What indie devs told us about leaving Adjust behind
Three months after launch, I got a message from a solo iOS developer in Berlin. She'd switched from Adjust to Attribr and wanted to tell me why. Not to be polite. Because something about the experience had clicked. That conversation set me on a path to talking to dozens of other small developers who'd made the same choice. The patterns they described weren't about price, exactly. They were about something deeper.
The £99 problem that costs way more than £99
Adjust's free tier gives you 10,000 installs a month. After that, you're negotiating enterprise pricing. Most indie studios I spoke to never hit those install numbers. But here's the thing: they were paying anyway.
Not in cash, necessarily. In mental overhead. In SDK bloat. In the time spent waiting for support tickets from a vendor whose team is built for companies with dedicated growth teams, not one person trying to ship a game between day job commitments.
One developer told me she was paying £40 a month for Adjust despite averaging 3,000 monthly installs, just to access retention cohorts past day 1. She felt trapped because switching platforms meant rewriting analytics integration, and she didn't have time for that. When she discovered Attribr's Growth plan at £29 a month covered her actual needs (25,000 installs, full 7 / 14 / 30 day cohort tracking, zero third-party dependencies), she said the relief was almost physical.
The maths sounds like it shouldn't matter. But it does. Because every pound you're not spending on infrastructure that ignores you is a pound you can spend on art, marketing, or just not burning out.
Three lines of code instead of three weeks
I'll be direct: Adjust's SDK is heavy. Capable, yes. But heavy. And it pulls in its own dependency tree, which means wrestling with version conflicts, build times creeping upward, and launch overhead you can actually feel on older devices.
Attribr's entire SDK is 50KB with zero third-party dependencies. Three-line integration in Swift or Kotlin. One developer - a studio owner with two games in the app stores - described the integration as 'suspiciously quick.' She kept re-reading the docs to make sure she'd done something wrong.
That's not a gimmick. It matters, particularly for indie developers who are already managing fragile build pipelines, who might be maintaining code they wrote four years ago, and who can't afford to have a mysterious framework suddenly break their release cycle two days before launch.
The lightness also matters on device. Sub-50ms launch overhead means attribution isn't stealing performance from your onboarding. A puzzle game developer told me they saw a measurable difference in their retention curves after switching. Whether it's placebo or real, the fact that attribution could be invisible felt like a luxury.
ATT permission requests that don't feel like begging
iOS 14.5 changed everything. Suddenly, asking users for tracking permission became a conversion killer for certain genres. Adjust still requires ATT permission for accurate attribution on iOS, which makes sense for their enterprise clients but leaves indie developers in a difficult position: lose tracking or lose users.
Attribr works without ATT permission via deterministic matching plus probabilistic signals. That means you can still answer the core question - where did this install come from - without putting an extra permission dialog in front of every new player.
A hyper-casual developer I spoke with said this single feature moved Attribr from 'interesting alternative' to 'obvious choice.' She runs on margins thin enough that a 2 per cent permission denial rate directly impacts her unit economics. Not having to ask meant she could actually use attribution without sabotaging her own funnel.
One caveat: this isn't magic. Attribr pairs deterministic matching with probabilistic signals, so accuracy varies by network and traffic volume. But for studios building the kind of games where a 3 per cent permission opt-in rate is normal, it's the difference between useful data and no data at all.
The Rippl connection nobody expected to care about
Here's something I didn't expect to hear repeatedly: indie developers were discovering value in Attribr's direct bridge to Rippl, our community-driven CPI performance marketing platform.
Most of them didn't join Attribr for Rippl. But once they could see exactly which Rippl promoters were actually driving quality installs, behaviour changed. One studio owner said tracking CPI performance per promoter let her spot a pattern: her best-performing install sources were also her best retention cohorts. That connection wouldn't have been obvious in Adjust because Adjust doesn't talk to Rippl.
For indie studios operating on bootstrap budgets, this mattered. Performance marketing feels like a rich-company problem. But when attribution directly connects you to where your installs actually come from, and you can see which sources produce users who stay, the entire picture shifts. You're not just buying volume. You're optimizing for audience quality in real time.
A few developers told me they'd started using Rippl not because they needed performance marketing, but because Attribr made it visible that they actually did.
What they didn't mention (and what that tells us)
In all these conversations, I noticed something absent. Nobody said they chose Attribr because of our dashboard design. Nobody praised our documentation, our support response time, or our roadmap transparency. These things matter, of course. But they weren't the catalyst.
What emerged instead was a picture of developers choosing Attribr for what it didn't do to them. It didn't demand enterprise budgets they didn't have. It didn't treat 5,000 monthly installs like an accountant treats a rounding error. It didn't add bloat to their build or friction to their funnel. It didn't pretend they had the same needs as a publisher with a growth team.
That's the real insight. Indie developers aren't looking for a scaled-down Adjust. They're looking for something built from the ground up with their constraints in mind. The constraints are real: shipping with limited engineers, optimizing for cash flow instead of growth at all costs, maintaining code quality while moving fast.
Attribr wasn't designed to beat Adjust at being Adjust. It was designed to answer a specific set of questions for a specific kind of developer. The fact that dozens of them found that useful wasn't luck. It was by design.
If you're still running attribution on a platform built for teams twice your size with budgets three times your annual revenue, what's actually keeping you there?
Ready to try Attribr by MRVL?
One tap to download. No sign-up wall.