9 Reasons Why The Killer Tablet App Is The Browser
bostinnovation.com
bostinnovation.com
"Referral Traffic Is Lost With Apps" - Since when? Have an interstitial or header saying "get our iPad app for the best experience!" People can send people to your site on a tablet, no one says they can't. An app is just a better UX for consuming the content on your site.
"Readers Are Already Going To The Site" - So? They don't have to download the app. Just make it a better experience. If they want to use your web site, they will. If they want to use an app, give them that option.
"HTML5 Is Capable To Deliver App Like Experiences" - Not so much. If you're making an HTML5 site to try and deliver an app like experience, you should be making an app. Trying to frankenstein a web site into an app is daft, don't do it. Conversely, if you're trying to make an app that just accesses your web site with nothing unique of value, don't bother.
"Fixing The “Stuff To Do” Problem" - If people have a stuff to do problem on your site, something is wrong. The web is a completely different ecosystem than apps, so don't bother trying to intrude one into the other. If I sit down on my couch and want to read your paper and the experience is better on a tablet app, I'm going to use it (are you sensing a trend here?). There is a reason Instapaper is so cool and highly used - it has provided a better experience than the web for so many people.
"Homescreen Fatigue" - Homescreen fatigue is a problem if you aren't delivering something compelling. App purgatory happens if your app sucks.
"Consistent Cross Device Experience" - Total cop out. You can make a consistent experience with apps and sites. Again, make a compelling UX and use what you can't reasonably do in HTML with your app.
"The Web Was Meant For URLs" - Yes, it was. Apps are meant for consuming media and interacting. Provide a better way to consume that information!
"App Stores Don’t Provide Real Distribution" - Yes they do. They are a holy grail for discovery and growth, but only if you are providing real value to the user. I completely disagree that you could not distribute a publication entirely through the app store - you could if you made it awesome. However, I don't think you should (at least not yet).
"Follow the Money" - You can push an update whenever you want. You can charge however much you want. You can collect data from users if you want (just not out of subscription process). Give them a reason that is compelling first, or just use Facebook connect. Apple handed you the world's largest consumer credit card database on a silver platter and asked for a fair price. They handle so much of the equation (the hardware, servers, distribution, fulfillment, support and more) that they more than earn that 30%. If people want to get a subscription through your web site, they can. What you have with the app store is the smoothest, highest converting, most pleasant experience possible for turning people from browsers into customers. Use it.
However, I do agree that apps that are just an extension of a web site don't make sense. If you're simply rehashing your web site into a tablet, don't bother. Instead, make it a unique and compelling alternative to the web. There are tons of things you can do on a tablet that we have barely even scratched the surface of. Experiment! Innovate! Do something crazy and get attention when people go "omfg what IS that thing? COOL!"
Wow, that was a rant. ~('-' ~)
I think he's using "distribution" in the sense that newspapers and magazines do — the App Store does nothing to put your app in front of people and get them to buy it. This is generally true unless you happen to be one of the blessed few who get featured. I could put out the most awesome money-crunching app ever, saving people millions a year, and the App Store would not necessarily do anything more to push my app than the Internet as a whole does.
"Follow the Money" - You can push an update whenever you want. This is utter nonsense, and it makes me wonder if you actually develop for an Apple platform. Good luck pushing three updates a day — or even three a week — on the App Store. Apple controls when updates go out, and many developers find the wait frustrating.
You can charge however much you want. Apple sets fixed price points, and has rejected apps for price before.
Apple handed you the world's largest consumer credit card database on a silver platter and asked for a fair price. You're saying they no longer require 30% of all profits you derive from sales in apps, even if they had nothing to do with the sale except making the device the software is running on?
"You can push an update whenever you want." - Yeah, this was more in reference to updating content, not necessarily the app itself. I think I missed the crux of what he meant, apologies for not making that clearer.
"Apple sets fixed price points, and has rejected apps for price before." - True, but at the same time I'd say their reasoning is spot-on for rejecting based on price. Their concern is the UX, first and foremost, and their policies follow that line (almost) all the time.
"You're saying they no longer require 30% of all profits you derive from sales in apps, even if they had nothing to do with the sale except making the device the software is running on?" - No, they require that price and have done a huge amount to facilitate it. I'd say it is absolutely fair to charge that price and implement most (not all) of their policies. Making the device, the OS, doing all the marketing, researching and testing the entire user experience, providing the infrastructure that makes it possible to even download the app and use it. It is a lot and they have every right to want their piece of the pie.
Thanks for the reply :)
Do you think it would be a fair deal in the same way if Microsoft imposed that rule on Windows apps? Because I don't see how what you're saying is unique to iOS devices rather than PCs in general.
Microsoft provides the operating system itself and supporting software and infrastructure for that business. Their business model is/was to drive adoption and standardization of the computer operating system by and large with Windows. They did so through aggressive tactics and eventually made it pretty much ubiquitous. However, they only provide the core OS that the machine runs on (and a bunch of other software) - they did not develop, market, distribute and support the machine. Further, they provide no infrastructure by and large to facilitate the transactions themselves.
Now, this made sense as they grew. The PC market was a bunch of companies running into an empty room and staking their claim. Microsoft simply said "let's make sure everyone uses our flag to stake their claim." Suddenly you had a crowded room with almost everyone waving a windows flag. They did not want to impede the growth of the market by controlling every step of the equation and at the time that was the right way to do it. They allowed an ecosystem to grow up around them, wanting to be the standard by which it all grew and developed.
However, the game has changed now. Apple uses the best UX they can make with the nicest hardware they can design to create desire. People want Apple products and that desire relies on everything about the product living up to the expectation placed on it. With this in mind, they ask for their cut of what goes through their infrastructure which supports this marketing machine. It would be different if they did not provide this level of investment or if they didn't actually handle the fulfillment.
To answer more directly, I don't think it is a question of fairness, I simply think it is a comparison of apples and oranges. Apple has a fundamentally different philosophy and this reflects in their business model.
That said, I do not agree with their policy of not allowing a link from an app to a place to purchase externally - I feel it doesn't add to the UX at all to enforce that and some manner of user choice is called for ( '-')-p
(this doesn't mean its wrong, the cross platform bit is dead on - it just loses some punch in my eyes)
The killer app for tablets and it is the reader (just as the killer app for smartphones is telephony) - the reader only ceases to appear as the killer app when one focuses on the iPad to the exclusion of ereaders from Amazon, Sony, etc.
As a platform for the browser, the tablet/slate is compromised form factor - no keyboard, limited screen, size, limited support for client side technologies (e.g. Flash). There's really nothing in the form factor that makes browsing on a tablet better than browsing on a netbook, laptop, desktop, or to a certain extent even a smartphone.