiDict. I think $39.00, not sure, could be only $25.00
An awesome App to lean Thai, dictionary and phrase book.
And this stock is a sleeper! Invest now! (Score:3)
How is this different from any other article that amounts to vapid sensationalism?
While there is definitely room to grow, it's not in markets which are already developed - North America & the EU, for example, have pretty high market penetration for 'apps' - to the point where many homeless in the US have phones with 'apps'.
Expanding into high population areas like China (and the rest of Asia) will certainly help growth - but just because there are more users does not mean a poor farmer in China or India has the ability to pay the same amount of money as a poor farmer in the US or EU.
I still don't get it. (Score:4, Interesting)
How do you make money on apps? The only thing I can see, is selling your App-writing skills to a big company, which then distributes it for free to the end-user.
I also don't like the word "app". What is wrong with "application" or "program"? Those words were just fine. *sigh* Now, get off my lawn!
Re: I still don't get it. (Score:1)
What's wrong with "program?"
By definition an application is many programs.
Re: (Score:1)
Modern appdot appers appdot other appsdots using appdots, NOT LUDDITE software!
Re:I still don't get it. (Score:5, Interesting)
I still don't get it. Most applications I use are free, and even for some I don't see a need for an "App". Most of the time the mobile-aware (or responsive design) websites work just fine. Except the m.slashdot.org thing, I could probably write 10 bug reports just by thinking of it. Luckily, you can tell it to load the desktop site. For most stuff the mobile website is just fine. I even use Facebooks mobile site, because I ditched their app it after the split of their core app and messenger. Never looked back. Works wonderfully.
How do you make money on apps? The only thing I can see, is selling your App-writing skills to a big company, which then distributes it for free to the end-user.
There are several ways to make money for mobile apps and games:
There are a lot of revenue streams you can tap into with mobile apps if you know what you're doing. They might be relatively small but if you get enough users, it adds up. If none of these sound compelling to you, you're probably not in the target demographic. :)
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen some games like that. Most other players either lose interest or stop looking at the leader board. You end up needing those hyper competitive players because nobody else is going to spend money on the game. Of course, I've seen games without them and those end up folding within a year or two because even when you can make it to the top of the leaderboard without spending lots of money, people still won't pay any money. So you're really just competing for a small number of compulsive players/gamblers.
Take a look at Star Trek Timelines. It's especially appropriate for the Slashdot crowd. In fact, I wonder if any of them will admit how much they spend publicly on the events. ;) Disruptor Beam has a cash cow.
Re: (Score:2)
Take a look at Star Trek Timelines. It's especially appropriate for the Slashdot crowd. In fact, I wonder if any of them will admit how much they spend publicly on the events. ;) Disruptor Beam has a cash cow.
I got hooked on it for a bit. It was kinda fun for a bit, and I'll admit I spent like $5 on some Dilithium Crystals, but I got to the point where it was near-impossible to do anything without massive amounts of grinding, I ended up getting all these obscure characters rather than anyone I wanted, and didn't feel there was enough value in buying more stuff - not the least of which was the fact that it's a game very clearly intended for larger screens than my Note 4, based solely on the amount of scrolling I
Re: (Score:2)
You've pretty well described the pay-to-win model: design a game that is balanced for fun at the beginning long enough to get the player into it, and then slowly switch to a balance where the game is just boring grinding
Have you heard of Pokemon? This description goes well beyond the bounds of pay2win and existed long before the pay2win model existed. We can even go back to the days of the Apple IIe and C64 to see some real hardcore grinding like Might & Magic, Wizardry, Ultima, Bard's Tale and so forth. In those games, you had to take risks and might die over and over again and get set back while you were trying to grind. I'd love to see some of the gamers today try to play those games. They would probably just t
Re: (Score:2)
but I got to the point where it was near-impossible to do anything without massive amounts of grinding
That's key. If you don't like grinding you won't like a TON of games. You won't like World of Warcraft or any MMO really, you won't like Pokemon, Final Fantasy or JRPG's. You won't like Rogue-like's most likely either. Tons of games have a grinding component. Like I said, we need someone who is in the target demographic to speak to this and they probably won't because well it's probably embarrassing. :D
Re: (Score:2)
I still don't get it. Most applications I use are free, and even for some I don't see a need for an "App". Most of the time the mobile-aware (or responsive design) websites work just fine. Except the m.slashdot.org thing, I could probably write 10 bug reports just by thinking of it. Luckily, you can tell it to load the desktop site. For most stuff the mobile website is just fine. I even use Facebooks mobile site, because I ditched their app it after the split of their core app and messenger. Never looked back. Works wonderfully.
How do you make money on apps? The only thing I can see, is selling your App-writing skills to a big company, which then distributes it for free to the end-user.
There are several ways to make money for mobile apps and games...
There are also several ways to sell statistics based on bullshit too.
Look at a Nest webcam cloud service. A consumer pays $10/month for that, and can easily access it through a browser, but when a consumer uses the magical bean (a.k.a. "app") to access the service, it's counted as magical bean revenue.
In summary, magical beans are worth trillions.
Laziness! (Score:2)
Ever notice people are so lazy to say the whole words like Phil, Tim, Al, Liz, Matt, pee, poop, doc, TV, Steve, Josh, Dave, etc.? These days, people type like "How r u?" :P
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I was wondering. Almost all the apps I use are free (only one I ever purchased was Monopoly), and I never upgrade to the paid pro edition that many advertize. Usually, whatever limitations they build into the free ones, I live w/.
I think the reason they call it app is that it's a lot more limited in functionality, often free/cheap, and can quickly be installed/uninstalled. An application, by contrast, like Microsoft Office or Autocad or Adobe Suite costs quite a bit of money and often comes
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I was wondering. Almost all the apps I use are free (only one I ever purchased was Monopoly), and I never upgrade to the paid pro edition that many advertize. Usually, whatever limitations they build into the free ones, I live w/.
Same here. The only app I have ever paid for was Words with Friends. I don't even remember how much it was, TBH, but it was low enough that I did not feel like I have to put up with advertising.
Re: (Score:1)
There's an app for that: http://www.app-cow.com/ [app-cow.com]
Reminds me of the late 1990s (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Resist bad ideas (Score:1)
Apps are stupid. Most the same can be done through regular web pages (http/html/dom/js). Improve the bookmarking and perhaps page caching options* if they want web sites/services to act like apps, but otherwise installing software is 1990's, and a security risk.
* Allow a page to check with the server to see if a newer version exists, otherwise cache the page and JS libraries for up to say a week for quicker access. And allow the user to set the upper limit of cache size and time per site so that greedy site
Re: (Score:2)
But then you run into people who want apps because they oppose DRM and things like EME in browsers so you can avoid using apps because the web should be free of such stuff.
And people who want half the stuff out of HTML5 because why does HTML5 need ac
Re: (Score:1)
Subscription videos and music are arguably a reason to have installed apps, and maybe highly intensive graphics, such as 3D games. There is a place for installed apps, I won't dispute that, but a pizza-ordering app? Come on!
And I see no problem with websites having access to local cameras, sensors, etc. IF the user explicitly grants them. A site can request access to local resources, and the user could see an inventory of requested services with approval check-boxes, and maybe a "more info" to explain in de
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Well, perhaps; I don't play phone games so wouldn't know that market.
Stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess they count people buying stuff on Amazon and AliExpress as 'in app purchases'.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps. Without having read the report, I just assume they've taken the data they have and drawn a straight line through it.
I had no idea... (Score:1)
.. usage was even close to those numbers.
I use zero now and don't see a need coming in the next five years.
Or could it be ... (Score:2)
... that in 5 years, $6.3 trillion dollars will only be worth what $1.3 trillion is worth now?
not worth (Score:1)
I think when they said "worth" they meant "valued at". The combined worth of apps to the global economy is in the negative.
$6E+12 of churn (Score:2)
Some software actually helps produce, but 6 trillion bucks worth of apps is gonna hard to justify as "worth" anything near that.
A bunch of vigorous activity, but doesn't actually produce any beef...shoes...steel...tires...tortillas...whatever.
funny money.
App Economy? (Score:2)
Bullshit Valuations and Browsers (Score:2)
I accept a multi-trillion dollar valuation about as well as the average Shark Tank investor.
Netflix offers an app. Is Netflix revenue based on app usage counted as "app" revenue, but not counted when a browser interface is used? How about Amazon? Nest? Your local grocery store app?
This entire valuation is utter bullshit. I could do the same thing and claim the Chrome browser market is now worth trillions because it happens to be a popular interface for people to buy things with and create revenue.