Games Are Most Popular ARKit-Only Apps, Accounting for 62% of ARKit App Revenue

[MacRumors]

Apps that use the ARKit framework Apple introduced in iOS 11 have been installed 3 million times around the world since September 19, according to new data shared today by analytics firm Sensor Tower (via TechCrunch).

Many of the ARKit-only apps that are available are games, accounting for 35 percent of ARKit apps worldwide. ARKit-only apps include those that are built entirely around the new ARKit technology, rather than apps that have added some ARKit features.

Utilities are the second most popular ARKit category, accounting for 19 percent of apps, while 11 percent of ARKit apps are in the Entertainment category and 7 percent are in the Education category.

Many of the top ARKit-only apps are games, with four games among the top five highest-grossing ARKit apps. Titles like AR Dragon, Zombie Gunship Revenant, The Machines, and Monster Park -- Dino World have proven to be the most popular AR games with consumers.

Games have accounted for a total of 53 percent of all ARKit-only app downloads and 62 percent of ARKit app revenue since the launch of ARKit.

With games taken out of the top app listings, apps that allow users to measure 3D spaces or demo furniture are some of the top performers. Among free apps, IKEA Place, the furniture app from IKEA that lets consumers see products in their homes before purchasing, is one of the more popular apps.

Sensor Tower's data covers only apps that are primarily focused on the augmented reality experience and it did not take into account apps that offer limited ARKit content like photo modes or mini games.

When iOS 11 launched on September 19, ARKit became the largest augmented reality platform in the world thanks to the huge number of iPhones and iPads out in the wild.

Apple CEO Tim Cook just this week said augmented reality may not be huge right now, but that it will experience a "dramatic" climb to take over the world much like the App Store did when it was first launched.

Article Link: Games Are Most Popular ARKit-Only Apps, Accounting for 62% of ARKit App Revenue

 

[symphony]

I duct taped two iPhones with a makeshift VR goggles and created a lame offset AR goggles

 

[MH01]

Makes sense. Devs want the next Pokemon ...

 

[OldSchoolMacGuy]

Is it surprising games are the most popular? Games are the most popular non-AR apps too.

 

[Avieshek]

I prefer the graphics of Infinity Blade III than some AR game OF Pokémon, Digimon, Jigglypuff.

 

[840quadra]

I originally discounted this as being relatively useless technology. I know there is a lot of complex calculations and machine learning behind the scenes, just felt like a solution to a problem we don’t yet have.

That said, I have finally used an ARKit app to help diagram a structure / and some bollards at work. I tried it out as more of a toy, but came away impressed with how well the phone (iPhone 7) could track it’s location, keeping the structure in the same spot on the ground.

I am not that interested in games, but would love to see more productivity development, and, this technology put into a wearable or something a bit more immersive than holding up a screen.

 

[Applebot1]

I think games will always be the most popular use of AR followed by navigation type apps. Great potential but for me the true power comes when it’s incorparated into wearables and even vehicles.

 

[9594864]

I think games will always be the most popular use of AR followed by navigation type apps. Great potential but for me the true power comes when it’s incorparated into wearables and even vehicles.

There will never be a mass market wearable for AR like glasses. People won’t buy that and wear it. That’s just a fact.

You’ll likely see stores like Wal-Mart integrate AR mapping in the app so you can follow arrows on the display to quickly find a particular product in the store. As for other things, devices will need hardware for, like LIDAR systems and dot projection stuff so the computer can tell you what things in your environment are because it can see them as opposed to trying to describe things in 2D which is what they currently do, and why they can’t, because 2D is astronomically more difficult because it gives the computer far less data to ascertain what the object is.

 

[linkmaster02]

There will never be a mass market wearable for AR like glasses. People won’t buy that and wear it. That’s just a fact.

Oh boy, I really hope MacRumors is still around years from now when AR wearables are as common as mobile phones are now! I'll make sure to remind you of this absurd comment
[doublepost=1507840028][/doublepost]

I prefer the graphics of Infinity Blade III than some AR game OF Pokémon, Digimon, Jigglypuff.

In case you don't know, the only AR portion of Pokemon GO is the catching screen, so classifying it as an AR game when comparing graphics is not really a fair comparison.

I think there is a common misconception that Pokemon GO is the next evolution of AR games, but the reality is that only a part of it uses AR (and it's extremely minimal when it does).

 

[HJM.NL]

Anyone already used some AR-app? What’s your impression? I hear Cook talk about it as something you can’t life without so I’m curious about real life experience... let me know. I’m curious

 

[djlythium]

YuMe is really good!

 

[itsmilo]

Makes sense. Devs want the next Pokemon ...

No one uses the AR part of the game. The devs even admitted it

 

[BigJohno]

Meh, AR apps are not there yet. I will give it a year and make my final decision but as of the apps now they feel gimmicky. I can see the potential in the future though.

 

[ackmondual]

Is it surprising games are the most popular? Games are the most popular non-AR apps too.

Seeing a spreadsheet with AR annotated notes hasn't quite caught on yet

 

[9594864]

Oh boy, I really hope MacRumors is still around years from now when AR wearables are as common as mobile phones are now! I'll make sure to remind you of this absurd comment
[doublepost=1507840028][/doublepost]
In case you don't know, the only AR portion of Pokemon GO is the catching screen, so classifying it as an AR game when comparing graphics is not really a fair comparison.

I think there is a common misconception that Pokemon GO is the next evolution of AR games, but the reality is that only a part of it uses AR (and it's extremely minimal when it does).

It’s honestly priceless that you (and others), believe that over 1 billion humans will put glasses on every day. AR glasses will happen, but they’ll be worn by virtually no one, and comparatively it will be a fraction of how many smartwatches will sell. They have great possibilities, but that is irrelevant as people will not put them on, it’s just not something that will happen in this universe. It’s a great concept, but it ends there.

The first time the planet Earth will see masses of intelligent beings experiencing hands-free AR—that isn’t in a car or plane or on a professional visor—will be when we can physically manipulate vision neurons to perceive information that isn’t captured by the eye, but rather, augmenting that information.

 

[GadgetBen]

I contemplated developing an AR game but wasn’t sure what the take up would be like. I’d need to see hard sales figures for the top ten since September 19.

 

[Williesleg]

It's funny, I go to the Apple store and none of those apps are installed on any iPhones.

No AR whatsoever. So apparently it doesn't work well on the iPhone 8.

 

[flofixer]

It’s honestly priceless that you (and others), believe that over 1 billion humans will put glasses on every day. AR glasses will happen, but they’ll be worn by virtually no one, and comparatively it will be a fraction of how many smartwatches will sell. They have great possibilities, but that is irrelevant as people will not put them on, it’s just not something that will happen in this universe. It’s a great concept, but it ends there.

The first time the planet Earth will see masses of intelligent beings experiencing hands-free AR—that isn’t in a car or plane or on a professional visor—will be when we can physically manipulate vision neurons to perceive information that isn’t captured by the eye, but rather, augmenting that information.

That may be a short sighted (no pun intended) remark. You need to allow for the possibility of a "killer app" being developed sometime in the future that would work best with glasses. Look at how many people put sunglasses on every day, although for a completely different reason. But it counters the implication that there will be this great aversion for humans to put on glasses if there may be a worthwhile reason to.

 

[robjulo]

ARKit apps will end up being nothing more than a useless collection of parlor tricks.

 

[Analog Kid]

It’s honestly priceless that you (and others), believe that over 1 billion humans will put glasses on every day. AR glasses will happen, but they’ll be worn by virtually no one, and comparatively it will be a fraction of how many smartwatches will sell. They have great possibilities, but that is irrelevant as people will not put them on, it’s just not something that will happen in this universe. It’s a great concept, but it ends there.

The first time the planet Earth will see masses of intelligent beings experiencing hands-free AR—that isn’t in a car or plane or on a professional visor—will be when we can physically manipulate vision neurons to perceive information that isn’t captured by the eye, but rather, augmenting that information.

I don't think it's going to happen tomorrow, but I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility. 20 years ago, would we have thought a billion humans would carry $1000 computers in their pocket to make phone calls and share instant pictures of their tiramisu with friends?

People already wear sunglasses. A lot of people wear prescription glasses. We're used to that as an accessory. Is it such a stretch that people would want to stop carrying a glass slab in their pocket and choose to integrate that functionality and an improved display into their eyewear?

Just because Google Glass tanked, doesn't necessarily mean the concept is busted-- it might mean we haven't found the right hardware/use case combination. A variety of styles for something you put on your face is probably part of the winning strategy, for example...

 

[EdT]

Seeing a 3D representation of something on a 2D screen that can keep itself anchored in space is an impressive feat of technology and software but I think even for games it will be short lived. I don’t need a maze or castle or dungeon that appears on my table or floor, and this is what most of the demo games that I’ve seen are an offshoot from. Maybe if you could share that game world with other players in real-time, so things that they build/cause/suffer the consequences from become obstacles in your world as well that might be fun but honestly that would just be a glorified Nintendo Kart race. I’ve seen a lot of 3D movies and all but 5 or 6 weren’t worth it. I think that unless some killer app-not necessarily a game- becomes popular then this is also going to be something like 3D that lives in the margins, not gone but not terribly popular either.

 

[mlody]

Games are something does not interest me and neither is AR. Not that I do not like games, but because of the in-app purchase crap. It makes me sick when I see crappy games that cost more to play than full fledge games for PC or XBOX when one pay $40-60 and can most of the time play without any limits or extras costing more $.

 

[Kaibelf]

There will never be a mass market wearable for AR like glasses. People won’t buy that and wear it. That’s just a fact.

You’ll likely see stores like Wal-Mart integrate AR mapping in the app so you can follow arrows on the display to quickly find a particular product in the store. As for other things, devices will need hardware for, like LIDAR systems and dot projection stuff so the computer can tell you what things in your environment are because it can see them as opposed to trying to describe things in 2D which is what they currently do, and why they can’t, because 2D is astronomically more difficult because it gives the computer far less data to ascertain what the object is.

If we get to the point that AR features could be integrated into normal looking eyewear then I suspect someone will create an item people will buy. Never say never.

 

[9594864]

That may be a short sighted (no pun intended) remark. You need to allow for the possibility of a "killer app" being developed sometime in the future that would work best with glasses. Look at how many people put sunglasses on every day, although for a completely different reason. But it counters the implication that there will be this great aversion for humans to put on glasses if there may be a worthwhile reason to.

Nope. I know many great reasons why it would be an amazing device for humans, but it’s not a device that humans will use for multiple reasons, but the main reason being a sociological aversion to using them. Other reasons include the discomfort of placing a device just as glasses are, on the head, an inconvenience of another device, the expense and fragility, the inability to block sunlight while wearing these as other lens or versions would be required, and the list goes on and on.

You can simply mark AR glasses as a cool concept that won’t be that next big thing some people expect. It’s ease to suggest what might be big, it’s much harder to deeply reason why it won’t be, and isn’t a profound idea.

 

[mi7chy]

Adoption rate looks really low judging by the # of ratings since Apple doesn't publish # of downloads.

iOS Highest paid
TapMeasure 221 ratings

iOS Highest free
AR Dragon 999 ratings