
Calling bullshit on 'mobile strategy' - ximeng
http://www.techinasia.com/mobile-strategy-is-bullshit/
======
prof_hobart
I'm calling bullshit on a strawman argument.

I'm not aware of anyone who really thinks that "mobile" is the be and and end
all of their channel strategy. It's just the current/next (depending on where
your company is at this point) channel to go after.

On the flipside, all channels are not created equally. Your mobile phone is
not simply a version of your PC in your pocket. Nor is the car dashboard. All
have an awful lot in common, but they also have their own specific features.
Your laptop or your car is unlikely to become a replacement for your wallet at
any point, for example (you could argue that your mobile phone doesn't seem to
be doing that either yet, but you know what I mean). And there's plenty of
things that make sense to implement on big PC or tablet screen, but make far
less sense on a phone screen etc.

So while no-one should have a "mobile-only" strategy (which pretty much no-one
does anyway), having a "mobile-specifc" angle to your overall channel strategy
is entirely sensible.

~~~
marknutter
> I'm not aware of anyone who really thinks that "mobile" is the be and and
> end all of their channel strategy

> So while no-one should have a "mobile-only" strategy (which pretty much no-
> one does anyway)

Path, Snapchat, Color, Flipboard, Pair, Yardsale, Rumgr, etc. There are lots
more, those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

~~~
prof_hobart
Do you really think that none of them are looking at other platforms?

Most of the ones I know on that list are already on at least tablet as well,
and I would be amazed if someone there isn't at least thinking about future
channels (whether that be smart TV, Google Glass or whatever).

~~~
marknutter
There's a big difference between thinking about other platforms and actually
supporting other platforms. Users typically don't care what a company is
thinking of doing; they care _what_ they're doing.

~~~
prof_hobart
The article (and my reply) were about companies long term strategies, not what
platforms they currently target.

~~~
marknutter
Path is been out for how long now? Flipboard? Still mobile only. Of course,
that depends on what you mean by "long term strategies" but in the internet
startup world I strategies don't tend to be that long term.

~~~
prof_hobart
Pretty certain I've got an optimised version of Flipboard on my tablet. Path I
haven't got on my tablet, but there's an optimised version available if I want
it.

What other existing types of platform would you expect their services to be on
at the moment? Flipboard for one almost certainly wouldn't make a great deal
of sense as a web app. That doesn't mean that they aren't considering whether
it would look good on a gesture-controlled internet TV, or on Google Glass.

~~~
marknutter
I guess I consider tablets mobile devices. But even so, my other examples
still hold and there are lots more out there who focus only on smartphones and
usually only iPhones.

~~~
prof_hobart
Mobile as a general term covers most of the things that the article is talking
about - Google Glass, car dashboards etc are all "mobile" technologies. If he
means that wider term, then the article is even more stupid, so I can only
assume he's referring to mobile phones specifically.

And again, what a company has in market now bears little relationship to what
they have in their strategy. As far as "new" channels, my company currently
only has a phone app , but we are regularly considering where we might want to
go next. And I've not yet talked to a single supplier of any phone technology
who isn't at least thinking about the future outside of that one channel (and
I talk to a lot of suppliers).

------
greenyoda
It's annoying when people assume that something that might apply to their own
business is applicable to all businesses. Not every type of business needs to
be ubiquitous to be successful; it depends on the market. For example, if your
business is leasing virtual servers, it's not likely that you'd need to have a
mobile app to do so. If you're Apple (or Microsoft or IBM), your software
doesn't have to run on every computer architecture to be successful. If you
have a successful game that runs on iOS and Android, you might not get a
proportional return from investing the resources to make it run on Windows 8.

~~~
mattquiros
I don't think he's really talking about all businesses--only those who claim
to need a "mobile strategy."

~~~
ximeng
Agree, the search results for "mobile strategy" are rather breathless.

[http://www.fastcompany.com/3001816/your-company-needs-
mobile...](http://www.fastcompany.com/3001816/your-company-needs-mobile-
strategy-yesterday-and-these-numbers-prove-it)

[http://www.inc.com/ss/6-reasons-why-you-need-a-mobile-
strate...](http://www.inc.com/ss/6-reasons-why-you-need-a-mobile-strategy#2)

[http://www.zdnet.com/a-better-mobile-strategy-quantify-
this-...](http://www.zdnet.com/a-better-mobile-strategy-quantify-
this-7000009720/)

------
netcan
I don't understand the point of what he is saying. Is this just a dig at
business cliches?

"Mobile" like "Computerization" or "Internet" or "Globalisation" before it is
a big change to the world that affects most/many businesses in one way or
another. Among some other effects, it affects how you interact with customers.

It's completely reasonable for businesses to spend some energy thinking about
"How does/should this affect me?" Maybe the answer is "very little" but it's
worth figuring out.

------
wamatt
The OP has a point, however I'll add Supercell doesn't appear to be doing too
terribly with their _mobile only_ strategy.

[http://pandodaily.com/2012/11/16/supercell-the-cash-rich-
lit...](http://pandodaily.com/2012/11/16/supercell-the-cash-rich-little-known-
finnish-startup-that-could-soon-be-worth-600m/)

------
ximeng
"If you want to build a formidable business for the long term then you need a
ubiquity strategy, not a mobile strategy."

I like this idea, matches up with some of the strategies in robomartin's
comment at <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5068777> .

------
seivan
"I hold an MBA from both Columbia University and the London Business School."

If someones business (in software) needs to be 100% quality made, it needs to
be native for that particular platform, using its native functionalities.
Wether it's on iOS, Android or Windows.

For iOS, it's plugging into the notification centre, the ability to use the
calendar as well as the address book. File storage, background services and
etc.

'Mobile Strategy' is basically a strategy to be 100% quality on mobile.

It's not the end strategy, but if your customer base is mobile, then yeah,
mobile strategy. Jeez, people like him generally don't grasp the complexity of
software.

No one really has "ONLY" mobile, unless their business won't work on a
desktop. Or they don't see any business value on being on the desktop.

~~~
marknutter
> I hold an MBA from both Columbia University and the London Business School.

What's this ad hominem crap? The guy can't have an opinion on this because
he's an MBA and "generally [can't] grasp the complexity of software"?

There are a ton of mobile apps out there that don't have any desktop analog
and this guy is suggesting that's a poor strategy, just like having a desktop
website with no mobile interface is a poor strategy. And what the heck does
any of this have to do with whether or not you use native code?

It's a fallacy to state that software needs to be "100% quality made". What
does that even mean? Bug free? Sure. Super pretty? Maybe? Native over web? Now
come on...

> No one really has "ONLY" mobile

Path, Snapchat, Color, Flipboard, Pair, Yardsale, Rumgr, etc. All apps with
little or no desktop web counterpart. The last two have to do with selling and
require a large network effect, and yet they are both only available on
mobile, and even worse, only on iOS; a perfect example of how a narrow "mobile
only (ios first)" strategy can detract from your product.

------
Angostura
That's a slightly odd article. It seems to concentrate on the form-factor of
the screen, and ignore the most interesting parts of mobile strategy; the
ability to react to the changing location and orientation of the user.

~~~
alan_cx
Isn't the article attacking corporate speak? I realise there is more to it,
but its basically saying corporations call a screen size change a "strategy".

------
bsaul
I've been thinking about way to describe UI in a matter of intentions ( "show
this piece of data first, then this one, "warn the user", etc) rather than
graphic property and let the device ( or a framework) generate that depending
on the device. Anyone knows of such a technology ?

~~~
shawn-butler
xForms

------
welcomebrand
Read the article, thought it was a bit wooly and vague. Agreed with this
comment which points out the obvious nicely.

[http://www.techinasia.com/mobile-strategy-is-
bullshit/#comme...](http://www.techinasia.com/mobile-strategy-is-
bullshit/#comment-110614)

All nicely wrapped up.

