

Full Analysis of iPhone Economics: Bad News? - yewweitan
http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2010/06/full-analysis-of-iphone-economics-its-bad-news-and-then-it-gets-worse.html

======
xenophanes
> Half of all developers will earn less than $682 per year. Do you still think
> this is a good business idea?

I'm one of those developers. And do you know why? Because it's not my
business. I wanted to make some apps. I didn't put in a huge effort.

For the numbers to mean anything, you should filter out the 90% (or whatever)
of apps that aren't intended to be part of a serious, profitable business.

~~~
pvg
The numbers, assuming his inputs are reasonably accurate, still mean something
- most people trying to make money selling iPhone apps don't make a great
deal. It's easy to distinguish between apps that are trying to make money and
apps that aren't - apps trying to make money are not free. The sort of
filtering you want is next to impossible - you're asking that only the apps
that are trying to make money but really mean it are to be considered.

He doesn't address something that maybe you're touching on, indirectly -
unlike the markets where someone makes zillions on SMS voting for a popular TV
show or selling Tetris to feature phone users, the iPhone app market is very
accessible to J. Random Hacker. Compared to the previous age of mobile
development, it's a major improvement - same device (more or less), same
screen size (more or less), same framework, no complicated permission needed
from the carrier, payment taken care of, etc, etc. Plus, you never hear of
anyone saying they program J2ME or BREW or Symbian apps for fun.

~~~
xenophanes
> [all] apps trying to make money are not free.

No, 3 of my 4 apps are paid, even though I'm not making a serious effort to
make money. Why shouldn't they be? I don't mind making a little money.

Just because filtering the numbers to get useful results is infeasible doesn't
mean we should pretend averages across the entire store mean anything for a
person who sets out to build an app store oriented business.

It reminds me of all the psychological studies that use inadequate controls
just because adequate ones for what they want to do would cost trillions of
dollars. Then they claim to have done legitimate science. But the standards of
science don't lower themselves to what data we can easily get.

~~~
pvg
_No, 3 of my 4 apps are paid, even though I'm not making a serious effort to
make money. Why shouldn't they be? I don't mind making a little money._

Nobody said they shouldn't be. The point is 'serious effort' vs anything else
is not readily measurable. This is something you say, rather than something
you do. 'Trying to make money' vs 'Not trying to make money' is measurable -
if you're not trying to make money, you don't charge. If you charge, you are
obviously trying to make money, even if it's very little money.

 _Just because filtering the numbers to get useful results is infeasible
doesn't mean we should pretend averages across the entire store mean anything
for a person who sets out to build an app store oriented business._

The numbers are still useful, whatever their caveats and limitations. At the
very least, they are more useful than non-numbers or numbers-that-ought-to-be-
obtained-by-some-method-that-doesn't-actually-produce-measurable-numbers.

 _But the standards of science_

I don't think there was any claim to reaching the 'standards of science'. It
seems a little silly to bring them up, though - the author's sources and
methods are well described. There's probably plenty of room to take issue
there. But you can't trot out 'the standards of science' if your standard is
some underivable set of data that just happens to support your viewpoint.

~~~
mattmanser
There is nothing useful about those numbers, there's nothing based on hard
fact, it's all conjecture, but worst he's presenting conclusions off the
numbers that make no sense. In my mind this line summed up his total lack of
understanding:

 _Today if you decide to develop a free app, you pay your $35,000 development
cost, then you find your free app competing against just a modest set of
60,750 rival free apps on the iPhone. Imagine if you are your consumer,
scrolling past that set, to find you._

Firstly 35k assumes a decent sized app, not a few day job like a lot of these
apps are. Secondly a lot of these apps have NO rivals. Search 'Nottingham
Cinema times'. 2 apps. But guess what. Those guys also make 'Leicester Cinema
Times', 'Birmingham Cinema Times', 'London Cinema Times', etc., etc.

All the same tiny piece of code.

And what about all the hoo-hah about those guys who had 20,000 apps like
'Pamela Anderson Pictures' that were eventually pulled? Guess what. Search
'Claire Danes', 'Kiera Knightly', any female actress. 59 p app for each one of
them. Probably thousands of them. Same piece of code.

And look at some of the numbers he throws about, 2.1 billion app capable
phones vs. 80 million iPhones. I'm sorry, but add up ALL of Europe and ALL of
North America and you've not got 2.1 billion people. But I bet a large
proportion of those iPhones are in that market. And I bet the vast majority of
app purchases are in that market.

And worst of all for those 2.1 billion phones. THERE'S NO MARKET.

Roughly 50% of the people I know have an iPhone. And I'm probably downplaying
that number. Young professionals with large disposable incomes. Just the sort
of people you can make a lot of money off.

He's not comparing like for like, he's not realising that the median earnings
per serious software shop is actually higher much higher than the average per
app because of so much dross and he claims a 'typical' app costs 35k without
considering that they probably only asked the serious software shops and not
people like the poster above you or those shops which are pumping out 100s of
apps per week.

~~~
pvg
_There is nothing useful about those numbers_

Well, you can keep saying that but you have _no_ numbers and no particularly
concrete criticisms of his argument. Maybe he's not comparing like for like.
Maybe all your friends have iPhones. Maybe you've forgotten many people
outside of North America and Europe own mobile phones. The $35k, as mentioned
in other comments in the thread, has very little bearing on his central
argument that iPhone apps don't make much money.

And maybe he's made a complete hash of it. But at least we know how he got
there.

 _he's not realising that the median earnings per serious software shop is
actually higher much higher than the average per app because_

Because what? What's a 'serious software shop'? How do you come to this
conclusion? Right or wrong, I have a reasonably good idea how the author of
the article came to his. Can't say the same for yours.

~~~
adolph
"Maybe you've forgotten many people outside of North America and Europe own
mobile phones."

I wonder how many of those folks have phones that allow them to participate
meaningfully in an application marketplace.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Isn't part of his point that you can make money or engage users via SMS or the
web without an application marketplace?

~~~
adolph
I think it is part of the author's point but it isn't a strong argument. The
author does a lot of speculative math on developer return in the iOS app
market and then makes the implication that the market for feature-phones is
vastly larger. However, just because there is a larger population of such
devices does not mean that the addressable market is larger. The author does
not share or speculate what kind of money could be made in that market.

------
pchristensen
When reading this, it helps to remember that the author is a former Nokia
executive that does consulting and speaking to Big Business. He mentions
Hilton Hotels, Rite Aid, and Walgreens.

I don't know how you would split out Brand apps vs hobbyist vs junk apps, but
he should have mentioned that. I'd be surprised if there are more than 10K
Brand apps like the ones he appears to be most familiar with.

------
rpledge
Interesting analysis, but I'd like to see the numbers for apps that are
actually maintained and marketed vs. some guy who hacked up an app and never
fixed any bugs or improved it based on feedback. I suspect the number get
better if you filter out the crappy unmaintained apps (but of course, this
isn't an easy data set to obtain)

~~~
Manfred
I agree, there are a lot of apps that didn't take the developer more than 5
hours to put together. Earnings made by well made apps is probably much
higher.

~~~
Retric
Yep, _Half of all developers will earn less than $682 per year_ assumes the
average developer produces 1 app. Also, most apps revenue falls off over time
so a more realistic number is 80% 682 * 2 probably 1091$ in the first year and
272 in the second.

If someone is churning 20 in a month and then getting 1364$ * 20 = 27,280$
over two years for one months work that's not bad.

PS: The average app has probably only been out for 1 year so it may be
reasonable to double these numbers. Basically, anything released yesterday is
unlikely to have generated much revenue, averaging _ALL_ apps over a 2 year
earning period is silly.

------
adolph
"former Nokia executive" [number froth] "What I have been telling my readers
and followers and this blog and in my books, that the real money is in true
mass market services like SMS, MMS and WAP. That is where the REAL money is."

This guy makes a strong case for skating to where the puck used to be.

~~~
MicahWedemeyer
I'd say there are a lot of pucks, and he's suggesting skating towards some of
the less sexy ones. The app store is shiny and new and fun for hackers, but
his point about market size is pretty valid.

All iphones are SMS-capable. Not all SMS-capable phones are iphones. Just like
Twitter never killed blogging, smart phones still haven't killed plain old
dumb phones, either.

~~~
adolph
Verily, there are many pucks.

It is pretty funny that the author includes WAP as one.

------
AlisdairO
I'm not sure I buy that a typical iPhone app costs $35,000 to develop.
Considering the simplicity of most apps, combined with the fact that many apps
are effectively the same program with some content alteration, it seems like a
really inflated figure.

~~~
pvg
It doesn't really make much difference, for the purposes of his analysis.
Let's say a typical app costs $1500 to develop. If his other numbers are
right, that typical app would take about 2.5 years to break even. His argument
is that, on average, developing an iPhone app is, in itself, a fairly dismal
economic proposition.

~~~
mgkimsal
However, making, say, 80, spending time promoting them, and perhaps having a
few of those be moderate successes may make this a much more viable option. I
have a friend who's pursuing this option of making multiple apps (not sure
he's to 80 yet, but will likely surpass that in the next year).

I agree, the chance of one app being the runaway success that affords one an
early retirement is pretty remote, but the tech press loves to promote the
huge success stories, and many others love to follow them.

~~~
pvg
If you are making 80, or even 20, chances are you're not really making apps
but repackaging offline or online content in the form of an app and that's a
rather different niche. It's also one that Apple is making efforts to squish,
although I'm sure it will continue to thrive on Android and other non-
restrictive markets.

~~~
mgkimsal
I can say that in the case of my friend, it's not repackaged content, but
actual real apps. They tend to be somewhat on the basic side, but are
nonetheless 'real' apps in the sense of having real hand programming behind
them and such. FWIR, he's using Titanium, which makes it pretty easy to do
basic apps fast (but still native apps all the same). Whether Apple will
continue to let Titanium exist on the iOS platform is a whole other question
:)

------
briancooley
"Full Analysis" seems like a bad title for this post.

First off, in app purchases are not included. Secondly, his argument against
free apps is simply that the reach is smaller than other platforms. Finally,
he acknowledges that the median paid app get fewer than 1000 downloads.

The 25-50K number for development costs is way off for the median app.
Something like $5K-$10K is more in line for most of the apps I'm seeing (but I
work cheap), and I've done a couple small ones (probably more representative
of the bottom half of the distribution) for clients in 3 days' time.

~~~
roel_v
None of this refutes his point, which is that developing for iphone is a
suboptimal use of marketing/advertising dollars. Even if you'd assume his
numbers had a 100% error margin, you _still_ couldn't get iphone apps to work.

~~~
xenophanes
Just assuming he's only off by 100% is silly. There are lots of ways he could
be off by a factor of 5 or 10.

~~~
roel_v
Well instead of pulling numbers of thin air, how about you provide some
rationalization for your 'factor 5 or 10' statements? The post came with lots
of details on data sources, how assumptions/estimations were made, the
relative effect of error margins etc. Saying 'there are lots of ways he could
be off' is meaningless against a rationally founded argument like was made in
the post.

~~~
xenophanes
It's averaging stuff across all apps. That has pretty much no meaning for
someone who doesn't intend to be anything like the average.

------
1053r
I think a lot of us are instinctively reacting negatively to this article, and
I don't think it is because it's news we just don't want to hear. There is one
point that the author fails to take into consideration: future growth.

Anyone who has used iPad or iPhone or an Android device can tell that devices
like these, not Symbian or WAP or Brew or whatever, are the future. Those
other platforms might catch up, but for now they lag abysmally behind in terms
of user experience. And so while they might outnumber iOS and Android for now,
that numerical advantage can not last.

Walk around a Y-Combinator event (or CES, or E3, or anywhere else where
leading edge alpha geeks congregate) and count phones. I'd be willing to wager
a lot of money you'd see a bunch of iOS and Android devices, a few
blackberries, and a smattering of ancient nokia and samsung free phones held
by users who "just want to make calls" (and thus aren't going to be reachable
by any apps at all, WAP or Java or otherwise).

So, yes, a company developing an app today for iOS or Android isn't going to
make their money back on the platform as it stands in any reasonable amount of
time. But a company or developer who positions themselves to be on top of a
platform that is rising meteorically (and will displace literally billions of
feature phones over the next decade and a half as moore's law drops silicon
costs by a factor of 1000) is going to do well.

Hype is about future expectations. When expectations rise above exponential
growth in our industry, those expectations usually turn out wrong. But the
mobile market has a current penetration of over 3 billion people and I'll
wager practically every phone on the planet will be a "smartphone" in under 15
years. That's a lot of headroom for growth.

------
DougBTX
It seems like the expectations are very high for the App Store, so perhaps
this article is just a reaction against hype.

But, don't we say that only one in ten start-ups makes it? So, as a baseline,
why expect more than one in ten apps on the App Store to be profitable?

~~~
blacksmythe
Because in a start-up the one in ten that makes it makes the average effort
worthwhile. (That is how VCs make their money)

------
1gor
Why does the author assume normal distribution (bell curve) for apps'
revenues? In reality app sales are similar to those of books and follow power
law distribution. A few bestsellers will account for large chunk of overall
app sales. Then there will be a very long tail of unprofitable apps.

Therefore all of his numbers and his final conclusion are wrong. People do not
write iPhone apps in order to achieve some sort of 'average' income. They hope
to strike it lucky and get a disproportionately large payoff.

~~~
alttab
Where are you getting the normal distribution information from?

 _"This is the average, remember, it is not the median. The average skews too
high because of the long tail. There are a few who make several millions, who
distort the average number, so it is not true that half of iPhone App
Developers earn more, and half less, than $3,050 per year."_

He references the long tail you mention, and describe exactly what you mean
about some people making a lot, but because of distribution and how users find
and download apps - its more akin to say - the lottery - than actual market
strategy.

Some will make money. Most of them will be development/contractor shops that
charge out-the-ass for mobile apps to companies who want a "mobile presence."
These medium to large companies won't realize that the money they are losing
isn't worth it until its happened a couple of times. Then they'll stop coming
back.

That said, independent developers making money on that app store directly is a
complete crap-shoot. Very few get rich, lucky ones make a very modest living,
more get a hobbyist return, most get dick - and some don't even get the money
they _did_ earn from Apple.

Therefore all of your rebuttal and final conclusion are wrong. How many books
have you written on the subject?

 _Note: The reason he uses a normal distribution is because it would actually
help DISPROVE his thesis, a normal distribution would make it easier for an
app developer to make money, not harder. When the normal distribution showed a
shitty return - he reminded us it was actually worse._

~~~
NyxWulf
Unfortunately that's not necessarily true. A normal distribution is just
vastly different than an exponential distribution. Using the central limit
theorem allows you to expect the mean to be normally distributed around your
samples, but that's about all.

The reality is that taking an average over an exponential distribution is
largely meaningless. There are an infinite number of distributions that would
create that exact mean. Some of them not at all profitable for certain apps,
others very profitable.

The problem with using an average over this distribution is that it doesn't
give you anything to work from. You can't figure out who is profitable and who
isn't, or how high up the curve you need to be to be profitable. Taking an
average over all of the apps in the app store is like taking the average
revenue of every website that tries to make money on the internet. It's a
meaningless number.

At the end he compares the low numbers in averages to a single anecdotal
example of something that had a 100 Million downloads. On the one hand he
dismisses the few highly successful appstore apps but then uses another
singular example of a highly successful app to recommend a different platform.
Overall the methodological approach is deeply flawed.

I could go on, but ultimately, I found this analysis not very insightful. As
with any new channel, it takes some time to figure out what works and what
doesn't. Who is going to buy and who isn't. In almost all software the
distribution is exponential where the top 10 to 20% make over 90% of the
revenue. The same is true of the app store.

It all comes back to fundamentals. Find an unmet or under-served need in the
market, figure out how big that market is, figure out how much it's going to
cost to fill that need, make sure your app fills the need, and start trying to
sell it. Then once you've built up a sales platform, then you start scaling
it.

------
loewenskind
I thought it was already understood that the model of "create a $1 app and
sell 10k of them per month" was long over. The App store is still a relatively
new market, so people will continue to learn how to be successful on it.

I just got an iPad and started using the App store for the first time in my
life and guess what? Out of the 5 things I wanted to use the pad for, 3 of
them didn't exist at all. There is plenty of space in this market I would say.
Just not for iFart anymore.

~~~
3pt14159
I'm also curious as to what you wanted to see. When I picked up my friend's
iPad (a month or two ago) I struggled to find a good finance app that actually
gave good charting and numbers for stock market options and commodity futures.
I know I'm not the only one who would be interested in that AND I know that
those of us who are have fairly deep pockets.

~~~
loewenskind
Yea, in my experience it seems the apps are pretty focused. There are a lot of
games, a lot of toys and a lot of professional made apps in specific areas
(e.g. drawing/photo editing).

------
WilliamLP
Some people seem to assume that building a profitable app is entirely about
luck, and not about having the insight and ability to develop something better
than what is in the store currently. Many of these app are developed by
beginners and casual hobbyists and, frankly, just aren't very good. Thinking
you can work to be in the top 10% of this crowd isn't necessarily unrealistic.

~~~
praptak
Fair enough. How much does the last app in the 10% make?

------
krig
This sounds very much like the way things worked when I was working in the AAA
games business as well. >90 percent of all titles are lossleaders, and the few
that are hits make up for the lost money developing the others.

My guess is that most branches of entertainment are similar. Movies, TV, music
etc. There's no such thing as a steady, guaranteed income when it comes to
things like this (in my experience/opinion).

That doesn't mean making apps is not a viable business. Just not for everyone
who tries.

~~~
aero142
Unless you are Pixar.

------
xcombinator
I think this man doesn't get it, as a "former executive" he thinks anything in
live is money.

People write apps for iPhones because they dream to do what they love without
working for the man. Of course it is only a remote possibility, but it is
real.

99% of the people that went to California searching gold didn't find it, as in
SouthAfrica, but the now deeper old mine was discovered by a solitary man
looking for gold armed just with a mining pan.

There is something in the human spirit that is as valuable as money that makes
musicians painters, singers,movie makers or engineers that maybe won't get
rich keep trying. Maybe they get to work on what they love.

PS: I'm an iPhone App developer myself, since Linux Click an run app store I
believed that a "right" implementation of an Appstore was going to be the
future. I expected to be Apple the first to to this. In contrast with this
executive they just seem to "get it".

Steve Jobs is really smart in this too, when he creates something he diminish
it, so the competitor's executives see an appstore and say: It's only a mere
millions dollar market, not important.

IBMs mainframes were the "important stuff", when real money was, mini
computers were just "cheap" toys with no real application. People who wanted
"job security" deciced to work with the "big boys" because it was safe...
until it was not.

------
mtholking
I don't care for the 35k iPhone App and 3k WAP site numbers that he pulled out
of thin air. From my experiences, the costs are not so disparate.

iPhone vs. WAP is a poor comparison because an iPhone app and a WAP site are
two different digital tactics that address completely different objectives.

Brands are not buying iPhone apps to get the same utility that is available
from a WAP site. They are buying them to make their brands appear technically
savvy, and to increase engagement.

------
bensummers
It'd be interesting to see a comparison to "traditional" distribution methods,
eg shareware, web apps, and so on. Maybe it's just that writing small software
applications doesn't pay?

------
lecha
For the sake of argument, let's assume the analysis is off by two orders of
magnitude (i.e. assume half of businesses will earn less than $70K per year).

Can anyone justify an investment in development of an iPad-only productivity
software? Do you think a startup can raise capital based on such economics?

My takeaway: Selling AppStore apps/ads isn't THE business model. It should be
one of the channels amongst others.

------
char
My main issue with this article is that the author assumes that all developers
operate equally. He averages the individuals who build apps in their spare
time and might make thousands of dollars as 'extra' income, with the large app
companies who spend tremendous resources on building apps that get high
returns. When he crunches his numbers, he gets results that are probably very
far from the actual reality of things.

~~~
ww520
He is an ex-executive. What does he know about software development?

------
ww520
His proposition of doing SMS app because the Idol/whatnot had made hundreds of
millions is misleading. The cost of doing a SMS app might be low but the app
itself is an accessory of the real product, the game show. It takes tens to
hundreds millions of product and marketing cost to make and run a show like
Idol over years. You think a $35,000 developed SMS app can make that kind of
money by itself?

------
Locke
I'd have preferred to see a more detailed breakdown of apps. It may be a
terrible market for utility apps. Or, for apps that are more feature than
product. How many apps are truly products with solid business models? How do
these apps do?

Or, how does the picture look for games? Especially now that game developers
can embrace a virtual currency / goods business model. They can get all the
distribution benefits of being a free app while still making (potentially much
more) money over a longer period of time. Or, do these apps not count as apps
because they're too close to the web-based games that are doing so well on
Facebook?

If you're a developer, looking at industry-wide numbers is good, but it's
better to research the apps in the niche you plan on entering.

------
vessenes
It's interesting that he's a big business guy. I would restate his title as:
"the Apple store is for suckers or smallfry, if you're a big company."

And, he's right. Big companies do take $50k+ to create mobile apps. Big
companies do have much better things to do with their money; they can add far
more value at greater scale. Of course, Jane developer might not be in the
same boat.

Another interesting confounding variable: he clearly conceives of developers
as 'one-app' developers. And, he's right that this doesn't pay on the apple
store. There is just, frankly, some randomness in which apps tip on the store
-- most developers have figured this out already, and of course Apple gives
links so that developers have an easier time cross promoting.

~~~
yewweitan
You're absolutely right. But where's the fun in a headline like that.

More to the point, I think if you read the rest of his blog, and take the
perspective of some of the larger international companies, going for gold with
the iPhone won't be the best business strategy.

Tomi has given some case studies of how MMS has worked for car dealers in
Germany, and even campaign promoters in Australia. There is this under-
exploited niche called mobile marketing, which relies on WAP, SMS, MMS, etc
which could give pretty high ROI for large companies (eg: BMW)

Especially if you take a B2B perspective, what he says makes huge sense.

~~~
vessenes
Yep, agreed completely. The Apple app store is a democratizing force.

------
halostatue
I can't believe this guy because he claims that the iPhone 4 launch was a
stumble.

[http://communities-
dominate.blogs.com/brands/2010/06/smartph...](http://communities-
dominate.blogs.com/brands/2010/06/smartphone-wars-update-mid-june-
iphone-4-sales-stumbles-nokia-profit-warning-microsoft-os-confusion.html)

What?

------
rmundo
This article makes sense for you if you're the kind of company that needs 35k
to create an app. In that case, sure, stay away from the app store. But for
indie devs with a bright idea, the app store is a great opportunity to try
something out for a very low cost. A very interesting space for startups, I'd
think.

------
rfolstad
How is this bad news? The consulting firms charging 35K per app are making a
killing!

------
founderceo
The analysis misses the point of why people get into mobile development.

See <http://bit.ly/iPhone-economics>

------
ThomPete
I don't understand how this is any different than if you did an analysis of
Startup Economics.

In any space with great competition and where your product is scalable, few
will make enough money to justify their investment.

Also many paid apps are part of a bigger picture, the iPhone app is not the
only revenue stream they have.

That's reality, now deal.

------
JVerstry
Excellent analysis !!! Good job !!!

------
aneth
This is an interesting analysis but a very flawed conclusion. What percentage
of restaurant owners will make money? How about online entrepreneurs?

Just because the expected value of building something is low doesn't mean it's
a bad model. It just means you have to execute well and that most people fail.

------
hackermom
"Now the heartbreaking news. Lets factor in our development costs. Again,
independent source, the Internet Retailer reported on May 1, 2010, that most
apps cost between $25,000 and $50,000 to develop."

These numbers were really taken out of the ass of a troll.

------
illumin8
His entire analysis is basically taking the revenue total for all apps,
divided by the number of apps, and saying each developer only makes an average
of $3k per year. Sorry, this is not a good analysis. Some people give their
apps away for free. Some quality apps make millions. This doesn't mean the
opportunities are not there.

A similar analysis could be done of PC shareware software authors, with
similar results.

~~~
jroes
He has data that indicates 73% of total apps on the store are paid. He then
bases his remaining calculations on that paid app number.

~~~
metageek
Yeah, but he doesn't take into account the fact that 73% of apps do not get
73% of the downloads.

~~~
sorbus
However, paid apps do get all of the purchases. The number of downloads
doesn't matter, only income does.

~~~
smokey_the_bear
Free apps have in app purchases, and ads. Some developers do very well off of
free apps.

~~~
sorbus
Ads, until the introduction of iAds, would not have gone through apple, and
therefor would not count towards total revenue.

You do have a point with in app purchases, but I doubt that they would
significantly skew the numbers - they would make them worse for developers of
paid apps, in fact. Given the other optimistic decisions the article has when
dealing with numbers, I think that ignoring in app purchases fits with it:
it's a best case scenario for paid apps.

It would be quite interesting to see how much money has been made through in
app purchases, though. Not merely anecdotes, but the percentage of free apps
which have in app purchases, and the average/median income through in app
purchases in those apps.

