Mobile Applications and Devices

STEMTech 2011CIO Summit

October 2, 2011

Some Mobile Statistics

“5 billion people will be directly touched by mobile devices and networks by 2015”

-- Source: Yankee Group Research, 2011

Earth’s Population Today: almost 7 billion people

Mobile Device StatisticsMobile Computing is the Largest Computing Shift Ever

Source: Yankee Group Research, 2011

Mobile Device Statistics

Smart Phone Market Statistics

Smart Phone Statistics

Mobile Web ReviewPros

• Cost and ease of development• Compatibility with the most devices• Control of the development and delivery process• Best match with current web developer skill sets, allowing for high levels of reuse in

terms of training and code base.

Cons

• Mobile Web applications cannot use the local device hardware, such as local storage, cameras, accelerometers, and other hardware specific features.

• Mobile Web is not as “Cool”• Applications are not typically as easy to use, or as “polished” as device specific

applications.• Cannot be run in an offline capacity• Often perform more slowly due to reliance on the network connection of the device

Mobile Web UsesSuggested Uses:• Informational tools• Service tools• Commerce tools

Non-Recommended Uses:• Games• Simulations• Offline Uses• Anything that needs to execute code locally or access the hardware directly

Strategic Considerations:• Mobile Web Applications are the easiest way to enter the mobile ecosystem and

leverage currently existing technologies, skill sets and reuse existing application development efforts

• This methodology would allow the easiest path to deploy numerous services and tools to the largest number of end users in the shortest period of time

Device Specific App ReviewPros• Direct monetization of the application through an app store• Built in national level marketing such as Android or iPhone recognition or “Halo” effect• Device Specific applications typically have the best user interfaces and usability• Access to the local features of the devices such as storage, camera, and other device specific

hardware

Cons• Cost of development is higher than Mobile Web• Buggy software is harder to fix as it relies on the user to download updates• There can be multiple versions of device OS’s in production further increasing the number of

delivery platforms that need to be supported• Reliance on externally controlled app stores for delivery to devices. App Store may include a

one-time or annual fee and may have approval process before apps may be published• Applications can get lost in the Application stores with many thousands of other offerings

Device Specific App UsesSuggested Uses:• Games• Simulations• Anything that relies on using the device specific hardware, such as the camera or GPS

based services• Anything that must run offline• Media driven commerce (music, video, e-readers …etc)

Non-Recommended Uses:• General Information• Simple Services• Traditional e-Commerce (Non media)

Strategic Considerations:• The device specific applications do have more features and potentially better interfaces,

but the value of the additional cost should be considered.• Mobile ecosystems (Android, iOS, Blackberry) should be evaluated to find the right fit for

your business goals. Market Penetration, Monetization, Users Needs, Market Appeal …etc.

• Tools like Appcelerator might ease the burden of developing for multiple platforms.

Sinclair’s Mobile Offeringshttp://m.sinclair.eduFor Students:

• People Directory (4)• College News & Events (5)• General Campus Info (6)• Sinclair FAQ’s• Schedule Planner (2)• Program Viewer (3)• SCC Whiteboard• Current Schedule* (1)• Current Booklist*• My Advising Plan*• Magic Helpdesk*

For Employees:• Bookstore/Student Assistance App*

* Requires Authentication

(#) Student Indicated Importance on Survey

Mobile Development5 Options:1. Native Application Development2. Mobile Application Platform Middleware3. Mobile Pre-built Applications & Systems4. Outsourced Mobile Application Development5. Mobile Web

Native Application Development

Pros:• Complete control over application• Designed exactly to requirementsCons:• Expensive• Multiple devices and OS’s to support• Slower to market• Infrequent releases• Overwhelming maintenance

Option 1

Mobile Application Platform Middleware

Pros:• Rapid application development• Develop once (devices supported via middleware)Cons:• Some developer learning curve• Costs• Backend system integrations may be difficultExamples:

Pyxis, Appcelerator

Option 2

Mobile Pre-built Applications and Systems

Pros:• Less expensive• Applications and integrations already built• Multiple devices supported via middlewareCons:• Less flexibility• Customizations may be more difficultExamples:

Blackboard Mobile, SunGard Mobile Connection

Option 3

Outsourced Mobile Application Development

Pros:• Build to exact specifications• Little to no in-house development neededCons:• Expensive• Vendor dependency for changes, improvements• Little control post-releaseExamples:

MobileZapp

Option 4

Mobile WebOption 5

Mobile WebPros:• Device independent (uses browser)• Develop once• Can use some native device functions• HTML 5Cons:• Longer initial development time• More limited native device integrations (but improving)Examples:

Sinclair Mobile

Option 5

Mobile Development Process - @ Valencia

Step 1• Extensive review of all options (5) and

tools/vendors– Including demos and some pilot testing

Options, Tools and Vendor Review

Options, Tools and Vendor Review

Options, Tools and Vendor Review

Mobile Development Process - @ Valencia

Step 2 (ongoing)• Review of research re: content/use• Review of other college/university apps• Student, Faculty & Staff input

Mobile Development Process - @ Valencia

Step 3• Initial Tool Decision (and internal pilot)

SunGard Mobile Connection• Software Cost (free)• Technology (uses same technology that Banner next

release will be using)• Built in integration with Banner ERP system• Pre-built Applications• User support community

Mobile Development Process - @ Valencia

Step 4 (Fall 2011)• Review/feedback with MAG (Mobile Advisory Group)• Now considering “mobile web” option in parallel

Step 5 (Fall 2011/Spring 2012)• Initial silent rollout – Android, Iphone/Ipod/Ipad

Step 6 (Fall 2011/Spring 2012)• Feedback and review

Step 7 (Spring/Summer 2012)• Marketing Announcement and Final Rollout (including Blackberry)

Valencia’s Mobile Application (so far)

Valencia’s Mobile Application (so far)

Valencia’s Mobile Application (so far)

Valencia’s Mobile Application (so far)

Valencia’s Mobile Application (so far)

Valencia’s Mobile Application (so far)

Valencia’s Mobile Application (so far)

Questions?Contact Information:

Ken MooreSenior Vice President & CIOSinclair Community Collegeken.moore@sinclair.edu

Bill WhiteChief Information OfficerValencia College bwhite@valenciacollege.edu

Resources

Sæterås, John. "Mobile Web vs. Native Apps. Revisited." mobiletech 9 April 2010: n. pag. Web. 12 Jul 2010. <http://www.mobiletech.mobi/blog/mobile-web-vs-native-apps-revisited/11672/>.

Covert, Adrian. "What Makes The Five Smartphone Platforms Different." Gizmodo 18 March 2009: n. pag. Web. 12 Jul 2010. <http://gizmodo.com/5173865/giz-explains-what-makes-the-five-smartphone-platforms-different>.

King, Michael. "Magic Quadrant for Mobile Consumer Application Platforms." Gartner G00171503. (2009): n. pag. Web. 2 Jul 2010.

Jones, Nick. "What the CIO Needs to Know About Mobile-App Stores and Ecosystems." Gartner G00169623. (2009): n. pag. Web. 2 Jul 2010.

Jones, Nick. "Cross-Platform Mobile Application Development Tools: Interest and Capability Expected to Grow." Gartner G00167178. (2010): n. pag. Web. 2 Jul 2010.

Basso, Monica. "Social Trends Are Influencing the Adoption of Mobile and Web Technology." Gartner G00169899. (2009): n. pag. Web. 2 Jul 2010.

Redman, Philip. "Hype Cycle for Wireless Devices, Software and Services, 2009." Gartner G00168675. (2009): n. pag. Web. 2 Jul 2010.

Clark, William. "Critical Capabilities for Mobile Enterprise Application Platforms." Gartner G00173496. (2009): n. pag. Web. 2 Jul 2010.

King, Michael. "Mobile Applications for Your Customers: Remain Calm and Know the Risks." Gartner G00169649. (2009): n. pag. Web. 2 Jul 2010.

Jones, Nick. "The Case for and Against Device-Specific Mobile Applications." Gartner G00160659. (2008): n. pag. Web. 2 Jul 2010.

Shen, Sandy. "Hype Cycle for Consumer Mobile Applications, 2009." Gartner G00168324. (2009): n. pag. Web. 2 Jul 2010.

Jones, Nick. "Ten Mobile Technologies to Watch in 2010 and 2011." Gartner G00174123. (2010): n. pag. Web. 2 Jul 2010.

MacManus, Richard. "Mobile App or Browser-Based Site? Report Says The Browser Will Win on Mobile." Read Write Web 2 Feb 2010: n. pag. Web. 1 Jul 2010. <http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/mobile_app_or_browser-based_site.php>.

Cameron, Chris. "Will Mobile Web Apps Eventually Replace Native Apps?." Read Write Web 5 Jul 2010: n. pag. Web. 2 Jul 2010. <http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/will_mobile_web_apps_eventually_replace_native_apps.php>.

Nakao, Kevin. "Why You May Not Need a Mobile App." Mashable Jun 2010: n. pag. Web. 2 Jul 2010. <http://mashable.com/2010/06/10/why-you-may-not-need-a-mobile-app/>.