There's a mobile site for that.

February 4, 2011 6:42 AM

Smartphone apps - what's the fuss all about? Why use them?

It seems to me that there is a lot of excitement about native applications instead of mobile websites for smartphones. For some applications, this makes sense - a navigation app will be more interactive than a web page, and a music player needs access to your locally-stored music. But for applications that mostly allow users to view and enter textual data, I much prefer a mobile website - on a website there’s no lag as your app accesses storage or strains your underpowered phone processor, and the information is never out of date. But the world doesn’t seem to agree with me. Everyone wants apps! Why?

Example: I work on enterprise software that mostly displays textual data. It also allows some input of textual data. We have a mobile browser version that works great on Android and iOS and is very quick to load. But no one gets excited for the mobile browser - everyone wants native apps, and I don’t understand it. Our software is usually used at a job site, so our users are virtually guaranteed a WiFi connection. If it’s used offsite, it would be during a phone call - so you would probably have cellular data coverage if you are able to receive the call. And your phone has to download and keep up-to-date the considerable amount of data that the user *might* look up if you want to use the app when you don't have . That’s a lot of data and a long sync process, and it means you may be looking at 30-minute-old data, which is sometimes an unacceptable lag time for our users. To me, a snappy mobile site is much nicer, and I find that I'm rarely without a data connection when I want it.

But it still seems that our users really, really want apps. Am I missing some driver that makes people want apps? Am I underestimating the importance of having data stored locally (even if it means a poor user experience)? Or is it just a buzzword - “Mobile website” isn’t sexy right now, “Apps” are sexy!

posted by Tehhund to Technology (33 answers total)

You're thinking of apps as being merely offline websites.

They can be enhanced, specialized interfaces to online data (see: Google, Facebook, ebay, banking apps, etc).
posted by mazola at 6:52 AM on February 4, 2011

Mobile websites are annoying to use on my new Android smartphone ... links are small and I misclick a lot. I get tired of zooming. Apps are optimized for a smartphone screen. Mobile web, however mobile, is not.

I guess I don't understand why your datasync takes so long for the app, not being a programmer ... my gmail app syncs instantaneously, sometimes notifying me of new mail BEFORE my computer does.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:53 AM on February 4, 2011

A lot of apps are just front ends for the mobile versions of the website possibly with some additional offline storage mechanism. Perhaps you could look into building an app using an existing template that essentially is exactly like the mobile website. ie the gmail app and the gmail mobile webpage.
posted by koolkat at 6:54 AM on February 4, 2011 [1 favorite]

Best answer: Depending on the technical sophistication of the user, it will be a mix of:

a) This: "Or is it just a buzzword - “Mobile website” isn’t sexy right now, “Apps” are sexy!"

b) If I have no/a crappy data connection, I'd rather look at out of date data (in an app) than no data (if I can't load the webpage at all).

c) "on a website there’s no lag as your app accesses storage or strains your underpowered phone processor"
Generally, opening an app is faster than opening the browser, then selecting the site from the bookmarks, then waiting for the site to load.

d) "If it’s used offsite, it would be during a phone call - so you would probably have cellular data coverage if you are able to receive the call."

"Probably". Probably probably probably.
posted by EndsOfInvention at 7:01 AM on February 4, 2011

Actually to expand on the last point, there are plenty of situations where I have enough signal for a phone call but such a crappy data connection that trying to submit data via a website is an exercise in frustration and possible accidental duplication of data submission as I keep refreshing. An app can hold on to data to transmit later automatically when the data connection is good enough - a website must be manually refreshed to do that.
posted by EndsOfInvention at 7:03 AM on February 4, 2011 [1 favorite]

An "app" is something you own. A website is something you visit.

That's the perception, anyhow.
posted by jon1270 at 7:04 AM on February 4, 2011 [1 favorite]

Some of it is hype, but some of it is a matter of usability and performance.

In your case, it looks like your mobile web site performs just fine. Perhaps making the UI more streamlined and closer to the native experience in terms of look and feel will help your users feel more comfortable? Many mobile web apps are indistinguishable from native apps until you scroll all the way up and see the menu bar and browser toolbar, and it's mostly just a matter of styling.
posted by ignignokt at 7:11 AM on February 4, 2011

From a cynical perspective: Apps have been heavily promoted in advertising because companies sell them while most websites are free (or ad supported) .
posted by octothorpe at 7:13 AM on February 4, 2011

I think a lot of people don't realize what a modern mobile web site is capable of. Properly designed, it can feel 99% as responsive as a native app, especially for data-driven tasks like you describe. Local storage allows you to cache data in a lightweight database within the browser instead of having to load it every time you hit the page. The web site itself can even be cached for offline use. (Yes, those are Apple links, but these are standards that all browsers, mobile and desktop, should/will eventually adopt.) That's how the mobile Gmail site works. I can put my iPhone into airplane mode and still load the Gmail web site and access cached mail.
posted by Nothlit at 7:17 AM on February 4, 2011 [2 favorites]

An "app" is something you own. A website is something you visit.


except that so many apps are just specialized interfaces for the website - cnn, gmail, facebook, eather channel etc. Some are better (gmail), some are worse (weather channel free app), and some (cnn) seem essentially the same as the website. Mefi doesn't have an app but a desktop icon (what do you call these on a phone) pointing to Metafilter.com is pretty convenient.
posted by caddis at 7:24 AM on February 4, 2011

Great points above. One thing I'd add, too, is that native apps on iOS and Android still - unless something changed recently - have direct access to hardware that web apps do not. For instance, I don't believe one could write an web app which works with one's camera.

In my own experience I prefer a native app to a web app if the native app brings additional value beyond just the site. For me this means that the UI elements and UX match the platform and don't just come close.
posted by hijinx at 7:27 AM on February 4, 2011

It may not be specific to your app. There are lots of poorly done mobile sites:

1) Is it easy to get to? Can someone get there without cutting and pasting the URL?

2) Is it designed for a smartphone (which is just a narrower layout, smaller images, and no Flash) or is it some ultra-pruned down thing like a WAP site that is designed for feature phones?

These tend to make people skeptical of developer protests that the mobile app is just fine.

OTOH, you also seem to conflating apps with local storage, where I have lots of apps that just put a very nice face on the web and don't use local storage at all. For instance, the AT&T myWireless app is just a front-end to their account web pages, but it is quite a bit nicer than a mobile web page would be.
posted by smackfu at 7:27 AM on February 4, 2011

An app can be purpose-built to work effectively and smoothly within a specific phone's UI. A mobile website, otoh, has to make a ton of compromises in order to work on any mobile display that happens to connect to it. Apps, quite simply, offer a higher level of customization and, most importantly, usability.
posted by Thorzdad at 7:30 AM on February 4, 2011 [1 favorite]

nthing those who cite an app as a mobile-friendly interface to web data. For example, the gmail app on my blackberry is much more convenient than using gmail via the web browser, Commands are in the menu instead of part of the page so the interface is clean and simple.
posted by L'Estrange Fruit at 7:30 AM on February 4, 2011

I usually hate firing up the browser on my Iphone. Just typing in URL's is a pain compared opening an App.
posted by dripdripdrop at 7:30 AM on February 4, 2011

"on a website there’s no lag"
That's not usually true, even on good wifi.

Also, an app can be accessed and information entered when you have no signal at all and then once you have signal again, data can be synced.
posted by soelo at 7:33 AM on February 4, 2011

Apps are optimized for a smartphone screen. Mobile web, however mobile, is not.

Some are, but you don't get the native-app menu transitions or fonts or speed.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:38 AM on February 4, 2011

When you use your computer, do you exclusively use the web or do you have programs installed? It's exactly the same with smart phones, they're just little computers.
posted by blue_beetle at 7:42 AM on February 4, 2011 [1 favorite]

Also, there's a marketing aspect: Bob's Widgets would like to have their logo on someone's smartphone's home screen, not deep in their browser's bookmarks list. Yes, smartphone browsers (at least Safari on the iPhone) lets you save a bookmark to the home screen, but fewer users use that than the App Store.
posted by mendel at 7:46 AM on February 4, 2011

Ask your users what problems they have with the mobile site: Is it UI? Responsiveness? Availability? Missing functionality?

I think that non-developers can get a little confused about the differences between an app and a mobile site, so it's better to just ask them about specifics.

However, you seem to be confused about local storage. Just like client software on a desktop machine, apps can be developed where most of the data stays on a remote server. Depending on how your mobile site is set up, you can even use the same web services to access data as your mobile site does.
posted by demiurge at 7:49 AM on February 4, 2011

I've always seen my Blackberry as just a collection of apps. It's certainly presented that way. The browser, email, SMS, media player, contacts, even the settings for the phone are all pretty much identical in the way that you open and interact with them, so they're all basically 'apps', aren't they?

Admittedly there are a lot of 'apps' that you can't delete (they're fundamental to the working of the phone), but that's the only major distinction between a phone function and something you download from an app store.

And the browser, nice though it is, isn't a great substitute for something that has a UI designed specifically to work on the phone. Apps start up quicker, often don't require a connection, and can be multi-tasked nicely.
posted by le morte de bea arthur at 7:53 AM on February 4, 2011

I generally prefer mobile websites to apps, unless the app has some sort of awesome added features the mobile site can't or doesn't provide. (And even then, I still tend to use the mobile site. I have the Yelp app on my iPhone but out of habit I'll still visit the mobile site.)

The one point of convenience is, hey, a button! Quicker than opening a new browser window and finding the site in your bookmarks.

Another part of the appeal of apps is that they carry the message "hey, our company/product is with the times and actively looking for ways to make your experience with us more convenient." Kind of like having a Facebook page.
posted by Metroid Baby at 7:59 AM on February 4, 2011

For me as a user, Apps are websites as I wish they were. No BS just the absolute functionality, and usually no ads for extraneous services. Examples: My AMEX and Bank App allow me to pay bills, transfer funds, check balances much faster than the full featured websites. My weather app opens immediately to the page I want (36 hour forecast for my Zip). Most of the news sites open to the top-ten articles for the day. It's not a big difference on any of these, but it's cool to be able to do so much so quickly.
posted by 2bucksplus at 8:00 AM on February 4, 2011

Yeah, perhaps your coworkers just need to add a link to the site to their launcher? And at least on the iPhone, you can create a site such that when it launches safari all of the browser chrome is hidden and it looks and feels a lot more like an app.

Perhaps your coworker just don't like having to go into the bookmarks every time to access the site? Perhaps the site feels too slow to them. Perhaps there are links that are very small. There are many reasons.

How often does the data get updated? Is a kind of thing like stock data that constantly updates throughout the day? How long would a sync really take? 30 seconds? 1 minute? 10 minutes?

Do some research and try to dig into why they don't like the site and would prefer an app. Any feedback that you would get here is just guesses until some user research is done. It doesn't have to be high effort, expensive or take a lot of time. Just sit down with some people and watch them use the site and interview them about it. In these kinds of situations, it's important not to be judgmental or blameful of the people you are interviewing. I struggle with that when interviewing people about things that I've designed or developed.
posted by reddot at 8:28 AM on February 4, 2011

Response by poster: Thanks for the answers - great ideas here.

Regarding my example app: I'm not involved in development or setting development directions, so this post isn't really about that app in particular. It's more about consumer apps - why do consumers push for apps, which sometime causes companies to prioritize apps over mobile sites that can be used on any touchscreen phone? I'm getting some good answers to that question.
posted by Tehhund at 8:47 AM on February 4, 2011

I don't have a smartphone, but I do have an iPod Touch. I love an app that is useful even when I don't have a wifi connection (e.g. Stanza, InstaPaper), and even when I do have a wifi connection, I much prefer reading the New York Times (for instance) via its app.
posted by rtha at 9:07 AM on February 4, 2011

"I much prefer a mobile website - on a website there’s no lag as your app accesses storage or strains your underpowered phone processor, and the information is never out of date."

You make some really good points in favor of mobile sites as an alternative to custom apps, but this is a bit off-the-mark. At least on the iPhone, apps run as compiled native applications while web apps run as a webkit browser with a javascript interpreter. Web apps can be much more taxing for a phone's limited processing capabilities.
posted by verb at 9:09 AM on February 4, 2011

Best answer: much prefer a mobile website - on a website there’s no lag as your app accesses storage or strains your underpowered phone processor, and the information is never out of date. But the world doesn’t seem to agree with me. Everyone wants apps! Why?

Talking purely about iOS, which is really where the app game is at right now, there is no "lag as your app accesses storage", especially not in comparison to loading it over the network. And the processors aren't underpowered (at least on the newer models).

By contrast, web apps:
a) Are subject to Safari's whims, especially when it purges the tabs without warning (losing anything you've entered) or uses one of your 8 tabs without asking
b) Are utterly dependent on network connectivity
and Either:
c) Fall into the uncanny valley: Yes, you can trick and jiggle your way to 90-99% of a native feel, but that 1% is a juddery, missing, annoying mess.
or d) Are lowest-common denominator so that they work on "any touchscreen phone" and don't take advantage of your phone.

The whole idea about apps on a touchscreen device is that when they are done correctly they transform your device into something else -- the Phone app turns it into a phone, the iPod app into a music player, the Remote app into a remote control, the Angry Birds app into a device for throwing birds at pigs, etc. The device becomes the app. People really, really like that.

Your web browser is for browsing the web. Trying to subvert that so that it also turns your device into something else is never going to be 100%; the browser will always break through. People hate that. Don't try to fool them.
posted by bonaldi at 9:15 AM on February 4, 2011 [1 favorite]

Best answer: Recall the time when people thought web applications such as webmail were odd and new fangled. I know I did. You want your mail on your computer, in your mail application. In fact, much of the time I still do.

Applications on the client have historical precedent. As we know, the web world had to develop technology to allow dynamic UIs without reloading the page all the time. But desktop applications had, and still have, more power and flexibility to create a better user experience.

The point that websites work for any browser isn't true, and even on the desktop user interface libraries have always caused development fragmentation or extra costs for the application developer. Attempts to provide cross-platform toolkits (e.g. Qt) have never replaced native libraries in the harsh world of consumer preference. Maybe you can blame Microsoft and Apple for that.

Not to discount the hype of course. When Apple pioneered apps in a walled garden, it came after a fairly long period of them not having a third-party applications SDK, and instead telling people to write web applications, IIRC. And of course once they worked out how to make apps work for their platform and bottom line, they plugged it. The other vendors followed suit and we are where we are today.
posted by galaksit at 9:47 AM on February 4, 2011

My experience with apps vs. mobile websites on my Motorola Droid (1): apps load immediately. Browser takes quite some time to load, surprisingly enough. It's hard for me, with "fat finger syndrome" to type in URL's, so I tend to bookmark sites I'd read on my phone, like Metafilter. It's also hard to read the tiny fonts on my phone, whereas apps are laid out in simpler formats with larger fonts, making the best use of a tiny screen space. That's just me, others' MMV.
posted by Lynsey at 10:31 AM on February 4, 2011

I agree with others that the line can be fuzzy between mobile-optimized websites and apps. Last time I bothered to look at it, Bank of America's app was exactly like their mobile-optimized site, leading me to think it was just a single-site browser.

It is possible—on iOS, at least—to put a bookmark icon on Springboard, making websites seem a little more app-like. But I'll bet a lot of users don't know that. They want to see an icon right there, and they think apps are how they get that.

Webapps devote some of your precious screen real-estate to browser chrome, which generally isn't an optimal use of space. Webapps can be pretty app-like, but generally they are imperfectly so, and they also suffer from poorer performance than a decent native app.
posted by adamrice at 10:38 AM on February 4, 2011

An app can store hundreds of MBs of data locally. Which can be downloaded ONCE while you're at home, on stable, relatively quick wifi. Contrast that with a mobile website when:

1) you're on 3G with crappy reception
2) in a foreign country where you're getting billed ridiculous roaming rates per MB
3) and oh those hundreds of MBs exceeds whatever piddling cache size your mobile browser is able to use so if you're making full use of the mobile site, then at some point, you're going to be having to re-download stuff that you'd only have download once with the app.
posted by juv3nal at 10:45 AM on February 4, 2011

Authentication can be a huge pain point.

I want to type my password into an app once and never have to log in again. I don't want to type it over and over in a mobile web browser, especially when I strive to have complex passwords that I can't always memorize (especially for banking). Not all sites do this badly, and not all apps do this well, but it's a pretty common pattern.
posted by tantivy at 12:21 PM on February 4, 2011