Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Ivano Malavolta Gran Sasso Science Institute
Stefano Ruberto Gran Sasso Science Institute
Tommaso Soru University of Leipz...
FRAGMENTATION à a native mobile app is written from scratch for
each platform
Mobile platforms today
Objective
-C
code
Sw...
A possible solution to mobile platforms fragmentation
Recurrent architecture:
–  apps are developed using standard web tec...
Pros
•  cross-platform portability
•  reuse of existing knowledge of
web developers
•  simpler and less expensive
developm...
Research goal
What is the difference between hybrid and
native mobile apps as perceived by end users?
Perceived value
Perce...
We analysed hybrid mobile apps
•  in their actual context of use
•  with a reproducible empirical strategy
–  well-defined ...
Data extraction
Classified apps
(hybrid vs native)
Hybrid apps
classifier*
Reviews
analyzer
top-500 most popular free apps f...
Reviews analysis
Stopwords
removal
manually performed
by 2 domain experts
Single review
Single review
score
polaritypos: 0...
Results
Data-intensive
mobile apps[2]
Apps with closer interaction
with the Android platform
Winners, in line with
informa...
Results – value (RQ1)
Average of the ratings as provided by end users
3.35 3.75
Rating = real number in [1, 5]
Certain bal...
Results – value (RQ1)
Polarity of sentiment of end users
where posa = #reviews with positive sentiment
nega = #reviews wit...
Results – value (RQ1)
Average review count
whre Ra ∈ ℕ
Native apps have been reviewed in average
6.5 times more than hybri...
Results – performance (RQ2)
where posa = #reviews with positive sentiment w.r.t. performance of the app
nega = #reviews wi...
Results –bugginess (RQ3)
where buga = #reviews signalling the presence of bugs or failures
reviewsa = total number of revi...
Results – initial download size (RQ4)
6,586 kb4,625 kb
In line with the average size of
Android apps [7]
sizea = file size ...
A possible solution to mobile platforms fragmentation
Recurrent architecture:
–  apps are developed using standard web tec...
References
[1] Ivano Malavolta, Stefano Ruberto, Valerio Terragni, Tommaso Soru, Hybrid Mobile Apps in
the Google Play Sto...
Contact
Ivano Malavolta |
Post-doc researcher
Gran Sasso Science Institute
iivanoo
ivano.malavolta@gssi.infn.it
www.ivanom...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

End Users’ Perception of Hybrid Mobile Apps in the Google Play Store

1,143 views

Published on

28th June 2015. My presentation at Mobile Services 2015 (http://www.themobileservices.org) about our study on end users' perception of hybrid mobile Apps in the Google Play Store. Mobile Services 2015 is the 4th IEEE International Conference on Mobile Services, and it has been held in June 27 - July 2, 2015, New York, USA.

Accompanying paper: http://www.ivanomalavolta.com/files/papers/MS_2015.pdf

Abstract:
Today millions of mobile apps are downloaded and used all over the world. Mobile apps are distributed via different app stores, such as the Google Play Store, the Apple App Store, the Windows Phone Store. One of the most intriguing challenges in mobile apps development is its fragmentation with respect to mobile platforms (e.g., Android, Apple iOS, Windows Phone). Recently, companies like IBM and Adobe and a growing com- munity of developers advocate hybrid mobile apps development as a possible solution to mobile platforms fragmentation. Hybrid mobile apps are consistent across platforms and built on web standards.

In this paper, we present an empirical investigation into mobile hybrid apps. Our goal is to identify and analyse the traits and distinctions of publicly available hybrid mobile apps from end users’ perspective. The study has been conducted by mining 11,917 free apps and 3,041,315 reviews from the Google Play Store, and analyzing them from the end users’ perception perspective. The results of this study build an objective and reproducible snapshot about how hybrid mobile development is performing “in the wild” in real projects, thus establishing a base for future methods and techniques for developing hybrid mobile apps.

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

End Users’ Perception of Hybrid Mobile Apps in the Google Play Store

  1. 1. Ivano Malavolta Gran Sasso Science Institute Stefano Ruberto Gran Sasso Science Institute Tommaso Soru University of Leipzig Valerio Terragni Hong Kong University of Science and Technology End Users’ Perception of Hybrid Mobile Apps in the Google Play Store New York, 28th June 2015
  2. 2. FRAGMENTATION à a native mobile app is written from scratch for each platform Mobile platforms today Objective -C code Swift code XCode Java code C++ code Eclipse C# code C++ code Visual Studio JS code
  3. 3. A possible solution to mobile platforms fragmentation Recurrent architecture: –  apps are developed using standard web technologies –  on top of a hybrid development framework •  providing a native wrapper and a generic JavaScript API that bridges all the service requests to the corresponding platform API Web-based hybrid mobile apps Single code base
  4. 4. Pros •  cross-platform portability •  reuse of existing knowledge of web developers •  simpler and less expensive development processes Pros and cons Cons •  restricted access to hardware features •  decrease in performance •  variations on user experience As of today, limited empirical investigations have been performed on hybrid mobile apps Strong debate about benefits and drawbacks
  5. 5. Research goal What is the difference between hybrid and native mobile apps as perceived by end users? Perceived value Perceived performance Perceived bugginess Initial download overhead Developer End users creates download & use App Previous work[1] FOCUS OF THIS PAPER RQ1 RQ2 RQ3 RQ4
  6. 6. We analysed hybrid mobile apps •  in their actual context of use •  with a reproducible empirical strategy –  well-defined empirical protocol –  dataset comprising 11,917 real apps and 3,041,315 user reviews* –  dedicated analysis process and tool** Design of the study * complete replication package: http://cs.gssi.infn.it/ms_2015 ** analysis tool from [1]: http://github.com/GabMar/ApkCategoryChecker
  7. 7. Data extraction Classified apps (hybrid vs native) Hybrid apps classifier* Reviews analyzer top-500 most popular free apps for each category of the Google Play Store ~11k app binaries 50 pages (~255) of reviews for each app ~3M user reviews apps scores Apps and reviews mining perceived value: 0.5 users sentiment: 0.6 #reviews: 243 performance: 0.6 bugginess: 0.1 size: 3,456 kb * analysis tool from [1]: http://github.com/GabMar/ ApkCategoryChecker
  8. 8. Reviews analysis Stopwords removal manually performed by 2 domain experts Single review Single review score polaritypos: 0.8 performancepos: 0.6 polarityneg: 0.1 performanceneg: 0.05 bugginess: 0.2 300 random reviews Keywords extraction Relevant keywords Lemmatization Tf-idf based vectors similarity computation
  9. 9. Results Data-intensive mobile apps[2] Apps with closer interaction with the Android platform Winners, in line with informal claims[3,4,5]
  10. 10. Results – value (RQ1) Average of the ratings as provided by end users 3.35 3.75 Rating = real number in [1, 5] Certain balance, with neglectable differences
  11. 11. Results – value (RQ1) Polarity of sentiment of end users where posa = #reviews with positive sentiment nega = #reviews with negative sentiment Balance between hybrid and native apps, with some exceptions Non data-intensive or requiring multimedia capabilities
  12. 12. Results – value (RQ1) Average review count whre Ra ∈ ℕ Native apps have been reviewed in average 6.5 times more than hybrid mobile apps Possible interpretation: hybrid mobile apps are neither perceived as too satisfying nor dissatisfying w.r.t. native ones [6]
  13. 13. Results – performance (RQ2) where posa = #reviews with positive sentiment w.r.t. performance of the app nega = #reviews with negative sentiment w.r.t. performance of the app Balance between hybrid and native apps, with some exceptions
  14. 14. Results –bugginess (RQ3) where buga = #reviews signalling the presence of bugs or failures reviewsa = total number of reviews of the app The highest unbalance between the two development strategies in our study bugginessa = buga / reviewsa Possible interpretation: absence of full-fledged testing frameworks for hybrid apps, such as those provided by native apps IDEs like Eclipse and Android Studio
  15. 15. Results – initial download size (RQ4) 6,586 kb4,625 kb In line with the average size of Android apps [7] sizea = file size in kilobytes of the app APK file
  16. 16. A possible solution to mobile platforms fragmentation Recurrent architecture: –  apps are developed using standard web technologies –  on top of a hybrid development framework •  providing a native wrapper and a generic JavaScript API that bridges all the service requests to the corresponding platform API Hybrid mobile apps Single code base Conclusions Data extraction Classified apps (hybrid vs native) Hybrid apps classifiers Reviews analyzer top-500 most popular free apps for each category of the Google Play Store ~11k app binaries 50 pages (~255) of reviews for each app ~3M app reviews apps scores Apps and reviews mining perceived value: 0.5 users sentiment: 0.6 #reviews: 243 performance: 0.6 bugginess: 0.1 size: 3,456 kb End users value hybrid and native apps similarly Hybrid may be good for data-intensive apps, whereas it performs poorly when dealing with low-level, platform-specific features In some categories, native apps are perceived as better with respect to performance and bugginess Reviews analysis Stopwords removal manually performed by 2 domain experts Single review Single review score polaritypos: 0.8 performancepos: 0.6 polarityneg: 0.1 performanceneg: 0.05 bugginess: 0.2 300 random reviews Keywords extraction Relevant keywords Lemmatization Tf-idf based vectors similarity computation
  17. 17. References [1] Ivano Malavolta, Stefano Ruberto, Valerio Terragni, Tommaso Soru, Hybrid Mobile Apps in the Google Play Store: an Exploratory Investigation. International Conference on Mobile Software Engineering and Systems (MOBILESoft), ACM, 2015. [2] Mirco Franzago, Henry Muccini, and Ivano Malavolta. Towards a collaborative framework for the design and development of data-intensive mobile applications. International Conference on Mobile Software Engineering and Systems (MOBILESoft), pages, 58-61, ACM, 2014. [3] Emiliano Masi, Giovanni Cantone, Manuel Mastrofini, Giuseppe Calavaro, and Paolo Subiaco. Mobile apps development: A framework for technology decision making. In Mobile Computing, Applications, and Services, pages 64–79. Springer, 2013. [4] Julian Ohrt and Volker Turau. Cross-platform development tools for smartphone applications. Computer, (9):72–79, 2012. [5] Luis Corral, Alberto Sillitti, and Giancarlo Succi. Mobile multiplatform development: An experiment for performance analysis. Procedia Computer Science, 10:736–743, 2012. [6] Nan Hu, Jie Zhang, and Paul A Pavlou. Overcoming the j-shaped distribution of product reviews. Communications of the ACM, 52(10):144–147, 2009. [7] Aapo Markkanen. Findings from Mobile Application File-size Research, 2012. ABI Research market report. Code: IN- 1014787.
  18. 18. Contact Ivano Malavolta | Post-doc researcher Gran Sasso Science Institute iivanoo ivano.malavolta@gssi.infn.it www.ivanomalavolta.com

×