Facebook Messenger is 130MB. That's the very definition of "kitchen sink".
What gives?
11–20 of 30 posts
Facebook Messenger is 130MB. That's the very definition of "kitchen sink".
What gives?
This seems like a very "woo woo" theory, because few users know how big their apps are, or what a "good" size or a "bad" size for a particular app is. So, let's assume Segment is right and there's a causal relationship between app size and downloads. What am I missing?
@CharlesW we mostly focused on the facts and running as controlled of an experiment as possible without bias or drawing conclusion on exactly why heavier apps get downloaded less. Though my personal guess from working years in the mobile app space is that users are surprisingly conscious of data & disk usage. Not everyone has unlimited data or 128GB storage iPhones.
This seems like a very "woo woo" theory, because few users know how big their apps are, or what a "good" size or a "bad" size for a particular app is. So, let's assume Segment is right and there's a causal relationship between app size and downloads. What am I missing?
This seems like a very "woo woo" theory, because few users know how big their apps are, or what a "good" size or a "bad" size for a particular app is. So, let's assume Segment is right and there's a causal relationship between app size and downloads. What am I missing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
@CharlesW we mostly focused on the facts and running as controlled of an experiment as possible without bias or drawing conclusion on exactly why heavier apps get downloaded less. Though my personal guess from working years in the mobile app space is that users are surprisingly conscious of data & disk usage. Not everyone has unlimited data or 128GB storage iPhones.
If you are not modeling causality, then why do you have an "Impact on Installs" metric next to each asset size?
This seems like a very "woo woo" theory, because few users know how big their apps are, or what a "good" size or a "bad" size for a particular app is. So, let's assume Segment is right and there's a causal relationship between app size and downloads. What am I missing?
@CharlesW we mostly focused on the facts and running as controlled of an experiment as possible without bias or drawing conclusion on exactly why heavier apps get downloaded less. Though my personal guess from working years in the mobile app space is that users are surprisingly conscious of data & disk usage. Not everyone has unlimited data or 128GB storage iPhones.
For example, I assume if you tested apps sized 0mb-200mb, the data does not extrapolate as far as Hearthstone, which clocks in at a sizeable 1.2gb!
According to Wikipedia, segment.com's sole purpose is to aggregate data for marketing and advertising. Not a company I want to give page views to.
This seems like a very "woo woo" theory, because few users know how big their apps are, or what a "good" size or a "bad" size for a particular app is. So, let's assume Segment is right and there's a causal relationship between app size and downloads. What am I missing?
User has device at 95% capacity. User tries to download app. If the app is under lets say 40mb, it installs. If app is over 40mb, user gets "please make room for app" alert. User loses interest, app is not installed. I know I have done this before, has anyone else?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
@CharlesW we mostly focused on the facts and running as controlled of an experiment as possible without bias or drawing conclusion on exactly why heavier apps get downloaded less. Though my personal guess from working years in the mobile app space is that users are surprisingly conscious of data & disk usage. Not everyone has unlimited data or 128GB storage iPhones.
Can you disclose what the limits of that experiment are, and highlight on the website when they are exceeded? For example, I assume if you tested apps sized 0mb-200mb, the data does not extrapolate as far as Hearthstone, which clocks in at a sizeable 1.2gb!