Users Issues in using the Internet of Things Systems

02/18/2019 ∙ by Andrew Truelove, et al. ∙ 0

Internet of Things (IoT) systems are bundles of networked sensors and actuators that are deployed in an environment and act upon the sensory data that they receive. These systems, especially consumer electronics, have two main cooperating components: a device and a mobile app. The unique combination of hardware and software in IoT systems presents challenges that are lesser known to mainstream software developers and might require innovative solutions to support the development and integration of such systems. In this paper, we analyze the more than 90,000 reviews of ten IoT devices and their corresponding apps and extract the issues that users encountered in using these systems. Our results indicate that issues with connectivity, timing, and update are particularly prevalent in the reviews. Our results call for a new software-hardware development framework to assist the development of reliable IoT systems.



There are no comments yet.


page 1

page 2

page 3

page 4

This week in AI

Get the week's most popular data science and artificial intelligence research sent straight to your inbox every Saturday.

I Introduction

Internet of Things systems (IoT) are sets of interconnected sensors and actuators that potentially backed and managed by servers on the Internet. These systems are becoming part of “smart” solutions to the everyday life of users. For example, traditional thermostat, a solution for controlling the room temperature, can be replaced by smart thermostat that can extract the users’ preferences and can be controlled remotely.

Despite the popularity of IoT solutions, the development of such systems still seems to a form of art, and the potential issues facing users are largely unknown. A systematic identification of problems would enable researchers to devise tools, techniques, and frameworks to support effective development of such systems. In this paper, we use the users review on Amazon and Google marketplaces to elicit the issues in IoT systems. We particularly focus on IoT consumer electronics that are used by home users. Most consumer electronics have two main components: a physical device, and a mobile app. Marketplaces such as and app stores allow users to leave reviews about devices and the mobile apps.

In this paper, we analyze over 90,000 reviews from ten IoT consumer electronic systems to understand what are the common issues that users are facing. We evaluate all reviews from January to mid-October 2018 for ten popular devices from and their corresponding Android apps from Google Play. Our results indicate that issues with connectivity, timing, and update are particularly prevalent in the reviews. The results call for new software-hardware development framework to assist development of reliable IoT systems.

Contributions. This paper makes the following contributions.

  • We identify technical issues in ten consumer IoT systems by analyzing users reviews on Amazon and Google Play.

  • We make data and analysis code available.

Ii Related Work

There is a large body of work in analyzing users’ reviews to elicit the issues in software systems. To the best of our knowledge, extracting users’ issues in IoT technology, at least in the form of consumer electronics, have not been explored.

Atrozi et al. [4] survey the definitions, architecture, fundamental technologies, and applications of the Internet of Things. They note that IoT has been deployed in the area of mobile apps and that mobile devices will expand the IoT market as they continue to develop. Alur et al. [3] provide a list of challenges in development of IoT systems. Fu et al. [7] report the potential safety and security issues in IoT systems.

Iii Method

In this section, we first describe the data selection and characteristics of the review data used in this study.

Iii-a Characteristics of Data

Table I lists the IoT systems (Devices and their corresponding apps) used in this study. These systems encompass a wide domain including conversational assistants, thermostats, electronic locks, and tracking devices. The price of the devices ranged from about $25 to $200 at the time of writing.Six of these systems were used in a previous study of IoT apps by Kaaz et al.  [12], and the remaining four systems are based on a Google search for popular IoT apps. For each system, we found device on and the corresponding app on Google Play. We note that for some of the devices there are multiple versions of the products on Amazon website. In such cases, we chose the ones which had more reviews.

First Row: Name of App
Second Row: Name of Device
Amazon Alexa
Amazon Echo Dot (2nd Gen)
A virtual assistant. App connects to a variety of devices with speakers and microphones that allows the user to interface with the service.
ecobee4 Smart Thermostat
Connects to a thermostat that can be controlled by the app.
Google Home
Google WiFi System, 1-Pack
A virtual assistant. App connects to a variety of devices with speakers and microphones that allows the user to interface with the service.
Insteon for Hub
Insteon Hub
Connects to a hub device that, in turn, connects to a number of other Insteon devices, including light switches, lamps, and security camera. Through the hub, the user can control all connected devices with the app.
Kevo Lock (2nd Gen)
Connects to a door lock that can be installed in the user’s door. Lock can be controlled with the app.
Nest T3007ES Thermostat
Connects to a thermostat that can be controlled by the app.
Philips Hue
Philips Hue Starter Kit
Connects to light bulbs whose intensity and color are controlled by the app.
SmartThings (Samsung Connect)
SmartThingsSmart Home Hub
Connects to a variety of Samsung-branded devices. These devices can be controlled through the app.
Tile Mate
Connects to a small, square-shaped device that can be attached to a number of personal belongings. The device connects to the internet, allowing its location to be tracked through the app.
WeMo Mini Smart Plug
Connects to a number of WeMo-branded devices, including cameras, light bulbs, and electrical plugs. These devices can be controlled through the app.
TABLE I: IoT Devices and Applications Used in this Study

For each system, we extracted the reviews from the Amazon website and the corresponding app reviews from the Google Play Store. We collected reviews that were posted during a 10-month period starting from the beginning of January 2018 to mid-October of the same year.

System Total Review Length (char)
Min. 25% 50% 75% Max
Amazon Alexa App Reviews 5,785 1 18 56 135 2,027
Device Reviews 54,289 3 44 92 192 7,632
ecobee App Reviews 917 4 68 133 229 1,572
Device Reviews 598 14 148.8 336.5 644 12,390
Google Home App Reviews 7,051 2 26 73 157 1,996
Device Reviews 1,859 9 102 240 468 9,526
Insteon App Reviews 70 7 71.5 118.5 264.8 532
Device Reviews 121 19 113 316 621 2,232
Kevo App Reviews 461 3 33 93 206 1,724
Device Reviews 296 15 154.8 337 719.2 5,016
Nest App Reviews 1,798 3 61 135 242 1,877
Device Reviews 1,431 9 83.5 210 462 5,139
Philips Hue App Reviews 1,231 3 64 137 248 1,553
Device Reviews 667 9 69 146 303.5 4,833
SmartThings App Reviews 9,973 2 18 58 139 2,662
Device Reviews 417 7 89 214 487 3,998
Tile App Reviews 1,480 2 34 90.5 194 1,718
Device Reviews 2,149 7 62 137 256 3,209
WeMo App Reviews 3,177 2 40 85 177 1,833
Device Reviews 2,013 5 100 215 385 7,841
TABLE II: Characteristics of Reviews Considered in this Study

Table II shows statistics about the number and length of reviews for products and apps. The table provides some noteworthy insights. For instance, with all IoT systems, the maximum review length was always higher in the device reviews than in the app reviews. It is possible that Amazon allows a higher character limit in its reviews than the Google Play Store. Moreover, users have to use a mobile phone to enter the app reviews, but they can use computers for leaving reviews for the devices on Amazon. Typing on a computer can be easier for many users than on phones.

For seven out of ten systems, more reviews were collected from the Google Play Store than Amazon. The three exceptions to this pattern are Amazon Alexa, Insteon, and Tile. With Amazon Alexa, this could be explained by the fact that Amazon is both the creator of the device and the curator of the storefront. As a first-party product, the Echo Dot likely receives some level of favoritism, likely expressed through increased promotion on the web site. This promotion could lead to more purchases and ultimately, more reviews. This favoritism may also explain why the Google Home app received so many more reviews than the Google Home device. The reason Insteon is an exception is probably due to the fact that it received fewer reviews overall. There is only a difference of 51 reviews between the app reviews and the device reviews. If Insteon had received more reviews during the time frame studied, the number of reviews may have more closely matched the pattern of the other systems. With Tile, no explanation for its anomalous behavior is immediately apparent. It is worth noting that Tile, as an IoT system, is fairly unique out of all the systems studied. These facts will be explored in more depth and explained in detail in the later sections of the paper.

Iii-B Topic Modeling

We used Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) to identify the most important topics users feel most strongly about [8]. By creating topics from the text of these reviews, it is possible, that some topics will be comprised of words that speak to a component of the app or device that users are complaining about. For example, if a topic contains the words “bad”, “battery”, and “drain”, then we could infer that complaints about battery life are a significant topic in the user reviews. We used Gensim library [1] with the default configurations to generate a list of topics. For each review, we used LDA to generate three topics and return the ten words for each topic that contributed the most to that topic.

Iv Issues mentioned in IoT System Reviews

This section describes the result of analysis of users reviews for the systems in our study. For each IoT system, we generated three topics made up of ten words. Our results listed these ten words in the order of how much they contributed to that topic. For brevity, we discuss the analysis of two systems in details here, and we add the results of the topics discussed in the reviews of other systems in Appendix -A.

Tables III and IV depict the words for each topic for the Amazon Alexa and SmartThings apps. Tables V and VI display the topics for the corresponding devices. Beside each word is a number from 0 to 1 that reflects the magnitude at which that word contributed to the topic. When it comes to interpreting the LDA results, it was clear some words in a list appeared to be more important than others. Determining the usefulness of a word was based on a combination of its position in the list and the magnitude value the word had been assigned. A higher magnitude means a word contributed to the topic more strongly, meaning it is likely to be more integral in identifying the topic created by the LDA. At the same time, each topic list spans a different range of values between the magnitude of the first word and the magnitude of the tenth word. In some cases, the final few words had magnitudes so low to appear almost negligible, but in other cases, the final words carried magnitudes not all that lower than the value for the first word in that list.

For example, in Table V, the eighth word in Topic 3 is “christmas”, which has a magnitude of 0.017. Though its position near the end of the list means this word may be one of the least important words in Topic 3, its impact is not entirely negligible. Compare the magnitude value of “christmas” in Topic 3 to the magnitudes found in Topic 1. The only word in Topic 1 with a magnitude higher than 0.017 is the first word, “speaker”, which has a magnitude value of 0.021. Every word following has a lower magnitude value than “christmas”. This means that “christmas” had more of an impact on its topic than nine of the ten words listed for Topic 1. This would suggest that the magnitude values of each word relative to the other magnitude values in the same topic carry more importance than the absolute position in any list.

If an IoT system is receiving significantly different rating distributions from the app store page and device store page, perhaps the kinds of topics generated from the app reviews and the device reviews may illustrate why.

Iv-a Apps vs. Device

In a very general sense, the topics for the apps had more instances of words with negative sentiment than the topics for the devices. Though there are plenty of positive words in both the app and device topics, when a negative word like slow, bad, waste, or useless does appear, it seems to be more likely to be in an app review topic. Additionally, words such as control and connect appear more prominently in the app review topics, which may be an indicator of what issues users are running into when suing the app. The word update is particularly common in the app review topics.

Observation 1: Topics for the apps had more instances of words with negative sentiment than the topics for the devices.

As an example, none of the topics for the SmartThings Hub device contain any significantly negative language (Table VI). The only instance of somewhat negative language comes from a single appearance of the word issue in Topic 3, and even then, the word has a fairly low magnitude value of 0.006. Meanwhile, the topics for the SmartThings app (Table IV) contain significantly more negative language, particularly in Topic 2, where words like uninstall, bloatware, remove, and delete are all found. The presence of the words permission and update in this topic suggest that something about the SmartThings app’s permission requirements and updates is being associated with users wanting to remove the app from their device.

Overall, the observations that can be made from these LDA results are fairly general. There are exceptions to the general observations identified above; some negative words do appear in topics for the device reviews, for example. Though the topics provide some guidance as to what kinds of issues users of the apps are facing, it may be possible to refine the results to make these issues more apparent. We decided to see if running an LDA specifically on the app reviews that came with a low star rating might provide more helpful information.

Topic 1 Words Topic 1 Magnitude Topic 2 Words Topic 2 Magnitude Topic 3 Words Topic 3 Magnitude
good 0.037 love 0.021 connect 0.018
music 0.026 device 0.018 time 0.016
play 0.019 update 0.016 wifi 0.015
great 0.015 slow 0.013 phone 0.014
nice 0.011 home 0.011 keep 0.013
amazing 0.008 list 0.010 update 0.012
control 0.008 awesome 0.007 android 0.009
song 0.007 take 0.007 device 0.009
voice 0.006 please 0.007 tried 0.008
time 0.006 phone 0.007 best 0.008
TABLE III: Amazon Alexa App LDA Topics
Topic 1 Words Topic 1 Magnitude Topic 2 Words Topic 2 Magnitude Topic 3 Words Topic 3 Magnitude
great 0.035 phone 0.036 tv 0.044
love 0.024 uninstall 0.030 connect 0.028
smartthings 0.023 permission 0.019 good 0.026
device 0.022 update 0.015 device 0.020
easy 0.016 bloatware 0.015 phone 0.017
home 0.014 disable 0.014 smart 0.015
smart 0.013 apps 0.014 time 0.013
classic 0.013 remove 0.012 bluetooth 0.011
useful 0.011 device 0.011 update 0.011
awesome 0.009 delete 0.011 remote 0.009
Topic 1 Summary:
Ease of Use
Topic 2 Summary:
Desire to Remove App
from Device
Topic 3 Summary:
Connecting Phone with
TABLE IV: SmartThings App LDA Topics
Topic 1 Topic 1 Magnitude Topic 2 Topic 2 Magnitude Topic 3 Topic 3 Magnitude
speaker 0.021 music 0.045 love 0.139
device 0.016 play 0.025 great 0.084
sound 0.016 fun 0.024 easy 0.032
good 0.015 question 0.019 gift 0.023
home 0.011 ask 0.017 product 0.020
smart 0.010 weather 0.015 bought 0.020
better 0.009 thing 0.015 room 0.017
time 0.008 time 0.013 christmas 0.017
voice 0.008 answer 0.013 house 0.015
quality 0.007 know 0.013 family 0.012
Topic 1 Summary:
Good Sound Quality
Topic 2 Summary:
Capbility of Features
Topic 3 Summary:
Good Gift for Family
TABLE V: Amazon Echo Dot LDA Topics
Topic 1 Words Topic 1 Magnitude Topic 2 Words Topic 2 Magnitude Topic 3 Words Topic 3 Magnitude
light 0.011 device 0.020 device 0.021
home 0.008 smartthings 0.016 smart 0.014
smart 0.007 home 0.010 home 0.013
time 0.006 product 0.009 new 0.007
smartthings 0.006 light 0.009 easy 0.007
lock 0.005 time 0.008 smartthings 0.007
sensor 0.005 smart 0.008 issue 0.006
product 0.005 support 0.007 automation 0.005
device 0.005 zwave 0.007 control 0.005
back 0.004 great 0.007 phone 0.005
TABLE VI: SmartThings Hub LDA Topics

Iv-B Issues in low-rated systems

We filtered the app reviews so only reviews that had a minimal 1-star rating were left in the text. The goal behind running the LDA on only the 1-star reviews was to see if it was possible to identify the aspects of the app and devices that were leaving users with a negative impression. As such, we did not focus on words dealing with sentiment or emotion. Instead, we looked at words related to the functionality and features of the apps and devices. Table VII shows some of the noteworthy words that appeared in the topics for each app and Table VIII shows the same for device when LDA looked only at the 1-star reviews. These are words that had high magnitude values or that appeared in multiple topics.

Going over all the topics, a handful of relevant words seemed to appear with a greater frequency than others in the apps. For example, for all apps except for Kevo, at least one topic contained either the word “connect” or “connection”. The prevalence of these words suggests that users of these apps have experienced some issue with connecting their phone to another device or network. The frequency in which “connect” and “connection” appears can mean that these connection issues are perhaps a greater source of frustration for users of IoT apps in general. Another noteworthy word was update. This word appeared in topics for all apps except for Insteon for Hub and Tile. It is important to note that the context for this word may not be the same in every appearance in the tables. For example, it is possible that some topics use “update”, because an update was the source of a problem. It is also possible that the word appears in the context of users requesting an update to fix a problem with the app. However, the prevalence of the word does indicate that updates are an important part of app development and care should be taken in determining how they are implemented.

Home was another common word that appeared for six apps. With Google Home, this is not all that surprising, since home is part of the app’s name. As for the other apps, the frequency of the word might suggest that many of these apps are indeed utilized for personal, home use. Making sure that these apps remain suited to this kind of use is another important thing for developers to keep in mind.

The word that appeared with the greatest frequency, however, was “time”. This word appeared for all 10 apps; for most of the apps. With the exceptions of ecobee and Insteon, “time” actually appeared in at least two of the three topics for every app. Similar to “update”, “time” does not necessarily have a single meaning in every one of its appearances. For apps like Philips Hue, the word appears to refer to the user’s ability to configure through the app the time in which their light bulbs are set to turn on, turn off, change color, and so on. In these cases, the word “time” seems to relate more to scheduling functions of the app. In other cases, such as with Amazon Alexa, “time” appears in conjunction with words like “slow”. Here, “time” is used to refer more to the duration of a function. The word appears in at least one of these contexts for every app. The prevalence of the word suggests that issues involving time are also an important element of these low-rated reviews. Resolving issues involved with timing settings as well as working to reduce the duration of app functions appear to both be issues app developers may want to pay attention to.

Observation 2: Issues with connectivity, timing and update are prevalent in the reviews of apps.

In the 1-star rated device reviews, in addition to timing and connectivity issues were also promiminent. Anothe topic that seems to frustrate users in half of the devices is “support”. Closer investigation of term “support” in the reviews revealed that in Insteon this term is largely referring to the issue of discontiuation of support of certain device, e.g., “INSTEON has stopped supporting their first cameras”. In a fast-paced market such as IoT, abandaning of product might happen, but it is far from ideal. It indicates that the design of systems does not afford an efficient maintanence of the systems. Unsupported devices also known as zombie devices pose serious security, privacy and safety threats to the users [7] In ecobee, Google Home, Nest, , and Philips Hue, the term “support” was mostly refering to the customer support.

Observation 3: Issues with connectivity, timing, and support are prevalent in the reviews of the device.

System Words
1 2 3 4 5
Amazon Alexa hate device time update useless
ecobee update thermostat time internet connection
Google Home music chromecast time device update
Insteon device time find waste version
Kevo lock update door phone time
Nest camera thermostat update home time
Philips Hue light update bridge time connection
SmartThings phone permission uninstall access connect
Tile phone time find battery key
WeMo device time product switch update
TABLE VII: Prominent Words from LDA Topics of 1-Star App Reviews
System Words
1 2 3 4 5
Amazon Alexa time device star music sound
ecobee thermostat support product system temperature
Google Home wifi device router product support
Insteon support device customer sensor year
Kevo lock door phone time product
Nest thermostat support product time heat
Philips Hue bulb light bridge support turn
SmartThings product device home time new
Tile phone battery key time product
WeMo device switch connect smart time
TABLE VIII: Prominent Words from LDA Topics of 1-Star Device Reviews

V Discussion

The intent behind running topic modeling on the app and device reviews was to help identify those functions and features of the IoT system that appeared to be the most important to its users. After seeing the greater distribution of 1-star reviews in the apps compared to the devices, we were interested in discovering whether the LDA results would in particular help identify the characteristics of the apps that were causing users to leave negative reviews. The topics generated by the LDA from the full review texts provided fairly general information. Negative words appeared to be more common in the app review topics than in the device review topics, for example.

Running LDA on the 1-star app reviews only seemed to produce slightly more tangible results. Words like “time”, “update”, and “connect” were particularly frequent among these topics. Each of these words is related to different aspects of an app’s functionality that can be a focus for developers. Though it is likely that the process can be refined further to be more effective, the results suggest that topic modeling approaches such as LDA can be used to help identify issues users may be dealing with when using the app.

The three prominent issues of timing, connectivity, and update shed lights on some facets of IoT systems that are rarely encountered in developing mainstream software systems. Powerful processors, abundant memory, optimizing compilers have largely resolved the problem of timing and efficiency in the development of software. However, in systems that work on limited processing power and memory such as IoT devices and the mobile systems, efficiency has become an issue.

Moreover, fast, reliable networks with negligible latency is a given in the development of traditional software systems. It has been achieved by development of technologies and tools that reduce the latency of network connections; for example, nowadays, almost all cloud service providers automatically move the running instances of applications to data centers closer clients. It seems that we need new technologies to address this problem for IoT systems.

The problem of automatic update and backward compatibility in traditional software systems have been under investigation for many years. Nowadays, thanks to standardization of operating systems and protocols there are frameworks that strive to (almost) seamless update of software. For example, Android, Windows, and MacOS allow developers to update their applications using the corresponding app stores. However, update for IoT systems that a large portion of the hardware and protocols have not been standardized poses new challenges that require new tools and techniques.

Understanding issues and obstacles in operational IoT system allows us to devise techniques and tools to support effective development of these systems. We believe that analysis of user reveiews can contribute in better understanding of these systems by extracting first-hand experiences of users. We released the dataset and the source code of this study at to replicate the study and to facilitate further analysis of the reviews.

Vi Threats to Validity

There are the following main threats to the validity of this study. First, our analysis was small in scope, we only used relatively recent reviews of a small number of IoT systems in our study. We also included the reviews from the Google Play app store not other app stores. Although small in scope, we believe that this study will provide the first glimpse of the users’ issues in IoT systems. Second, we used LDA for topic modeling. It is known that LDA suffers from some limitations such as order effect [2]. To address these limitations, for given proposed words as topics, we manually checked the words to understand the intended meaning in the reviews and make sense of them.

Vii Conclusion

In this paper, we analyzed the reviews of ten IoT devices from Amazon and the corresponding apps from the Google Play Store. To the best of our knowledge, it is the first analysis of such systems. Our results suggest that (1) there are more negative topics in the mobile apps than the devices, and (2) efficiency, connectivity, and update seem to be prevalent issues in such systems. Our results call for the development of new tools and techniques to support practitioners to address these issues. We released the dataset and the source code of this study at to facilitate further analysis of the reviews.


  • [1] gensim: topic modelling for humans., 9 2018.
  • [2] Agrawal, A., Fu, W., and Menzies, T. What is wrong with topic modeling? and how to fix it using search-based software engineering. Information & Software Technology 98 (2018), 74–88.
  • [3] Alur, R., Berger, E., Drobnis, A. W., Fix, L., Fu, K., Hager, G. D., Lopresti, D., Nahrstedt, K., Mynatt, E., Patel, S., et al. Systems computing challenges in the internet of things. Computing Community Consortium (CCC) Technical Report (2016).
  • [4] Atzori, L., Iera, A., and Morabito, G. The internet of things: A survey. Computer Networks 54, 15 (2010), 2787 – 2805.
  • [5] Chen, N., Lin, J., Hoi, S. C. H., Xiao, X., and Zhang, B. AR-miner: mining informative reviews for developers from mobile app marketplace. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering - ICSE 2014 (New York, New York, USA, 2014), ACM Press, pp. 767–778.
  • [6] Di Sorbo, A., Panichella, S., Alexandru, C. V., Shimagaki, J., Visaggio, C. A., Canfora, G., and Gall, H. C. What would users change in my app? summarizing app reviews for recommending software changes. In Proceedings of the 2016 24th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering - FSE 2016 (New York, New York, USA, 2016), ACM Press, pp. 499–510.
  • [7] Fu, K., Kohno, T., Lopresti, D., Mynatt, E., Nahrstedt, K., Patel, S., Richardson, D., and Zorn, B. Safety, security, and privacy threats posed by accelerating trends in the internet of things. Computing Community Consortium (CCC) Technical Report 29, 3 (2017).
  • [8] Fujino, I. Refining lda results and ranking topics in order of quantity and quality with an application to twitter streaming data. In 2014 International Conference on Cyber-Enabled Distributed Computing and Knowledge Discovery (CyberC) (2014), IEEE, pp. 209–216.
  • [9] Gu, X., and Kim, S. ” what parts of your apps are loved by users?”(t). In Automated Software Engineering (ASE), 2015 30th IEEE/ACM International Conference on (2015), IEEE, pp. 760–770.
  • [10] Hermanson, D. New directions: Exploring Google Play mobile app user feedback in terms of perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness.
  • [11] Hoon, L., Vasa, R., Schneider, J.-G., and Grundy, J. An analysis of the mobile app review landscape: trends and implications. Technical report, Swinburne University of Technology (2013), 1–23.
  • [12] Kaaz, K. J., Hoffer, A., Saeidi, M., Sarma, A., and Bobba, R. B. Understanding user perceptions of privacy, and configuration challenges in home automation. In Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC), 2017 IEEE Symposium on (2017), IEEE, pp. 297–301.
  • [13] Licorish, S. A., Savarimuthu, B. T. R., and Keertipati, S. Attributes that predict which features to fix: Lessons for app store mining. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (2017), ACM, pp. 108–117.
  • [14] Maalej, W., and Nabil, H.

    Bug report, feature request, or simply praise? On automatically classifying app reviews.

    In 2015 IEEE 23rd International Requirements Engineering Conference, RE 2015 - Proceedings (aug 2015), IEEE, pp. 116–125.
  • [15] Mujahid, S., Sierra, G., Abdalkareem, R., Shihab, E., and Shang, W. Examining User Complaints of Wearable Apps: A Case Study on Android Wear. Proceedings - 2017 IEEE/ACM 4th International Conference on Mobile Software Engineering and Systems, MOBILESoft 2017, August (2017).
  • [16] Pagano, D., and Maalej, W. User Feedback in the AppStore: An Empirical Study (submitted). RE ’13: Proceedings of the 21st International Requirements Engineering Conference (2013), 125–134.
  • [17] Seyff, N., Ollmann, G., and Bortenschlager, M. AppEcho: A User-Driven, In Situ Feedback Approach for Mobile Platforms and Applications. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Mobile Software Engineering and Systems - MOBILESoft 2014 (New York, New York, USA, 2014), ACM Press, pp. 99–108.
  • [18] Villarroel, L., Bavota, G., Russo, B., Oliveto, R., and Di Penta, M. Release planning of mobile apps based on user reviews. Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering - ICSE ’16 (2016), 14–24.