Developer of bestselling iPhone app says just 5% of buyers opt for in-app purchases
TapTapTap, the developer of the popular photography app "Camera+" for iPhone, revealed sales figures for the app on Tuesday, noting that just 5 percent of customers take advantage of the app's in-app purchases, while more than half the installed base updated to free upgrades within just 6 days of the update's release.
Tap Tap Tap head John Casasanta revealed the numbers in a post to the company's blog commemorating 2 million sales of the Camera+ application. Casasanta noted that reaching the second million in sales took just under three months.
"The one thing you learn to count on as an iPhone app developer is not to count on future sales based on past performance," he said, adding that "[the company's] fortune could change in a heartbeat."
Casasanta challenged reports that mobile apps are "quickly discarded" by using data showing that half of the purchasers of Camera+ upgraded to version 2.2 of the app within 6 days of the update's release.
He also cautioned developers from relying too heavily on income from in-app purchases. The $.99 "I (heart) Analog" effects pack included with Camera+ 2 sells to just 5 percent of purchasers on a given day. Casasanta admitted that a total of roughly $70,000 in income from the in-app purchase over a four and a half month period is "absolutely nothing to sneeze at," but also asserted that "it's very unlikely that this can be an effective business model."
Apple pulled the initial version of Camera+ from the App Store last year over violations to the company's developer agreement terms. The app contained a hidden 'easter egg' feature allowed users to remap the volume control buttons as shutter buttons.
TapTapTap had tried to include the feature officially, but Apple rejected it on the grounds that a volume shutter button could result in "user confusion." As a result, the developer included it as a hidden feature and revealing an activation URL via its official Twitter account. Apple promptly responded by removing the app from the App Store.
Four months later, the developer released an updated "Camera+ 2" with more than 50 new features, though the physical shutter button feature was noticeably absent.
Tap Tap Tap head John Casasanta revealed the numbers in a post to the company's blog commemorating 2 million sales of the Camera+ application. Casasanta noted that reaching the second million in sales took just under three months.
"The one thing you learn to count on as an iPhone app developer is not to count on future sales based on past performance," he said, adding that "[the company's] fortune could change in a heartbeat."
Casasanta challenged reports that mobile apps are "quickly discarded" by using data showing that half of the purchasers of Camera+ upgraded to version 2.2 of the app within 6 days of the update's release.
He also cautioned developers from relying too heavily on income from in-app purchases. The $.99 "I (heart) Analog" effects pack included with Camera+ 2 sells to just 5 percent of purchasers on a given day. Casasanta admitted that a total of roughly $70,000 in income from the in-app purchase over a four and a half month period is "absolutely nothing to sneeze at," but also asserted that "it's very unlikely that this can be an effective business model."
Apple pulled the initial version of Camera+ from the App Store last year over violations to the company's developer agreement terms. The app contained a hidden 'easter egg' feature allowed users to remap the volume control buttons as shutter buttons.
TapTapTap had tried to include the feature officially, but Apple rejected it on the grounds that a volume shutter button could result in "user confusion." As a result, the developer included it as a hidden feature and revealing an activation URL via its official Twitter account. Apple promptly responded by removing the app from the App Store.
Four months later, the developer released an updated "Camera+ 2" with more than 50 new features, though the physical shutter button feature was noticeably absent.
Comments
Be that as it may, it is both interesting and helpful to see these specific figures and numbers from this well known developer.
Thank you for this article!
I get about 5% in my apps, and I'm pretty pleased with that.
- For a while, I didn't even know that there was anything to purchase in-app.
- What the heck is, "I (heart) Analog"???
There's no description. What does it do for me, and why should I even bother to buy it? 
(Obviously, I don't use very many features of Camera+, as my main interest is the image stabilization.)
- I'm clueless. No clue == No sale.
Now, it's certainly possible -- maybe even highly likely -- that there is a good description somewhere, and that I'm blind and dumb. However, if the developer isn't going to do any marketing, he can't expect high sales.but 5% conversion rate is pretty impressive.
if an app is free, it is not selling, therefore it is not the bestSELLING app. however, the writer of this article may ask hippstamatic how many people used in app purchase. i am sure it is WAY MORE than buyers of the boring camera+ app.
i have to agree with bodypainter... i am using hipstamatic and swanko lab and purchased all of the in-apps they have introduced...
Camera+ on the other hand would not be a good candidate for in-app purchases... though if they were able to have the "volume button shutter" approved and have it as an in-app they might be over the 5%..
1% buy rate = 1.5 million
5% in app buy = 75k
These are not awful figures
I have bought in app and I haven't. It depends on the percieved value / rudeness. Adobe asking "big" dollars for a noise filter in PSE or layers in Ideas for example no chance, no value to me (considering limited draw options in ideas or already containing what I want PSE) and rude, bit expensive.
It may be that only 5% of camera+ users are aware of the option and want to make their photos look "cute"
TapTapTap, the developer of the popular photography app "Camera+" for iPhone, revealed sales figures for the app on Tuesday, noting that just 5 percent of customers take advantage of the app's in-app purchases[...]
I guess all depends on the in-app purchase you make. I for one have purchased the Mighty Eagle in Angry Birds and I doubt that only 5% of the AB users have purchased the ME. So it all boils down to what the purchase delivers you. An I 'heart' analogue feature, adding extra noise to your already noisy pictures might just simply not have the appeal...
As a purchaser of Camera+, here are my two cents:
- For a while, I didn't even know that there was anything to purchase in-app.
- What the heck is, "I (heart) Analog"???
There's no description. What does it do for me, and why should I even bother to buy it? 
(Obviously, I don't use very many features of Camera+, as my main interest is the image stabilization.)
- I'm clueless. No clue == No sale.
Now, it's certainly possible -- maybe even highly likely -- that there is a good description somewhere, and that I'm blind and dumb. However, if the developer isn't going to do any marketing, he can't expect high sales.Well there's an interesting thing, I had no idea there were any in-app purchases until I saw this.
I've just checked it to see where they are, and I cannot even find them.
I'm on the latest version, and I upgraded recently after seeing the info on that clever non-HDR HDR thing with the fancy name the put out recently. I can't find that either. Perhaps it's an in-app purchase?
I think that these guys might not want to jump to too many conclusions about purchasers habits, when there is every chance that only a small percentage of people are even aware of the options.
Seriously, where do I find these things?
It's really not that bad. Better than NOT having that 5%.
And I must admit, I am one of the people that owns this app and I bought the extra "I
But on the flip side, you don't want to nickel and dime your user base to death by making them pay for everything. It's a tough balance.
As a purchaser of Camera+, here are my two cents:
- For a while, I didn't even know that there was anything to purchase in-app.
- What the heck is, "I (heart) Analog"???
There's no description. What does it do for me, and why should I even bother to buy it? 
(Obviously, I don't use very many features of Camera+, as my main interest is the image stabilization.)
- I'm clueless. No clue == No sale.
Now, it's certainly possible -- maybe even highly likely -- that there is a good description somewhere, and that I'm blind and dumb. However, if the developer isn't going to do any marketing, he can't expect high sales.Agreed. I don't think 5% is typical for all apps. That rate would be lower for some apps and much higher for others. The in-app purchase is for 9 new filters, all of which aren't THAT different from the ones already included or that can be created in other photo apps. The perceived value for the nine new filters isn't high enough for most people to warrant the purchase. If it included more filters and more borders then I could see more people purchasing it.
if an app is free, it is not selling, therefore it is not the bestSELLING app. however, the writer of this article may ask hippstamatic how many people used in app purchase. i am sure it is WAY MORE than buyers of the boring camera+ app.
Camera+ isn't a free app. It costs 99 cents to download. The in-app purchase costs another 99 cents.
I also never understood the appeal of Hipstamatic. For many pictures, you have but one shot at getting a good photo -- I'd rather take a normal picture and add the effects afterwards rather than having a funky picture that can't be "undone" so that other effects can be applied (at least that's how it worked last time I checked, if I could add the effects afterwards and to older pictures I'd totally give Hipstamatic a shot).
"just 5%" !!! thats a pretty big percentage in marketing which is often used to 1% or less response rate.
I get about 5% in my apps, and I'm pretty pleased with that.
I am getting about the same percent for my app. The interesting thing is that I have developed app "A" then few months later I developed app "B" with the ability to add the exact features of app "A" to app "B" using IAP for the same price as app "A". The reason I did that is because I didn't want to charge "A"+"B" for app "B" this way those who already have "A" don't have to pay for something they already paid for. I have noticed that app "A" & "B" are selling almost the same numbers. I have also noticed that in most cases people buy the app instead of adding the feature using IAP. I tried making the IAP more visible but that didn't help. It is interesting.
I also never understood the appeal of Hipstamatic. For many pictures, you have but one shot at getting a good photo -- I'd rather take a normal picture and add the effects afterwards rather than having a funky picture that can't be "undone" so that other effects can be applied (at least that's how it worked last time I checked, if I could add the effects afterwards and to older pictures I'd totally give Hipstamatic a shot).
Agree completely. Someone must be crazy, uncaring or just ignorant to alter (I would say damage) their original digital photo just to add an effect. Your digital photo files are just like negatives. Lose, damage or alter the negative (or digital file) and the ability to make a reproduction of the original scene is forever gone.
"just 5%" !!! thats a pretty big percentage in marketing which is often used to 1% or less response rate.
I get about 5% in my apps, and I'm pretty pleased with that.
Yeah I know right? And besides, what were they including in that $0.99 purchase? A few features? Why would a developer expect people to pay for a few features at a price that other developers sell entire apps at? I say if you want to sell in-app purchases, since the lowest price they can be is $0.99, make them substantial. If the user can see they're going to get as much content as a typical $0.99 app then they'll buy.
I would not put much stock in any update statistics.
I am getting about the same percent for my app. The interesting thing is that I have developed app "A" then few months later I developed app "B" with the ability to add the exact features of app "A" to app "B" using IAP for the same price as app "A". The reason I did that is because I didn't want to charge "A"+"B" for app "B" this way those who already have "A" don't have to pay for something they already paid for. I have noticed that app "A" & "B" are selling almost the same numbers. I have also noticed that in most cases people buy the app instead of adding the feature using IAP. I tried making the IAP more visible but that didn't help. It is interesting.
Did you try having the in app purchase available for a time while app B was not? Maybe it's cannibalizing?