advertisement
advertisement

This is page 2 of:

Mobile Web May Be More Widely Used, But Apps Can Do What The Web Can’t

March 14th, 2012

Another reason: Sites are inevitably easier to upgrade than apps. A Web site fix or improvement just has to be developed and tested, and then go live. An app, on the other hand, has to be developed, tested, and then sent to the app store, where it may be vetted by the store’s owner, could be rejected and will go live on an unpredictable schedule. Then it has to be downloaded by customers, who may or may not get around to it.

And all that extra work has to be done for each version of the app. No wonder BlackBerry and Windows Mobile users are stuck with the Web, and apps that merely mirror what a Web site does are always a generation behind the current site.

But for retailers, an app naturally does at least one thing better than the Web: It blocks out the competition. The mobile Web makes it easy for customers to jump around and visit the competition—it’s like being in a mall on roller skates. A retailer’s app, on the other hand, puts a customer firmly in a single store, and the retailer can control the customer experience almost completely. That may explain why Nielsen found app users spent more time at each store. In an app, there are fewer distractions.

That’s probably not enough differentiation to make apps worth the trouble for most users, though. An app really needs to do something that makes it worth the trouble. Pizza chains have figured that out—they’ve made a priority of putting ordering capability into apps. You can order a pizza through the mobile site, but the app makes it much easier.

But purchasing isn’t the only function apps might deliver on better than mobile Web sites. With ever-increasing processor power in smartphones, a walk-through virtual store becomes practical. That’s never going to be as smooth and effective on a mobile site as it is within an app that is completely under the retailer’s control.

Or maybe the app could leverage its ability to tap into the phone’s location, motion sensors and camera—things a Web site can’t count on being there—to provide in-store-like makeovers or, in the case of chains with lots of locations, make use of geofencing for coupons that are good for very limited periods. (Related story: Gap’s Geofencing Trial Merely The Appetizer Before The Purchase History Entrée)

Of course, if there’s really nothing special your app can do, it’s probably not worth the trouble. Remember, only about 8 percent of those Nielsen smartphone users were app-only users. The rest used the mobile Web at least some of the time.

But pulling customers in and blocking out the competition is what apps do best. And as long as you can find something compelling that the app can do, it’s likely to be worth the effort.


advertisement

Comments are closed.

Newsletters

StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!
advertisement

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

StorefrontBacktalk
Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.