Configuring mobile app update strategy for growth: An empirical analysis of a landscape search model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study attempts to discover effective strategies for mobile commerce applications (apps) to grow their consumer base by releasing app strategic updates. Drawing on the landscape search model from strategy research, this study conceptualizes mobile app update strategy as three interdependent decisions, i.e. what business elements are changed in an app strategic update, how substantial the changes are and when strategic updates are released relative to the competitive environment. Design/methodology/approach Using a field data set of 1,500 strategic updates of seven rival apps in the mobile travel market, this study integrated fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) with econometric analysis to analyze how app strategic update decisions interdependently influence app performance. Findings This study identified three effective and one ineffective mobile app update strategies from the mixed-method analysis, which verified the complex interdependency of app strategic update decisions. A general takeaway from these strategies is that a complex strategy problem on the mobile platform must be solved with respect to the constraints and capabilities of mobile technology. Originality/value This study moves beyond a linear view of the relationship between app update frequency and app performance and provides a holistic view of how and why app strategic update decisions mutually influence one another in their impact on app performance. This work makes contributions by identifying interdependency as a conceptual bridge between strategy and mobile app literature and developing an empirically testable version of the landscape search model.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".