Determinants of Mobile Apps' Success: Evidence from the App Store Market
Open accessAbstract
Mobile applications markets with app stores have introduced a new approach to define and sell software applications with access to a large body of heterogeneous consumer population. This research examines key seller- and app-level characteristics that impact success in an app store market. We tracked individual apps and their presence in the top-grossing 300 chart in Apple's App Store and examined how factors at different levels affect the apps' survival in the top 300 chart. We used a generalized hierarchical modeling approach to measure sales performance, and confirmed the results with the use of a hazard model and a count regression model. We find that broadening app offerings across multiple categories is a key determinant that contributes to a higher probability of survival in the top charts. App-level attributes such as free app offers, high initial ranks, investment in less-popular (less-competitive) categories, continuous quality updates, and high-volume and high-user review scores have positive effects on apps' sustainability. In general, each diversification decision across a category results in an approximately 15 percent increase in the presence of an app in the top charts. Survival rates for free apps are up to two times more than that for paid apps. Quality (feature) updates to apps can contribute up to a threefold improvement in survival rate as well. A key implication of the results of this study is that sellers must utilize the natural segmentation in consumer tastes offered by the different categories to improve sales performance.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Regular quality updates positively affect complement performance.
“Regular quality updates positively affect complement performance (Lee & Raghu, 2014).”
From What role do data network effects play for multihoming complements? An empirical analysis of platform complementors’ strategies for consumer value creation (2025) · cites this paper as Lee & Raghu, 2014
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 69 · Cited by 265
- Authors
- Lee, G., & Raghu, T. S.
- Affiliations
- Arizona State University (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Management Information Systems
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2014-01
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 133-170
- ISSN
- 0742-1222 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-928X
- OpenAlex
- W2061951099
- Cited by
- 265
- References
- 69
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 10
- FWCI
- 49.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- papers.ssrn.com
- Locations
- Journal of Management Information Systems (publishedVersion)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
- Arizona State University Library Digital Repository (Arizona State University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Digital Platforms and Economics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Mobile and Web Applications
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Consumer Market Behavior and Pricing
- Keywords
- mobile application, App Store, free vs paid apps, app updates, online reviews, app ranking, sales performance
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review