
Rethinking Mobile First - benackles
http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2012/12/rethinking-mobile-first.html
======
Silhouette
_It has become a bit of a orthodoxy among the consumer social startup crowd to
do mobile first and web second._

Sorry, but that is hubris, plain and simple. I know plenty of people who read
the original post on the AVC blog. Most of us didn't buy it then, and still
don't.

The fact is that today there is very little you can't do in a browser app and
can do to a useful extent in a mobile app. Mobile browsers are driving support
for HTML5 features and Javascript tools supporting useful features like
geolocation, and they do it well enough to meet a lot of needs now.

If I write a browser app then I have a few portability/degradation issues to
deal with, but I'm only maintaining one code base so I can spend all my
development time getting those things right. If I write mobile apps, I need a
whole new app on each platform I want to support, plus I still need a browser
app or a native executable for each major platform if I want to support
customers on desktops/laptops as well.

If I write a browser app then I can charge however I like using a variety of
services, and aside from taxes and overheads for collecting payment it's all
mine. If I write mobile apps, I'm losing an absurd proportion of revenues to
the likes of Apple when people buy my app, and I have to comply with all kinds
of onerous rules about charging later too.

If I write a browser app then I can distribute it under my control. If I write
mobile apps, then I have app stores and their infamous approval processes to
get through, and if they decide they don't like me, all my effort was for
nothing.

In short, mobile apps _suck_ (from a business or software development
perspective). They have exactly one redeeming feature, in that you can still
do a few things with them that are harder or impossible with web apps, and
even that advantage is reducing almost by the day. Otherwise, for most
information consumption or communication software -- which is, let's face it,
about 99.99% of what everyone is running on mobile devices anyway -- it's hard
to see any reason to invest in mobile apps today.

~~~
dirtyaura
I stated it in another comment, but the mobile-first strategy is more about
user interaction design than implementation technology choices. The decision
between HTML5 or native app or HTML5 wrapped as an app will be different in a
year, but the fact that users are using most services mainly from mobile or
tablets won't.

If you start a new startup today and you have resources to design a single
user experience, it's a choice of designing for mobile/tablets or for laptops.
Responsive design is not a solution here, as you have to think full user
flows.

It's questions like how much text a user is willing to input? How will they
pay? How will they bring their own data to your service? If you are selling
anything virtual, you should probably leverage native in-app payment methods
instead of expecting user to input credit card details. If user needs to bring
his data (photos, documents, Excel sheets) to your service, how he will do it?
In the mobile-first world, things like smooth Dropbox integration mean much
more than on a laptop/desktop world.

~~~
equalarrow
Absolutely. There are so many trade-offs with mobile and the ones you
described are spot on.

I feel like the mobile first is a ruse in some ways that investors love to
hype. I had a startup a few years back (mid 2007- late 2010) that got some
pretty good angel money. A pretty decent amount to get everything launched and
keep us going and keep us running over the years. We rolled out a web site
first and slowly built our paying user base up.

But as soon as the iPhone came out, my partner decided that we _had_ to be a
mobile company. He told me to remove the website, truncate our db, and start
from a 'clean slate'. I was totally against it and years later, we never made
anywhere near the money we had before we went mobile (company 'IP' was chopped
up and sold off last year). But the thing is, our app really was location
based, so from one point of view, it definitely made sense to have a very
strong mobile presence. But we killed off our main revenue source to be a
'mobile company' - the stupidest thing ever and I'm a total business 101 fail.

Sure, mobile (as per Mary Meeker and others) has not reached its full
potential. But if I were starting a new project, I would definitely consider
if mobile first makes sense. I am primarily an iOS developer, but have built
on many languages/platforms on the server side for years. I love making mobile
products and I believe that there's pretty much always a place for it. But the
whole 'mobile first' argument only makes sense for products that rely on the
unique traits mobile offers.

Companies/apps like Uber, Wikipedia, News, Music stores, ticketing,
Foursquare, etc, make most sense to go mobile first (even tho some may not
have). They can be used away from the desktop easily and usually have a
benefit in the real world. But unless you product fits into something like
that, I would agree more with Vibhu and do mobile later.

And whatever you do, don't kill your main source of revenue to be a 'mobile
company'!

~~~
dirtyaura
Interesting story. What was your product exactly?

We were original doing Jaiku in 2006 with the full focus on mobile initially
but pretty soon changed focus to web, because it was impossible to get mobile
distribution at those days. We sold to Google in 2007, but had we continued,
we would have faced a very interesting decision, when iPhone app store came
out: move main focus back to mobile?

Thinking about this alternative history is very interesting. Twitter was
clearly ahead on the web, although we gave them some challenge when Leo
Laporte and his fans switched from Twitter to Jaiku. But in this alternative
history had we realized importance of iPhone early enough (very big question
mark, as we were based in Finland, the land of the Nokia) we could have had
chance to execute on mobile better than Twitter.

------
zoba
Some teams I've seen blindly follow the 'mobile first' strategy without
thinking about what device their application is best suited for. Microsoft
Word, Photoshop, and advanced developer IDEs are good examples of software
that should be desktop centric. While there are text/image/code editors on
mobile, the difference is that people end up _crafting_ with these types of
software. They put hours into them on one project and build something they
consider truly great. Instagram makes sense on mobile because the amount of
time you put into the app is likely under 10 minutes at a time. If you're
expecting your users to craft, and to spend long periods of time building
something in your app then give them a big screen and a physical keyboard;
give them desktop/web.

In addition, I think the point about not being able to rapidly fix issues is a
pretty good one. Average app store approval time is now 7 days, and while its
possible to do testing to prevent issues, I imagine most first-time startups
are not going to be able to fully predict the impact of scale on their app.

------
MatthewPhillips
To me it feels like the mobile hype is in decline. People still like their
apps, but there hasn't been a breakthrough (non-game) success in quite a
while. I say this as Instagram is only 2 years old. SXSW used to introduce a
new category of apps each year (Gamified location apps, group messaging, photo
sharing) and this year we got... Highlight. Which might be great but it's no
Foursquare.

~~~
ozgung
Hype may be in decline but only to rise again as modeled in the Hype Cycle. I
think this "Mobile First" thing is a typical example of Amara's Law,
overestimating the effect of a new technology in the short run and
underestimating in the long run.

------
gbog
The interesting bit that I'd like to se more explored is the quote about "two
companies that will not help app developers succeed". Those two are obviously
Apple and Google, and I think a key of the problem could be right there, under
our nose.

Why would Apple and Google not want to help independent devs push their apps
on apps markets? (Let's suppose this statement to be true for a sec). We can
find many reasons for Apple and Google to avoid random cowboys getting
successful with a piece of code on "their" phone. First, it is concurrence.
Google Reader has a lot of unofficial clients, and it must be some kind of
annoyance, because they might not use the APIs as intended. Indie apps might
bridge unwanted links with bigger competitors, or might just pollute the app
store with ugly icons, semi-porn, ponzy schemes, or simply noise.

But from their point of view, maybe these companies consider themselves as
elephants carrying most of the weight (hear development cost) and just don't
want to let a horde of monkeys jump on their back and disturb the convoy. And
we need to agree that this convoy has to get his way into the bush.

So app devs should go back to good ol' Web, following Vibhu Norby's advice?
That smells like a defeat. Fred Wilson is right in saying that mobile is
future, "like it or not". The problem is we, as devs, should make this future
ours. We should fight, and we have weapons. I'd love to see "I broke out of my
own jail" stickers on every iThing on tech talks. We should hear and speak
more about the forks of forks of Android. We should make it the new hype to
have one phone in each pocket, each with a different system, all running "pre-
alpha" obscure OSes. We should make it cool, easy or even normal to have one's
own VPN-NAS-cloud where all the things connect.

(I might have gotten a slip too far, but) if we don't push hard on this, both
Apple and Google may slowly bring us all towards the nightmarish path of
MicroSoft, where hundred of thousand of slaves push the wheels of a Gigantic
Golden Sphinx, and kiss their own blood on the whips of their executioners.

~~~
rimantas
And how all this nonsense you describe in the third paragraph will help me as
a customer/user?

What is so desirable in the future full of fragmented, incompatible, rushed
out crap?

If there is a jail it is in the thinking, that development is something
soooooo special and should be centre of thinking, politics and universe. Guess
what: we make apps for our users. And they want none of that drunken ivory
tower vision, they won't go whip out their phone, do what they want to do and
go on with their day.

------
RaSoJo
I subscribe to @eli's point...

The constraint of having to rely on the App Stores is the stifling factor.

Mobile applications have still not gotten to the stage where a pure Mobile web
app could do everything that a downloadable one can.

And for the downloadable ones the end consumer has become completely reliant
on the "big two"...the other app stores are almost non-existent.

Being reliant on the "big two" stifle quick turnaround, experimentation,
payment methodologies, and having to toe the line to bizarre rules drawn up
almost by whim.

It is a matter of time of course that things can become mobile first (mumble
mumble HTML5 mumble mumble)

Eventually..umm..hopefully.. It will come down to just "the Internet" once
again rather than having to customize on platforms, as desktops become more
mobile and mobile devices become as powerful as desktops.

~~~
rimantas

      > stifle quick turnaround, experimentation, payment
      > methodologies
    

As a consumer I will take well thought out and well executed product over
quick turnaround. Experimentation? I am not a laboratory animal. Payment
methodologies? Just give me one method to pay!

~~~
RaSoJo
I am a consumer too =) And i enjoy subscribing to beta versions on all my web
products...

I enjoy being pleasantly surprised...and that surprise won't happen unless the
app developers have complete control over the eco-system, thereby freeing up
experimentation... If i, as a consumer, am not pleasantly surprised i shall go
my own way to the nearest competitor. But having the "big two" put down rules
as to what an app developer should and shouldn't do stifles things. The app
developers want a democracy and the consumers are smart enough to judge what
is good and what is rot. Hence why the rules?

------
mnicole
This article and the comments here on HN seem to miss the entire point of
mobile first (although the comments on the article itself are spot on): mobile
first does not mean you're actually intending to build for mobile at all.

It means funnel everything your site is trying to accomplish down to _how_
you'd design for small viewports so that the focus is on the most important
navigable aspects of your site or service. In knowing where exactly you're
trying to send your audience, there are less questions about the hierarchy of
elements and calls-to-actions on the rest of your designs.

------
dirtyaura
My idea of the mobile-first strategy (or it's younger sibling: a tablet-first
strategy) is that in it's core it defines how you approach user interaction
design. In the future, most of consumer internet services and a significant
number of business tools are primarily used via mobile devices and tablets. In
my opinion, this is a safe bet to make and startups starting today should make
that bet.

However, it doesn't dictate neither your initial distribution strategies or
your platform or technology choices today. For example you design a mobile
user experience, but implement it with HTML 5 and Javascript and wrap that
implementation to an app for distribution (and payment) purposes. Or you
implement that as a native app because at the moment you can create a smoother
experience that way. Or you skip the app part and build just an easy mobile
web experience to make on-boarding easy. Distribution tactics and technologies
change as mobile platforms evolve, but the fact you need to design for mobile
usage doesn't.

Our new startup is doing serious data analysis tool, but from the surface it
looks like a very simple tool. We believe this simplicity is essential to
succeed in the world where our service will be mainly used via tablets and
mobile phones.

------
scottmagdalein
User experience, discoverability, and offline. These three features have
traditionally been the primary reasons to build a native mobile app, and even
target mobile first. But the web, with its open nature and flexible
usefulness, has a way of reducing the lead that native has in these three
areas.

User experience - You can still create a better experience with a native
mobile app, but that's changing and many apps don't require the snazziness of
a native experience to still be amazing. (See Basecamp mobile)

Discoverability - The web hasn't changed much, but the app stores are hurting
themselves. Vibhu's point that discoverability and the viral loop is VERY hard
on mobile is illustrative of the lead that native mobile had in
discoverability diminishing.

Offline - Although HTML5 can handle much of that problem on the web, I think a
really great offline experience still requires a native mobile app. However,
the increase in connectedness and the realization that most apps don't need to
have offline at their core means the gap is narrowing as well.

~~~
Joeri
We've been here with the desktop before, and it's shaking out much the same
way:

User experience: web apps are still worse than desktop apps and always will
be. Good enough is good enough. On mobile the good enough tipping point for
web apps is now.

Discoverability: the app stores don't have enough shelf space for new apps
just like the physical stores didn't have enough shelf space for boxed copies.
Web apps were more discoverable because word of mouth is the primary vector
and nothing is easier than sharing a link. On mobile the same is true: going
viral is easier with a mobile web app loaded in the browser, but people
haven't caught on to that yet.

Offline: i've built and shipped an offline mobile web app. There is only one
hard constraint, and that's the 50 mb of storage you get on iOS (and that with
caveats). Otherwise it's just a question of the API's being nicer to use on
native. That reduces offline on web to a matter of tooling and expertise,
painful but solvable. You can implement all the same use cases, it just takes
more engineering in some cases. On iOS you can even hide the browser's chrome,
and put a nice glossy icon on the homescreen.

------
eli
Seems like a complaint mostly against the current realities of the native app
stores, not against the concept of mobile or even "mobile first"

------
kevinconroy
The biggest argument in favor of mobile first is that it's easier to port your
mobile UI to your web UI. This assumes that the use cases between your mobile
UI and your desktop UI are the same.

This may be a valid assumption for many, but don't assume that this is true by
default for you. Take the time to understand your users and use cases and
determine what makes the most sense for your context.

------
morefranco
Having come from a few startups and many more random experiments - most
mediocre failures, I'd tend to agree that the web allow for much more initial
testing and product validation (depending on the product and industry of
course).

Gabor Cselle wrote an excellent post a few months back titled "The Biggest
Problem in App Discovery" ( [http://blog.gaborcselle.com/2012/10/the-biggest-
problem-in-a...](http://blog.gaborcselle.com/2012/10/the-biggest-problem-in-
app-discovery.html) ) that every new startup with a basic MVP app will face
(heck even with a fully polished app it's hard).

The point that needs to be really illustrated is that the web is still
critical and regardless of the language used, will provide you with a suitable
platform to test, iterate and improve before investing time trying to compete
for minds, hearts and wallets on mobile.

------
replicatorblog
Kickstarter, Pinterest, and Airbnb are interesting counterexamples to the
mobile first thinking. They are three of the biggest success stories of the
last few years. Two have solid business models and seem to be scaling well.
Pinterest at least has a path to one via affiliate fees. Of the three KS
doesn't have an app. Pinterest's breaks a lot of the key functionality and
makes it basically read only. Airbnb has done a really good job considering
the mobile vs. desktop uses cases and designing appropriately.

Mobile is unquestionably the future, but it's a little surprising that there
hasn't been a huge, non-game, break away money maker. As cool as Instagram
was, it felt like a bit of a panic acquisition. Maybe we have to wait for
Square to exit to see the first big proof.

~~~
Silhouette
_Mobile is unquestionably the future, but it's a little surprising that there
hasn't been a huge, non-game, break away money maker._

Mobile _devices_ are surely the future for personal information retrieval and
a lot of social interactions, which collectively makes up a huge part of the
consumer market. Mobile _apps_ , I am much more sceptical about.

For one thing, web apps and cloud buzzwords took hold partly because it was so
much hassle to deploy and maintain traditional native apps on the desktop. I
don't see any reason the same arguments won't hold for mobile over the long
run.

For another thing, you have to consider the nature of the markets. Winning big
in web app world, where there is real money to be made in B2B, is being
Salesforce. Winning big in _platform/channel_ world, where you're not just
hitting consumers but rather every interaction between consumers and other
consumers or businesses, is being Google or Facebook or Amazon or Steam or
PayPal. Winning big in mobile app world, where users look at a $1.50 app
that's going to save them 10 minutes a day and wonder if it's too expensive,
is... maybe enough to pay the rent?

------
throwa
I think this comment by Brandon Burns made on Fred's blog puts things in their
proper context.

I feel like a point is still being missed: mobile is a channel, not a product
strategy.

Instagram worked mobile first because you use it to take pictures, which you
do on your phone. You also use your phone to order a taxi, and to connect with
friends when out — Uber and Foursquare.

Google still has more activity on the desktop than mobile; why? Because people
don't like executing intensive searches on a small screen. Viral content
driven platforms do better on desktop; why? People look at and share content
mostly while goofing off at work, on the computer on their desk.

Your product defines how you execute it, not the channel.

Chase user behavior, not press headlines that say "X sector is growing!"

Think like an experience designer, not like a VC.

------
barrynolan
Both arguments are correct - mobile is the future of customer engagement, and
persistent engagement in mobile apps is hard. It’s especially hard because the
tools we use in the physical or virtual world (CRM, messages, updates,
tutorials, polls, questions, feedback, dialog, etc), by and large don’t yet
exist for the mobile app world. These tools are the grease to iteration to get
app engagement to a better place. Today the mobile apps publishers are
hermetically sealed from both knowing and communicating with their app users.
This is the problem our startup converser.io is addressing.

------
mitchellbryson
"If you design for the web and then port to mobile, you will find that it is
really hard to fit your UI onto the small screen."

Then don't try make it fit. Try designing for it separately, since it's an
entirely different experience.

If you're trying to work out which order to design in, this is really bad
advice, as it isn't one-fits-all.

Think of it this way: should the majority of usage happen when we're out and
about (native mobile), or when we're sat at a desk (full web)? or do you want
to do both in the shortest amount of time (responsive web)?

------
callmeed
I'm wrestling with this right now with regards to a project I'm doing with my
wife (<http://www.cheergram.com>). It's doing well and my wife would like to
move into other printed products after New Years (baby announcements, etc.)

Right now roughly 40% of our traffic comes from mobile/tablet. Our web app
works fine on iPad but not well on smaller screens. I'm considering an iOS app
but can't decide if its worth it (my gut tells me no).

------
bretthellman
Another reminder to take all advice as advice and not fact. Luckily at Hall we
actually thought this through and learned for us what was more important was
Desktop First and we weren't shy about it... <https://hall.com/blog/desktop-
first/>

------
McKittrick
what i find interesting is the disruption mobile/ tablets are causing. If
you're a security company, what do you sell to a tablet user? who buys
security software for an ipad?

~~~
greglindahl
... especially if it's a BYOD bring your own device, owned by the employee.

------
papsosouid
Why do so many people still pretend mobile and web are a binary choice? Web is
a medium, mobile is a platform. Mobile devices can access the web. 90% of the
apps people are making have no business being an app, and should just be a
properly designed website that works on all devices. This is just like all
those people selling "multimedia presentations" on cds in the late 90s instead
of making it a web site.

~~~
schabernakk
This. I got strange looks when I discussed this issue with a few (non-
technical) friends a while back. I said that Apps as they currently exist are
more or less an interim solution. Sure, if you need to take pictures/videos it
can be a useful thing to have a specialized app but most of the times a proper
mobile webpage would suffice.

The only thing I am not so sure about when using your browser as your primary
application container. What about UI/UX Guidelines. A well designed
webapplication works for both ios/android users, but there still different UI
paradigms in place.

Think of all the effort which is put in place to make for example java
programs look native on the different systems.

~~~
pbreit
"a proper mobile webpage would suffice"

I think people have higher aspirations than "would suffice".

~~~
papsosouid
Can you be specific? For example, what exactly would a mobile app of hacker
news provide above and beyond what can easily be provided by a web site?

