Flurry Analytics Suggests In-App Purchases Generate More Revenue

In-app purchases are something we often don’t think about when playing a game or adding more features to the latest application. “This gravity gun is only an extra ninety-nine cents, and I love this game. So why not?” As customers spend on the latest upgrades, updates, and ad-free in-app purchases, Flurry reports that this model works considerably well. TUAW writes:

Previously to 2010, the games tracked were generating only a few bucks per user per year, but in January the total jumped to around $9, and it’s now in the double digits. Flurry says that money doesn’t include ad revenue – it’s strictly profit from in-app purchases, either unlocking features or selling virtual goods.

Flurry is reporting that as of June, they’re generating $14.66 per user per year. The idea is to get someone interested in your product, then give them the opportunity to add the features they need for an enjoyable experience. More often than not, in-app purchases turn a pretty good profit.

[via TUAW]

Nokia and HTC Respond to Apple’s Press Conference

Following RIM, Nokia and HTC have publicized their responses against Apple concerning their mobile devices. Nokia’s response:

In general, antenna performance of a mobile device/phone may be affected with a tight grip, depending on how the device is held. That’s why Nokia designs our phones to ensure acceptable performance in all real life cases, for example when the phone is held in either hand. Nokia has invested thousands of man hours in studying how people hold their phones and allows for this in designs, for example by having antennas both at the top and bottom of the phone and by careful selection of materials and their use in the mechanical design.

HTC came to the defense of their Droid Eris by comparing the numbers. Pocket-Lint writes:

“Approximately .016% of customers,” Eric Lin, the company’s global PR and online community manager exclusively revealed to us before adding that “we have had very few complaints about signal or antenna problems on the Eris.”

Weighing in, it’s fair to say that you have to intentionally grip (pretty tightly) a Blackberry, an HTC Droid Eris, or a Nokia phone to have it drop bars. Where you could accidentally touch “the spot” on an iPhone 4, you have to try pretty hard to do it on competitors phones. I don’t think I’m being unreasonable – that’s my honest observation. I do think Apple reached a bit too far in trying to expose other smartphones – if it’s arguably a “non-issue” on the iPhone 4, why explore “non-issues” on other phones?

[via Engadget (Nokia) and Pocket-Link (HTC)]

iPhone DSLR with OWLE Bubo & EnCinema Adapter

Cody wrote about the Manfrotto pocket tripod before. It was some sort of a stand that allowed you to attach a SLR lens to your iPhone to, well, taking better pictures, I guess. I don’t know if someone actually managed to take any picture with it, but still. It was cool - but this one’s certainly better and more “useful”.

Read more

iChatr Removed From the App Store, Users Were “Exposing Themselves”

We covered iChatr two weeks ago. It was a simple application for the iPhone 4 that, just like Chatroulette on desktop computers, allowed you to video chat with random strangers - all the time. You have no contacts, no friends, you just see the face of another user and click next.

Well, when you see the face you must be lucky. Problem is, being Chatroulette completely anonymous, people started to inappropriately expose themselves. The same happened to iChatr.

Read more

News Kiosk Winners Announced

Thanks everyone who entered the News Kiosk giveaway.We also want to thank the Dative Studios developers for the promo codes they offered to MacStories readers.

Here are the winners:

El Aldio

tixh

cjmegatron81

Jonathan Jensen

Fabian Van Schepdael

Mackey B

Paola

Pavel Kotyza

Karthik Ramadoss

Omer

You’ll receive the promo codes in your inbox in a few hours. Congratulations!

Andy Ihnatko On Consumer Reports

Andy Ihnatko, over at his personal blog:


- Does Consumer Reports understand the nature of the problem? They claim to have tested the antenna scientifically but haven’t (as far as I can tell) broken any new ground beyond “If you bridge the gap, you lose bars.” Is it a hardware issue? A software issue? A mere ergonomic issue?

- It’s a repeatable, reliable demo. But are iPhone users likely to encounter an actual problem? I did a 20-minute phone interview with PBS this afternoon and I did it on an uncased iPhone 4. I didn’t even think twice about it.

- Assuming that a specific consumer regarded the antenna problem as a dealbreaker: if there were a way around the problem, would the iPhone then be worthwhile? I say yes, absolutely. Take away “there’s a slightly greater chance that it might drop a call” and you’re left with a phone with a huge laundry list of advantages over every previous iPhone and most other phones. Including, might I point out, better reception than the iPhone 3GS.

- Is there a way around the problem? Yes. Put it in a case, which is something lots of people (myself included) were going to do anyway.

On that basis, I think Consumer Reports’ stance is extreme. Though in their defense, there’s a difference between “we’re not recommending it” and “we’re recommending that people not buy it.”

Reading their followup coverage, it appears that they can’t evaluate how well “iPhone with a case” works until they develop a separate test protocol; their standard test policy is to test the phone as-shipped by the manufacturer.

This is why I have occasional problems with Consumer Reports reviews. I think this is another instance in which the magazine is showing more loyalty to their standardized test procedures than to their readers.

Exactly what I thought all along when reading Consumer Reports’ motivations for the non-recommendation. Also, make sure to read Ihnatko’s take on yesterday’s conference at SunTimes.

RIM Responds to Apple’s Antenna Conference

Oh yeah people, get ready for every cellphone maker that was mentioned by Apple yesterday to respond with an official statement.

Of course first is RIM. You know, those behind Blackberry. They’re saying that Apple’s attempt to show a common issue is unacceptable, that RIM is a global leader in antenna design and that Blackberry users don’t need to wear protections on their phones.

Check out the full statement below.

Read more

Inside Apple’s Antenna Labs

Brian X.Chen, reporting for Wired:

“Led by Ruben Caballero, a senior engineer and antenna expert at Apple, the tour gave about 10 reporters and bloggers a peek at Apple’s custom-built wireless testing lab, which consists of several anechoic chambers to measure frequency of each device in various settings.

Apple called the lab a “black” lab because it was a secret facility that even some employees were unaware of. The company made the lab public to show the world that Apple takes antenna design and wireless testing seriously.

“This is the most advanced lab for doing RF studies that anyone in the world has,” said Phil Schiller, vice president of marketing at Apple. “The designs we do wouldn’t be possible without it.”

Each test chamber is lined with blue pyramid-shaped styrofoam designed to absorb radio-frequency radiation. A robotic arm holding gadgets such as iPads and iPhones spins 360 degrees while a piece of analytics software (ironically running on Windows XP) visualizes the wireless activity of each device.

“To do the most challenging design in the world, this is what we have to do,” said Bob Mansfield, Apple’s senior vice president of Macintosh hardware. “This is hardcore stuff.”