My alma mater (which is also the university where I work) just released an iPad application for its student newspaper, the Optimist.
Of course, the folks at my university (myself included) are excited about this product, and about the chance to explore what publications can do on a tablet device like the iPad. But a few voices (including those of my friend and critic @chrylis, and MediaPost writer Steve Smith), pulled me from my personal revelry long enough to ask an important question: Why choose to make a native iPad app when one could make a mobile-optimized website instead?
In his critique of the iPad and its apps, Steve notes several apps (particularly, apps of publications) that provide more limited content compared to their online counterparts and fail to make up for that limitation through seamless navigation or personalization. @chrylis questions the utility of an app that runs only on one device, as opposed to a mobile website that would run on many.
They're right.
No new product (including mobile applications) is worth buying (or selling) if it doesn't add some value above the products that are already available.
If a new product does the same thing as something else on the market without doing it better, or more easily, or more conveniently, or less expensively, or with greater access, or with more satisfaction, then it has missed its mark as a new product that meets consumers' needs.
If an iPad app looks like its online counterpart, but with less content, more restricted navigation, less ubiquity, and no additional not-available-via-web features, then the web version will prove more useful to both iPad-users and non-iPad-users.
Steve Smith recommends two ways of differentiating iPad apps from their web versions: personalization and navigation. I would add a third: communication.
Personalization would enable an iPad user to configure an app based on their personal preferences. Maybe this means pulling in information specifically relevant to the user's interests. Maybe it means adjusting viewer settings to fit the user's lifestyle. Maybe it means reconfiguring navigation so that the viewer's favorite features are the easiest ones to access.
Navigation on the iPad should work intuitively, should flow gracefully, and should access data simply. Maybe this means simplifying the menu to just a few categories. Maybe it means reducing visual clutter. Maybe it means letting users customize the menu to their own preferences. Maybe it means expanding or hiding extra content with just a touch. Maybe it means taking advantage of two axes for scrolling "deep" into a topic versus "wide" across topics. Maybe it means a visually-logical arrangement of information, instead of only lists.
Communication should enable iPad users to easily share comments, connect apps with social media, and integrate information from various sources. Maybe this means allowing activity on an app to update a user's status on their social networks (as desired). Maybe it means that comments made in an iPad app would show up on web versions as well. Maybe it means that users can collect articles from various apps into a centralized database, so that users can bookmark pieces of information, cross-link them, and add their own notes.
As Steve Smith pointed out with current examples of successful iPad apps, the personalization and navigation pieces are already being achieved by several app makers. I suspect that the communication piece will require additional development and exploration, perhaps even in the capabilities of the iPad SDK. Regardless, these value-adds must be part of an iPad app if the app is to be more useful than a mobile-optimized website.
With your own products, whether mobile or not, are you adding value for your customers? Or can their needs be met just as well (or better) with another item on the market?
Showing posts with label mobile. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mobile. Show all posts
Friday, April 9, 2010
Friday, February 12, 2010
One Small Step...but no giant leap
This week, Target unveiled a new way for customers to redeem their Target gift cards in-store: by scanning a bar code on their mobile phones.
To avoid the my-wallet-is-stuffed-with-50-bajillion-gift-cards syndrome, or the oh-no-I'm-at-the-store-but-left-my-gift-card-at-home problem, Target GiftCard recipients can enter the information from their GiftCard into a secure account on the Target.com mobile site. Then, when the recipient visits one of Target's 1740 store locations, she can retrieve her GiftCard information on her phone, which displays a digital bar code to be scanned at checkout.
Customers can access the Target.com mobile site at any time to check their GiftCard balance(s), and can reload their mobile GiftCards at any Target store register.
This seems like a good step for Target, a company that aims to "surprise and delight [its] guests with innovative and highly relevant mobile capabilities," in the words of Steve Eastman, President of Target.com.
But Target could do much more to make their GiftCard program convenient, accessible, and truly mobile for its customers.
For one thing, it seems that customers must still receive physical, plastic Target GiftCards before they can use those cards on their mobile devices. They must manually input the data from their plastic GiftCards into their mobile phones.
Sure, this is great, reducing wallet clutter and nearly ensuring that the customer will have his GiftCard information with him when he visits the store. But why require a physical, plastic GiftCard at all? Why can't customers exchange mobile GiftCards electronically, eliminating the need for the physical plastic by simply sending the GiftCard information to their friends via email or text message? Then the intended recipient could simply follow a link to retrieve his GiftCard on his mobile phone - saving plastic and saving the time required for a manual input.
At the very least, why can't the purchaser choose to instantly email the GiftCard information to the recipient as soon as the GiftCard is purchased?
Mobile technology can be a great way to create easy access and reduce physical waste. But Target hasn't quite made that leap yet.
To avoid the my-wallet-is-stuffed-with-50-bajillion-gift-cards syndrome, or the oh-no-I'm-at-the-store-but-left-my-gift-card-at-home problem, Target GiftCard recipients can enter the information from their GiftCard into a secure account on the Target.com mobile site. Then, when the recipient visits one of Target's 1740 store locations, she can retrieve her GiftCard information on her phone, which displays a digital bar code to be scanned at checkout.
Customers can access the Target.com mobile site at any time to check their GiftCard balance(s), and can reload their mobile GiftCards at any Target store register.
This seems like a good step for Target, a company that aims to "surprise and delight [its] guests with innovative and highly relevant mobile capabilities," in the words of Steve Eastman, President of Target.com.
But Target could do much more to make their GiftCard program convenient, accessible, and truly mobile for its customers.
For one thing, it seems that customers must still receive physical, plastic Target GiftCards before they can use those cards on their mobile devices. They must manually input the data from their plastic GiftCards into their mobile phones.
Sure, this is great, reducing wallet clutter and nearly ensuring that the customer will have his GiftCard information with him when he visits the store. But why require a physical, plastic GiftCard at all? Why can't customers exchange mobile GiftCards electronically, eliminating the need for the physical plastic by simply sending the GiftCard information to their friends via email or text message? Then the intended recipient could simply follow a link to retrieve his GiftCard on his mobile phone - saving plastic and saving the time required for a manual input.
At the very least, why can't the purchaser choose to instantly email the GiftCard information to the recipient as soon as the GiftCard is purchased?
Mobile technology can be a great way to create easy access and reduce physical waste. But Target hasn't quite made that leap yet.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Revolution-starters: iPad vs. iBooks store
May you hereby know, in case you missed it, that today Apple announced its much-anticipated new device - the iPad.
The iPad is a half-inch-thick, 1.5-pound tablet device, with a 9.7-inch, LED-backlit, multi-touch screen; 1 GHz Apple A4 processor; 16, 32, or 64 GB flash drive; 802.11n WiFi and optional 3G; 30-pin dock connector; Bluetooth; microphone; speaker; accelerometer; compass; and expected 10 hours of battery life. (If you haven't yet seen the video of Steve Jobs' announcement and the iPad promo video, watch them at www.apple.com/ipad.)
The iPad will enable users to surf the web, access email, manage calendars, search maps, listen to music, and access iPhone, iPod, and iPad apps. All on a device that is a bit smaller - and a little thicker - than a clipboard.
So what makes the iPad anything more than a giant iPod touch?
At this point, it seems to be one particular native app that Apple has created specially for this device: iBooks.
iBooks is an e-book reading app. Users can download books to their iBookshelf from the iBooks store; open a book by tapping on it; view one page or two pages at once by orienting the iPad vertically or horizontally; flip through the pages by tapping either side of the screen or by swiping a finger across the screen; adjust the typeface and font size; jump to a page from the book's table of contents; and view any photos or videos that the author has embedded in the book.
Before the announcement, this new device was rumored to be a tablet that would be "the most important thing that Steve Jobs has done" and that would "revolutionize the publishing industry."
After the announcement, some commentators seemed underwhelmed. A nifty device? "Maybe." Revolutionary? "We're not sure how."
One could make the case that the iPod and iPhone were revolutionary devices. The iPod, while not the first MP3 player, transformed the digital music industry. The iPhone, while not the first smartphone, transformed the communication industry.
How did the iPod and iPhone achieve these momentous milestones?
The physical devices themselves were good, perhaps. There is something to be said for Apple's talent for simple, elegant, intuitive design.
But the best-designed device in the world would be useless, were it not for content to fill the device. "Form follows function," after all.
The revolutions sparked by the iPod and iPhone lay, not so much in the devices themselves, but in the information systems behind the devices. The revolution lay in the iTunes Store and the App Store.
The iTunes Store provided iPod users with access to [now] millions of songs - the content which made the iPod worth having. The App Store provided iPhone and iPod touch users with access to [now] tens of thousands of applications - the content which made the iPhone and iPod touch worth having.
If the iPad is to revolutionize publishing as the iPod revolutionized music and the iPhone revolutionized communication, it will be because of the iBooks store.
Of course, for the iBooks store to start this revolution, it will need content: books, magazines, newspapers. Apple cannot provide that content; it must come from third-parties - the authors and journalists and publishers.
And, of course, the iBooks store faces some stiff competition from other eBook providers like Amazon and Barnes & Noble and Google Books.
And, of course, the funneling of e-books through Apple's closed system will exclude those e-books that are available only from sources other than the iBooks store.
But, if Apple is indeed launching a revolution, it will be due to the iBooks store - the distribution system behind the iPad - and not to the iPad itself.
The iPad is a half-inch-thick, 1.5-pound tablet device, with a 9.7-inch, LED-backlit, multi-touch screen; 1 GHz Apple A4 processor; 16, 32, or 64 GB flash drive; 802.11n WiFi and optional 3G; 30-pin dock connector; Bluetooth; microphone; speaker; accelerometer; compass; and expected 10 hours of battery life. (If you haven't yet seen the video of Steve Jobs' announcement and the iPad promo video, watch them at www.apple.com/ipad.)
The iPad will enable users to surf the web, access email, manage calendars, search maps, listen to music, and access iPhone, iPod, and iPad apps. All on a device that is a bit smaller - and a little thicker - than a clipboard.
So what makes the iPad anything more than a giant iPod touch?
At this point, it seems to be one particular native app that Apple has created specially for this device: iBooks.
iBooks is an e-book reading app. Users can download books to their iBookshelf from the iBooks store; open a book by tapping on it; view one page or two pages at once by orienting the iPad vertically or horizontally; flip through the pages by tapping either side of the screen or by swiping a finger across the screen; adjust the typeface and font size; jump to a page from the book's table of contents; and view any photos or videos that the author has embedded in the book.
Before the announcement, this new device was rumored to be a tablet that would be "the most important thing that Steve Jobs has done" and that would "revolutionize the publishing industry."
After the announcement, some commentators seemed underwhelmed. A nifty device? "Maybe." Revolutionary? "We're not sure how."
One could make the case that the iPod and iPhone were revolutionary devices. The iPod, while not the first MP3 player, transformed the digital music industry. The iPhone, while not the first smartphone, transformed the communication industry.
How did the iPod and iPhone achieve these momentous milestones?
The physical devices themselves were good, perhaps. There is something to be said for Apple's talent for simple, elegant, intuitive design.
But the best-designed device in the world would be useless, were it not for content to fill the device. "Form follows function," after all.
The revolutions sparked by the iPod and iPhone lay, not so much in the devices themselves, but in the information systems behind the devices. The revolution lay in the iTunes Store and the App Store.
The iTunes Store provided iPod users with access to [now] millions of songs - the content which made the iPod worth having. The App Store provided iPhone and iPod touch users with access to [now] tens of thousands of applications - the content which made the iPhone and iPod touch worth having.
If the iPad is to revolutionize publishing as the iPod revolutionized music and the iPhone revolutionized communication, it will be because of the iBooks store.
Of course, for the iBooks store to start this revolution, it will need content: books, magazines, newspapers. Apple cannot provide that content; it must come from third-parties - the authors and journalists and publishers.
And, of course, the iBooks store faces some stiff competition from other eBook providers like Amazon and Barnes & Noble and Google Books.
And, of course, the funneling of e-books through Apple's closed system will exclude those e-books that are available only from sources other than the iBooks store.
But, if Apple is indeed launching a revolution, it will be due to the iBooks store - the distribution system behind the iPad - and not to the iPad itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
