Mobile Browser vs App: The Take from web sage Marc Andreeson

[CHR]

Marc Andreeson was a featured speaker at the All Things D conference yesterday. (For some background info, and to learn why tech people pay attention to what he says, you can read about his many, many accomplishments here.)

Here's a transcript from his session yesterday. He specifically addressed the future of mobile commerce:

Walt: Apps versus the browser, Web apps versus local apps…as somebody who had a lot to do with the browser, how do you feel about that?

Andreessen: “It’s worth revisiting why the browser made sense 15-20 years ago. In those days (grandpa says) you had to actually install the application, and there was this nonstop mess of trying to keep everything up to date.”


The app model with its shopping process and updates over the air is a lot better experience. But I have an iPhone, Web OS phone, Microsoft phone, I’ve tried them all. And at the end of the week I have to click for updates.


In the long run, the browser model makes sense.


Kara: Does it already make sense?



Andreessen: All the good smartphones and tablets have great browsers on them. HTML5 is a big step forward for the browser. We’re seeing companies saying “I can have my cake and eat it too. I can build an HTML5 application and wrap it in an app.”
“As long as you’re connected all the time to an infinitely fast network, the browser is best for everything.”


8:10 pm: Kara: What’s the state of the browser market now?

Andreessen: Four browsers have 100 million or more users that are independent (a.k.a. not IE), double the Internet universe only 10 years ago. There’s a lot of dynamism happening. We hope RockMelt will be the fifth of those.

Andreessen: “Chrome has been a very big step forward, purely from a performance standpoint. Which is a huge thing.” Chrome’s a really big deal. Webkit, open source, too. It’s probably the best time ever for browsers in terms of smart teams working on them.

'Walt' is the famed Walter Mossberg and 'Kara' is KaraSwisher, a lead tech writer for the Wall Street Journal. The WSJ produces the 'AllThings D' Conference.

A separate app must be created for each mobile operating system. That's one of the reasons they're so costly. iPhone, Android and Blackberry all need different apps to render the same thing on a mobile device.

But if a site is designed to be viewed from all the browsers (Safari, Chrome, etc...) and can recognize that a visitor is arriving from a mobile device, the need for apps is significantly decreased.

As Andreeson said, the need to update individual apps vs simply having the site update the content, makes browsers much more user friendly.

For more reading on this issue, see ReadWriteWeb's take on it: Mobile App or Browser-based Site? Report Says the Browser Will Win on Mobile

There's lots of discussions around apps these days, and being ahead in tech can often give businesses an edge. But not always... remember 1-800-Flowers big investment in a virtual flower shop for Second Life? Remember the .mobi craze where someone paid $200k for flowers.mobi... and then finally off-loaded it last yearfor $6500?

Just a few thoughts about what to think about when you spend your dollars and resources in tech....

 

[BOSS]

I'm with Marc.....

 

[theRKF]

That's why we made the decision to move F20 sites to HTML5 last year. It's not a complete and perfect transition, yet, but it's getting there.

I mentioned this in the newsletter a few weeks ago: I can not only surf and shop client sites on my Android tablet, I can edit and manage the site as well. You can be anywhere with your phone, iPad, Xoom, etc, and manage your site from one place. Our plan is to have the F20 platform provide centralized management for broader use as well, so mobile compatibility is even more important.

 

[anytimeflowers]

Yes, thank you Ryan! You made the right decision I think. My Strider site comes in on smart phones, no matter which brand, very clean and crisp, just in miniature but it's still all there.

I actually DO have a .mobi site. The only thing I use it for is a few buttons with direct links for my site, my phone, email, and Chamber of Commerce. It was a really cheap route to go, and really does nothing that would not happen without it since a person can google me and go directly to my site. My hope is that with a little more information right at their fingertips, they might save the .mobi where they might not save the .com in favorites.

 

[BOSS]

Yes, thank you Ryan! You made the right decision I think. My Strider site comes in on smart phones, no matter which brand, very clean and crisp, just in miniature but it's still all there.

Hence no need for an APP.

 

[CHR]

One benefit of an app is that a consumer can pull addresses and phone numbers direct from their contacts without re-entering them. For frequent flower buyers, this would be a plus. BUT, a site that also holds the data from previously sent orders would also offer similar features. It's just new recipients that would need to be manually added.

I was looking at our logs and we've received online orders from both iPhones and Androids just this last week so as long as a site is viewable on the devices, it can certainly accept the orders.

 

[Doug Munro]

As someone who has developed an iPhone app, my thoughts are much different from Marc's on this issue.

First let's view the following quote, particularly "just in miniature" part, there lies the problem. I have yet to see a website that is designed for a 19" monitor make a decent transition to a smart phone. In most cases optimizing a website for smart phone use is a half baked measure designed specifically to avoid the investment in an app.

Yes, thank you Ryan! You made the right decision I think. My Strider site comes in on smart phones, no matter which brand, very clean and crisp, just in miniature but it's still all there.

Second, yes most smart phone have decent browsers, browsers that lets consumers browse lots of flower sites, hopefully one will be yours. The one thing that can be said about a smart phone app is that there is a certain amount of "consumer loyalty" associated with it. Chances are the average flower buyer will not load multiple flower apps on their phone, if you can convince them that your is the one to have you are in the game. That's the tough part, "convincing". But let's be realistic , as a business you have to "convince" consumers to shop at your store everyday, 24/7 so a smart phone app is no different

Third, mobile browser apps do not take advantage of a smart phones features, ie. contact list, c/c info, push & pull options etc. In today's world more and more consumers (particularly the younger ones) are smart phone savvy to the point where i think some of them feel their phone is an extension of their body.

So, is an app a wise business decision for the average flower shop, not at this time. The reality is that we are very early in the game. If the question "Is a website a wise investment for the average flower shop?" had been posed to me in the mid to late 1990's, I would have had the same answer, "not at this time". However at that time the development costs were not practical for a small business, and more importantly the consumer had not fully bought into the idea of shopping online so the ROI was not realistic for most independent "mom & pop" flower shops. In today's world most flower shops are running a website for somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 - $200 per month and seeing a good return. That's where i envision smart phones apps to be within 5 years or so. In the meantime SAF just published an article about how florists who have bought into smart phone apps are doing with them, makes for good reading.

 

[anytimeflowers]

Doug, I read the article too. My thought was if someone like Sharon McGukin who has a database of 30,000 could only get 100 people to download the app, it would not be right for me. I can't pay $1200/yr for nothing, plus the additional marketing it would take to get people to know of it.

I'm glad you concur. I think.

I do not own a smart phone, although my kids do. Question to smart phone savvy people. Is a .mobi site a joke that they would ignore? I mean if they do a google search and see there is a normal .com and a .mobi, are they going to snort in scorn at the .mobi?

 

[theRKF]

I typically ignore .mobi sites because they are crippled versions of the real thing. The studies that I've read indicate that Android & iPhone users prefer to access a full version of the site, not a mobile version. We pay big money for nice phones, don't patronize me with limited access.

On the other hand, don't give me a site that's so inefficient or loaded with Flash that I can't load it on my phone Ya, we're picky like that.

 

[BOSS]

Doug.... great points...

Sidebar... I dropped my .mobi URL's.. don't think there will be a need in the near future...

 

[Doug Munro]

Again, just my personal thoughts..... I believe this is one more of those areas where our industry and our customers are just not quite ready to fully take advantage of the available current technology. Putting the "big guys" aside for the moment the average "mom & pop" flower shop was slow to embrace both the web and automation within their own shop. The retail flower industry as a whole tends to move at a slower pace that some other sectors. I know we will get there, just a matter of time before we start seeing statement like " last week my mobile app sales surpassed my telephone business". If this strikes you as unlikely, think about it, many shops can already say that about their on-line business and are dropping traditional forms of phone advertising such as yellow page ads. Who would have thought that possible 10-15 years ago.

In the meantime my recommendation is business as usual, keep building your customer contact lists so that when the day comes that a mobile app makes sense you have a large data base of individuals to offer it to. Mobile apps aside , building customer contacts and having regular communication with them is just good business anyway, mobile or not.