Over a billion mobile only users will likely come online in emerging markets over the next ten years.
Many of those will be in India, where RIM is actually growing like crazy. I anticipate Windows on Nokia will be a serious player, and Android phones will drop to prices the masses can afford.
The race is not over and the "mobile web" may yet turn out to be the dominant platform.
While I think the idea of this article is true, I think it's a bit unfair to compare the number of mobile apps to the number of web sites. Yes, there may be 350 million websites, but how many of those actually offer a valuable service? I think that the number of worthwhile websites is easily less than 400k. Same with the phone app market: there may be 400k apps, but most are crap. Honestly, I think that the web and mobile probably hover pretty close to each other in terms of the number of useful applications.
The analysis and the numbers seem to be very misleading. It counts only mobile usage which is a tiny fraction of desktop browsing. StatCounter pegs it at just ~7%.
What about adding a 3rd metric for how much time the consumers browse on their desktops and laptops? That's going to eclipse the time stated in the article.
The reason we're seeing such high app numbers in Flurry is that mobile devices are not as convenient to browse on compared to laptops and desktops, so apps like games take over the time spent on such devices.
I think it's important to keep something straight here. If you are going for the consumer market and some parts of the B2B market then yes mobile will keep advancing. But you aren't going to do the design, programming, your taxes or any other labor intensive work or creation on your mobile. So yes we probably underestimate it, but if we believe in that, then we are most probably also underestimating how much both des…
You assume of course that there will never be a device powerful enough to match desktop.
Should I remind you that the chip in the that SIm card is in fact the same cpu chip that was used in Apple IIs?
In next ten years you will see design,programming, etc done on tablets
I think the article is buying into the notion that the web can never be as rich an experience as the native application. I think that the last few years of explosive growth in terms of cloud services and web applications have made it pretty clear that web applications are a viable alternative. Why won't web applications work for mobile devices as well?
Is the argument simply that the app market is less crowded? Is a comparison of the number of websites on the internet(apples) to the number of android applications(oranges) that compelling?
I think it's important to keep something straight here. If you are going for the consumer market and some parts of the B2B market then yes mobile will keep advancing. But you aren't going to do the design, programming, your taxes or any other labor intensive work or creation on your mobile. So yes we probably underestimate it, but if we believe in that, then we are most probably also underestimating how much both des…
You assume of course that there will never be a device powerful enough to match desktop. Should I remind you that the chip in the that SIm card is in fact the same cpu chip that was used in Apple IIs? In next ten years you will see design,programming, etc done on tablets
I don't think I assume that at all. In fact CPU power have very little if anything to do with it.
We could do much smaller cellphones than we do. But we don't because there is a certain size where things start to break down.
I need the space when I work. Just like I need a desk of a certain size.
The need for big screens wont go away any time soon.
One of the first signs I noticed of this was startups we funded not caring much what their domain name was. IIRC that trend began about a year to 18 months ago.
I wonder how mobile web fits into this. Sure, native apps are great, but I'd much prefer to not need to switch between a bunch of native apps and just use my phone's web browser. Mobile web apps like Facebook prove that you can build a non-trivial app that runs in a web browser and have the experience be so good that people don't even care about the native app version (at least everyone I know just uses Facebook righ…
I've seen the opposite. Almost everyone I know uses the native facebook app versus going to m.facebook.com. Most people only use a few websites/apps on their phones, and I think it's just simpler to tap on the app icon rather than start up mobile safari and type m.facebook.com.
There's one caveat to this report that's important: the data is about two different sets of users. The web data is from comScore, and measures all US web users. It includes everyone from HN readers to the neighbor that checks email just once a month. The mobile data is only looking at US smartphone users (who own a phone that can run apps that Flurry can track), and excludes feature phone users or people with no mobile phone at all. Assuming high smartphone usage correlates to high web usage, web data looks comparatively low.
I wonder how mobile web fits into this. Sure, native apps are great, but I'd much prefer to not need to switch between a bunch of native apps and just use my phone's web browser. Mobile web apps like Facebook prove that you can build a non-trivial app that runs in a web browser and have the experience be so good that people don't even care about the native app version (at least everyone I know just uses Facebook righ…
I've seen the opposite. Almost everyone I know uses the native facebook app versus going to m.facebook.com. Most people only use a few websites/apps on their phones, and I think it's just simpler to tap on the app icon rather than start up mobile safari and type m.facebook.com.
The "native" facebook app is just an html5 webapp believe it or not.