The Implications of Offering Free Versions for the Performance of Paid Mobile Apps
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mobile application (app) industry has grown tremendously over the past ten years, primarily fueled by small app development businesses. Lacking advertising budgets, these small and relatively unknown businesses often offer free versions of their paid apps to be noticed in the crowded app industry and to reduce customer uncertainty about app quality and fit. The authors build on the existing marketing and information systems literature on sampling and versioning to investigate the implications of offering free versions for the adoption speed of paid apps. Using a unique data set of 7.7 million observations from 12,315 paid apps, and accounting for endogeneity, the authors find that although the practice of offering free versions of paid apps is popular, it is negatively associated with paid app adoption speed. They also find that this negative association between free version presence and paid app adoption speed is stronger both for hedonic apps and in the later life stages of paid apps. The authors hope that the study's results will encourage app developers to reevaluate their current strategy of offering free versions of paid apps and prompt academics to produce more work focusing on this industry.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it