The "mobile first" attitude in the Valley these days always struck me as somewhat misguided. As the article points out, it makes perfect sense in select niches, like Uber's. In many others, the non-mobile web offers a superior browsing experience and if your users prefer it, that's probably where your focus should be. As in all things, know your customer better than anybody else and you'll do well.
That, and the interesting fact that "mobile" is a broad term which seems to encompass tablets in most interpretations. Modern tablets often do a pretty good job of displaying sites which haven't been particularly optimized for mobile anyway.
One of the huge benefits people who dismiss mobile first is the ability to control the entire experience. If you launch an iPhone app, you have pixel perfect accuracy, fast speed and can make sure your app works perfectly on all 5 of the devices out there.
Yup, it does narrow your market even further. But not in a very meaningful way. iPhone owners are drastically more likely to download and use your app than on any other platform.
The hard question is whether to launch on the web or mobile first. Once you've decided on mobile first, choosing iPhone first is a fairly obvious choice.
It's not always about reaching everyone as fast as possible. Going wide initially is usually a first time entrepreneurs mistake. Build something, figure out that your value proposition is compelling for your target users. As soon as you have hit "product market fit" go wide.
There is a reason companies are going iPhone first.
There are many potential narratives that explain why companies are going iPhone first.
An alternate explanation to yours is that companies are going iPhone first because it's trendy. We all know about the SV echo chamber. Following trends seems to fit the data just as well as your hypothesis.
I was surprised by how incredibly good the Amazon android app is—it seems to have basically all of the features of the website in a vastly more focused and usable form.
Of course some of that is because Amazon's website is awful, full of noise and random goop that's simply distracting 95% of the time.
But still, I think that actually reflects a lot of websites: the actual content takes up a small fraction of the page, and is surrounded by noise; even those which are less clumsy/cluttered than Amazon often fill the space with graphical prettiness rather than useful content. A small-screen interface can often just eliminate the noise and will be better for it.
That, and the interesting fact that "mobile" is a broad term which seems to encompass tablets in most interpretations. Modern tablets often do a pretty good job of displaying sites which haven't been particularly optimized for mobile anyway.