When and why to create a mobile app?

Asked

Viewed 1,040 times

27

With the popularity of mobile devices such as smartphones and tablets, capable of running quite complex applications, it is increasingly common for companies to develop applications (apps) own. Examples are numerous: there are since applications cinemas and theatres, to content/news agencies and even churches.

However, the development of software for mobile platforms has its own challenges, involving not only portability but also different forms of interaction. There is also additional cost, since it is necessary to build an additional system to the existing Web system (even if responsive).

In that sense, I would like to know what are the factors (technical, financial, UX, etc.) that justify the creation of an application for a business/company? In other words, why is it worth investing in a computational system that will be installed on customers' mobile equipment, at the expense of (or as an option to) a single responsive web system?

web-application mobile responsive-layout ux
  • 5

    The biggest challenge I see is the user wanting to install an app on their device. When it’s something he’ll use often, q will be very useful to him, all right. I’ve seen somewhere that almost all apps are used only once. For me, except for rare exceptions, it is more a gold rush of the many that we have seen. But I do not understand anything of the subject :P

  • It’s true. But there are exceptions. This BBC app, for example, has extremely interesting functions that go beyond what you can get in accessing the website. I have my views about it (involving functional advantages from the user’s point of view), but I asked the question to try to get an overview of the community or of someone who has practical experience in the subject (who has built and published such an app in his company, for example).

  • Yeah. I’ve been working pretty much just with responsive websites, not apps. I made an app for a company that needed to update a lot the products loaded, and then the push notifications of the app were more into account (even because it could be accessed offline), and it was kind of an 'internal' thing. I think it depends a lot on the approach of the company. Also because with an app, you are literally INSIDE the mobile phone of your audience hehe. By the way, this BBC app that you commented I don’t know, I’ll take a look.

  • About 'worth it', I believe it’s not so simple, but in financial matters, it’s usually a lot more to work only with a responsive site, because mobile programming (and the publication itself, in the case of Apple Store) has a higher cost.

  • 1

    @Why you do not offer a response focused on this aspect of notifications push and of cache (that seems to be something that you observe as a point of interest)? I really do not expect to receive a single comprehensive response, but some that complement each other. In fact, I believe this is the ideal way to generate cool knowledge for the community on complex issues like this. :)

  • True, the problem is that to focus on an answer, you would need to know the hehe purpose. A giant e-commerce, accessed worldwide, in my view, would be nice to have an App by the possibility to warn the user of new products via push, record his preferences, know the location, etc (Like Amazon, so much so that their site is not responsive). Or a local newspaper, which makes the virtual editions available: an app is interesting because of the cache issue, but not because of the development value. In both examples, I would personally keep the site, even if not responsive. What do you think about this?

  • 5

    The question is being discussed in the Meta at: http://meta.pt.stackoverflow.com/questions/4085/discuss%C3%A3o-sobre-a-pergunta-quando-por-que-que-criar-um-aplicativo-para-dispositiv

  • 1

    just think that the app does not replace the mobile website.. Got it? If you’re going to create an app to be a replacement for the mobile site, it’s like shooting yourself in the foot .

Show 3 more comments

2 answers

7

App vs Responsive Site

The only advantage of actually developing an app in addition to or in place of a mobile (or responsive) site would be that mobile browsers have more limitations. The three features of the applications that can make development advantageous are (I believe to be just these two):

  1. Add custom features that most mobile browsers today don’t support, some examples:

    • Take a photo and send directly to the app, without the need to select in the gallery.
    • Record audio and go straight up to the app

  2. Collect customer data more easily and with less risk of loss to target "advertising" or "products" aimed at the customer profile (yes companies do this)

  3. "Keep logged in" (avoid having to type in the password every time you open the browser) or allow multiple logged in accounts, this feature though a bit unusual may eventually be required.

Consideration of the advantages of developing

What in my view makes the development/investment in Mobile apps worthwhile are:

  1. The number of mobile users (who may become customers) is already greater than the number of "home users"

  2. Access time for mobile users is already higher than for home users.

  3. Advertising, where we have higher numbers of users and with longer access time is a great place to present the brand or product.

  4. Productivity, if the user being a customer or employee needs to perform a task where he does not have an equipment like notebook/desktop and internet, your smartphone can be a "hand on the wheel" to perform tasks at "any time".

Residential Internet x Mobile Internet

According to data from 2013 to the beginning of 2014, according to the nic.br shows that there are approximately 27.2 million residences in Brazil with internet access.

domicilio

Charts from the same period show that 52.2 million users have internet access on their mobile devices

2g/3g tablets, smartphones

Time spent on smartphones is already greater than with computers

Although the link I mentioned in the title is not Brazil, I believe that this is also valid for most countries with "digital inclusion".

Conducted with people from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Italy, the survey shows that technology consumers are spending far more time on their smartphones than on computers - with social networks leading this niche with plenty of slack. It must also be said that television is still the absolute leader in hours of use and technology, reaching five times more used.

In the United States, while smartphones are used for another 34 hours a month, computers are around 27 hours - compared to 185 hours consumers spend in front of television. In England these numbers are 41 hours, 29 hours and 129 hours respectively. In Italy the time spent on communications is 37 hours, 18 hours and 143 hours.

Comparação TV vs Móvel vs Residencial

Sources:

Personal opinion on development

I can not say, but it is what I noticed with some popular applications, an example is Itaú, which started very limited and over time was receiving new features and improved practicality and ease of use (interface).

  • Considering these facts, I think that if the application is aimed at customers we should invest moderately (a simpler application) and have a feedback channel to receive suggestions, in other words not risk all chips, however if the application "avenge" and if made useful or necessary, then we would increase investments.

  • If the application is aimed at the employee of a particular company, then the scenario is different, one should invest "time", "quality" and "testing" and have a feedback channel as well.

Both situations in my opinion should have at least one developer with experience in mobile interface and another developer who has knowledge of the system that is therefore for the mobile system.

  • Thanks also for the effort of the answer. I still disagree that the question is opinionated. It is only more subjective than a question that only presents code. But really, there is a lot of reason in the fact that it is broad. The two answers that already exist only prove this by having such different focuses. I voted in both for the effort, but really now I agree that the question should be closed.

7

Better understanding the question (which is more in line with "Why make an app when a responsive site in principle already manages?" and not of "What native features can prompt a company to want to create a mobile app?"), I believe the answer to most cases is: there is no reason, unless giving the user an icon to open the application instead of saving one Bookmark be important to your business. Or at least make a hybrid app that has less cost than a native.

For a minority of cases offline data caching may be important.

This tends to be increasingly true as web technologies approach being first-class citizens on the native platform (in Android versions from 3.1 for example, you can already capture photos and videos using only web technologies. From 5.0 to Webview is upgradable by app store). At least so says the html5rocks. But at the present time this is still not true.

For reference and for those who, like me, understood that it was the second question, follow the answer given initially below:

I believe the answer can be found in articles comparing native vs. hybrid apps. web apps.

Attractions of a native mobile app:

  • Unrestricted access to device hardware such as camera, sensors, GPS;
  • Access to operating system resources. In the case of Android for example: notifications, complex gestures (for example resize maps with the Pinch zoom), widgets, services, intents;
  • Maximum overall performance compared to what could be achieved in a Webview. Lists with a large number of items, for example, become slow if a Webview does not offer hardware acceleration, as is the case of older platforms, or this is not used. Maps non-native also have performance problems;
  • You can also take advantage of the ecosystem you are in (a marketing, distribution and upgrade channel, which is the app store, and associated monetisation);
  • And finally the look & Feel 100% native is also a factor that can be decisive in the decision to create a native app.

One web app gives up all this. It doesn’t even have an icon Auncher on the mobile to be remembered during the use of the device, You need to save a Bookmark. On the other hand, there are some advantages, such as the reduced cost of development you have already cited and SEO.

An intermediate solution to access these features are the hybrid apps. They can be a "shell" for a website responsive, have an icon Auncher and, if they do not require much performance or use of resources and look & Feel are aware of the and require an intermediate development cost between the native and the site.

  • But, why unrestricted access to operating system resources are interesting to the company? Think about it, how can this argument be used to justify the expense to your boss (who doesn’t know much about these aspects)? About performance (performance), in the Web application the computational resource is not from the server? I do not know if it fits the comparison. The advantages of the ecosystem is an interesting point, but that is true for companies whose focal point of service is the app (they sell the app). It also applies to other businesses (such as the BBC case)? ...

  • ... After all, if there is no app installed, there is no concern with distribution or update. Still fit the comparison? Finally, look and Feel is something interesting, but maybe it is the least relevant factor for the decision, no? I asked these questions for you to try to supplement the answer (that is, please do not need to answer here in the comments). :)

  • Boy, I took a -1 and the person didn’t explain why... but anyway. Perhaps I did not understand the question, or it could have been formulated differently. I can even elaborate on the answer, but I believe that the resources I mentioned speak for themselves, so if there is a need for them, the choice is to develop the app natively or as a hybrid. Now, if you assume that a responsive web app or website meets the situation, then the need for these features does not exist and there is no reason to implement them.

  • 1

    I’m not the one who voted against your answer. I just argued with some aspects that I thought could be further explored to make your answer better. Unfortunately these things happen (negative votes). I would tell you not to worry so much. Every community is like that, there are people with different opinions.

  • 1

    I figured it wouldn’t have been you. : ) Please don’t interpret my previous comment as defensive. I only commented on the vote because the site encourages the voter to justify the vote in this case or suggest an improvement to the response.

  • I made a deal on the answer.

  • 1

    Thanks for the effort. : ) Your second understanding is more correct for what I had imagined, but the answer still does not please me because you basically say that "there is no reason" and I do not totally agree. Sometimes there is a good reason, when in fact the mobile version offers some value for the user (even if it is security, in the case of the physical token for bank access of the example of the Itaú of the colleague @Guilhermenascimento). What I really intended with the question was to list this kind of argument, but I see that the question is really very broad.

Show 2 more comments

Browser other questions tagged web-application mobile responsive-layout ux

You are not signed in. Login or sign up in order to post.