Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Results of the survey:[Cross-Platform-]Development of Mobile ApplicationsCarried out by:                     Daniel von de...
Demographic evaluation
59% of the participants work in Germany.              Germany                                59%                Austria   ...
55% of the participants are employed in a company.            Employee                      55%        Self-employed      ...
29% of the companies, in which the participantswork, occupy 11-50 employees.                           29%                ...
92% of the participants are active in the programming.                                Employee, Self-employed, Freelancer ...
26% of the participants are involved in the mobileindustry for one year.            26%                  24%              ...
67% of the participants have already developed a mobileapplication for Android.                   Android                 ...
Development of Mobile Applications
74% of the participants are currently planning or developing anative application - only 4% develop or plan a mobileapplica...
46% of the mobile applications, which are in developmentor planning, are native applications.                 100%        ...
32% of the participants focused on the development of anative application. 24% develop or plan a mobile webapplication and...
72% of the participants are currently developing orplanning a mobile application for Android.           Android           ...
46% of the mobile applications, which are in developmentor planning, are mobile information services.                     ...
75% of the participants consider the best possible userexperience as more important as a uniform user experience.         ...
Growth forecast of the examined technologies for thenext years:                                   Mobile web applications ...
The following technologies were mentioned by the participantsfor the development of mobile applications: •   Airplay      ...
Native Applications
The Top 3 reasons for the development of a nativeapplication:        Distribution possibilities               59%         ...
The Top 3 reasons against the development of a nativeapplication:                      Adaptation effort     39%      Cost...
48% develop their native application for every operatingsystem individually.        The application is developed for each ...
38% of the participants, who are currentlydeveloping or planning a native application forseveral operating systems, do not...
The Top 3 most used frameworks for cross-platformdevelopment are:          Titanium Mobile               32%              ...
48% of the participants, who are currentlydeveloping or planning a native application, are notaware of a tool (e.g. XMLVM)...
Effort estimation for the development of a nativeapplication:                                    Only one OS [n=30]   Seve...
48% use an additional mobile web-application in additionto a native application in order to extend their reach. Only17% st...
Mobile Web Applications
The Top 3 reasons for the development of a mobile webapplication:      Costs (development / maintenance)               53%...
The Top 3 reasons against the development of a mobileweb application:       Limited access to device functions            ...
82% optimize their mobile web application for the iPhone.21% will not conduct any optimization efforts.              iPhon...
Effort estimation for the development of a mobile webapplication:   Implementation effort              Test effort     Mai...
28% of the participants, who are currently developing orplanning a mobile web application, intend to port thoseafterwards ...
Widgets
The Top 3 reasons for the development of a mobileWidget:        Costs (development / maintenance)            50%          ...
The Top 3 reasons against the development of a mobileWidget:         No uniform standard                   47%            ...
MIDlets
The Top 3 reasons for the development of a MIDlet:              Target group                   45%      Programming langua...
The Top 3 reasons against the development of a MIDlet:      iPhone doesnt support Java               47%                 U...
50% of the participants, who are currentlydeveloping or planning a MIDlet, use a cross-platform framework. That with 40% m...
Effort estimation for the development of a MIDlet:                                  Without cross platform framework [n = ...
55% use an additional mobile web-application in additionto a MIDlet in order to extend their reach.     A mobile web appli...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Survey results: [Cross-Platform-] Development of Mobile Applications

3,392

Published on

Results of the survey: [Cross-Platform-] Development of Mobile Applications

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
3 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
3,392
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
79
Comments
0
Likes
3
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Survey results: [Cross-Platform-] Development of Mobile Applications"

  1. 1. Results of the survey:[Cross-Platform-]Development of Mobile ApplicationsCarried out by: Daniel von der HelmE-Mail: info@daniel -von-der-helm.comRealization period: September/October 2010Number of participants: 152The survey was carried out within the scope of a diploma thesis atthe university of applied sciences Kaiserslautern (locationZweibrücken) in the department of IMST under the care of Prof. Dr.Jörg Hettel.Abbreviations : n = number of answers, mn = multiple answers were possibleRemark: Percentages are rounded to simplify.
  2. 2. Demographic evaluation
  3. 3. 59% of the participants work in Germany. Germany 59% Austria 13% USA 7% Switzerland 6% UK 5% France 3% Canada 2% India 1% Belgium 1% Netherland 1% Russia 1% Sweden 1% South Africa 1% Czechia 1% n = 152
  4. 4. 55% of the participants are employed in a company. Employee 55% Self-employed 25% Student 16% Freelancer 4% n = 152
  5. 5. 29% of the companies, in which the participantswork, occupy 11-50 employees. 29% Freelancer Employee 23% Self-employed 14% 12% 11% 10% 1 2-10 11-50 51-100 101-1000 >1000 n = 126
  6. 6. 92% of the participants are active in the programming. Employee, Self-employed, Freelancer Student Programming 92% Conception 68% Design 53% Project management 45% Quality assurance 35% Other 3% mn, n = 152
  7. 7. 26% of the participants are involved in the mobileindustry for one year. 26% 24% 12% 9% 8% 5% 5% 3% 3% 3% 1% 1% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 n = 148
  8. 8. 67% of the participants have already developed a mobileapplication for Android. Android 67% iPhone 56% Windows Mobile 39% Symbian 33% Blackberry 26% WebOS 14% Palm 9% Other 6% mn, n = 152
  9. 9. Development of Mobile Applications
  10. 10. 74% of the participants are currently planning or developing anative application - only 4% develop or plan a mobileapplication with the technologies Flash or JavaFX. Native application 74% Mobile web application 49% Hybrid application 16% MIDlet 13% None 9% Mobile widget 7% Mobile RIA (Flash/JavaFX) 4% mn, n = 152
  11. 11. 46% of the mobile applications, which are in developmentor planning, are native applications. 100% 90% 80% 70% Mobile RIA 60% (Flash/JavaFX) Mobile widget 50% MIDlet 40% Hybrid application 30% Mobile web application 20% Native application 10% 0% mn, n = 138
  12. 12. 32% of the participants focused on the development of anative application. 24% develop or plan a mobile webapplication and in parallel a native application.35%30%25%20%15%10% 5% 0% None Mobile RIA (Flash, JavaFX) MIDlet Hybrid application Mobile web application Native application n = 152
  13. 13. 72% of the participants are currently developing orplanning a mobile application for Android. Android 72% iPhone 66% Blackberry 33% Symbian 26% Windows Mobile 22% Windows Phone 18% WebOS 16% Bada 5% MeeGo 2% Maemo 1% mn, n = 138
  14. 14. 46% of the mobile applications, which are in developmentor planning, are mobile information services. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Mobile information services Location based services Mobile entertainment Mobile communication Native application Mobile web application Mobile commerce Hybrid application Mobile intranet applications MIDlet Mobile widget Mobile office Mobile RIA (Flash, JavaFX) Mobile control applications Augmented reality services Mobile learning applications Other mn, n = 138
  15. 15. 75% of the participants consider the best possible userexperience as more important as a uniform user experience. Best possible UX 75% Uniform UX 25% n = 152
  16. 16. Growth forecast of the examined technologies for thenext years: Mobile web applications Native applications Mobile RIAs Widgets MIDlets Decrease Unchanged Increase n = 150
  17. 17. The following technologies were mentioned by the participantsfor the development of mobile applications: • Airplay • Netbeans (Mobility Pack/Game Builder) • DeviceAtlas • Netbiscuits • Django • Phonegap • Ruby on Rails • Qooxdoo • Dojo Toolkit • Qt • Elips Studio • QuickConnectFamily • embedjs • ramp • FITML • Rhomobile • GWT • SASS • Google App Engine • Sencha Touch • iUI • Sproutcore • J2ME Polish • Sybase MEAP • jQuery Mobile • Titanium Mobile • jQTouch • TouchScroll • Lwuit • Unify • Mobile-Assistance-Framework • Unity3D • MooTools • WURFL • MoSync • XMLVM Remark: OS-SDKs are generally known and have been omitted.
  18. 18. Native Applications
  19. 19. The Top 3 reasons for the development of a nativeapplication: Distribution possibilities 59% Performance 55% User Experience 46% mn, n = 112
  20. 20. The Top 3 reasons against the development of a nativeapplication: Adaptation effort 39% Costs (development / maintenance) 39% Training period 38% mn, n = 18
  21. 21. 48% develop their native application for every operatingsystem individually. The application is developed for each operating system individually 48% The application is developed only for one operating system 23% Use of a framework for cross platform development 20% Other approach 5% The application is developed in one programming language (for one OS) 4% and is ported afterwards on other operating systems n = 112
  22. 22. 38% of the participants, who are currentlydeveloping or planning a native application forseveral operating systems, do not use a frameworkfor cross platform development, because they areafraid of problems with the App Store approval. n = 21
  23. 23. The Top 3 most used frameworks for cross-platformdevelopment are: Titanium Mobile 32% Rhomobile 16% ELIPS Studio 16% n = 24
  24. 24. 48% of the participants, who are currentlydeveloping or planning a native application, are notaware of a tool (e.g. XMLVM) for porting. n = 21
  25. 25. Effort estimation for the development of a nativeapplication: Only one OS [n=30] Several OS individually [n=50] Cross platform [n=20] Implementation effort Test effort Maintenance effort Adaptation effort Low Medium High 0% 100% n = 100
  26. 26. 48% use an additional mobile web-application in additionto a native application in order to extend their reach. Only17% stated that their application is not or only partiallyimplementable as a mobile web application. A mobile web application already exists, is in development or 48% planned. The native application is not or only partly convertible as mobile 17% web application. A mobile web application doesnt exist and is neither in 35% development nor planned. n = 112
  27. 27. Mobile Web Applications
  28. 28. The Top 3 reasons for the development of a mobile webapplication: Costs (development / maintenance) 53% Open standards 47% Range 42% mn, n = 66
  29. 29. The Top 3 reasons against the development of a mobileweb application: Limited access to device functions 67% Browser incompatibilities 49% User Experience 45% mn, n = 51
  30. 30. 82% optimize their mobile web application for the iPhone.21% will not conduct any optimization efforts. iPhone 82% HTC 61% Samsung 36% Nokia 33% Motorola 32% Sony Ericsson 27% No optimization 21% Other 5% mn, n = 66
  31. 31. Effort estimation for the development of a mobile webapplication: Implementation effort Test effort Maintenance effort Adaptation effort Low 0% Medium High 100% n = 53
  32. 32. 28% of the participants, who are currently developing orplanning a mobile web application, intend to port thoseafterwards in a hybrid application e.g. by using Phonegap. TheTop 3 reasons for this are: Distribution possibilities 65% Marketing effects 39% Access to device functions 30% mn, n = 23
  33. 33. Widgets
  34. 34. The Top 3 reasons for the development of a mobileWidget: Costs (development / maintenance) 50% Distribution possibilities 38% Development time 38% mn, n = 8
  35. 35. The Top 3 reasons against the development of a mobileWidget: No uniform standard 47% User Experience 25% Distribution possibilities 22% mn, n = 36
  36. 36. MIDlets
  37. 37. The Top 3 reasons for the development of a MIDlet: Target group 45% Programming language 35% Range 30% mn, n = 20
  38. 38. The Top 3 reasons against the development of a MIDlet: iPhone doesnt support Java 47% User Experience 43% Fragmentation 42% mn, n = 53
  39. 39. 50% of the participants, who are currentlydeveloping or planning a MIDlet, use a cross-platform framework. That with 40% mostly usedframework is J2ME Polish. n = 10
  40. 40. Effort estimation for the development of a MIDlet: Without cross platform framework [n = 26] With cross platform framework [n = 15] Implementation effort Test effort Maintenance effort Adaptation effort 0%Low Medium High 100% n = 41
  41. 41. 55% use an additional mobile web-application in additionto a MIDlet in order to extend their reach. A mobile web application already exists, is in development or 55% planned. A mobile web application doesnt exist and is neither in 40% development nor planned. The MIDlet is not or only partly convertible as mobile web 5% application. n = 20
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×