Linked by David Adams on Tue 21st Jun 2011 15:31 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless Daily time spent in mobile apps has now surpassed web consumption. The average user now spends 9% more time using mobile apps than the Internet. In June users spent an average of 81 minutes daily on mobile apps, compared to 74 minutes on the web.
Order by: Score:
Most TC posts are rubbish
by kragil on Tue 21st Jun 2011 16:31 UTC
Member since:

And this one is no exception. The basis for these "statistics" are BS.

I am glad that TC isn't really that popular anymore and that I don't have look at their junk so often. (David seems to be the only editor still reading TC)

Reply Score: 2

What if...
by Soulbender on Tue 21st Jun 2011 18:52 UTC
Member since:

What if you're on the web using a mobile app...?

Reply Score: 2

Huh? Wha?
by phoenix on Tue 21st Jun 2011 20:58 UTC
Member since:

Very, very, very, very few mobile "apps" are actually apps.

Most are just wrappers around custom websites. IOW, there's no difference between "using a web browser" and "using a mobile app".

This is like saying that people are spending more time using HTTP than TCP.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Huh? Wha?
by nutt on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 10:01 UTC in reply to "Huh? Wha?"
nutt Member since:

Isn't that what "mobile apps" means? If it isn't a wrapper around a website, it's just a normal app, right? Or is e.g. Word running on a laptop a "mobile app"?

Reply Score: 1

Ah, bullshit.
by UltraZelda64 on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 06:00 UTC
Member since:

I don't even have a cell phone or any other mobile device, and nearly 100% of my computer time is web browsing. Maybe a bit of file browsing and text editing here and there, and some background wget processes here and there.

But seriously, as far as I know all of my friends use the Web a hell of a lot too. The Web and texting. And texting is not considered a "mobile app" as far as I know. I think it's dumb as hell though, completely against the spirit of a telephone, and far more inefficient than a good old-fashioned quick phone call, but that's beside the point.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Ah, bullshit.
by Neolander on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 07:07 UTC in reply to "Ah, bullshit."
Neolander Member since:

If I can be of some help...

First, I think that texting is not of much use without unlimited plans. 160 characters is too little to express anything significant without murdering French (or, in your case, English) in the way. The tool should wrap around your thoughts, not the reverse.

Texts and MMS are good for sending transient, volatile thoughts. Like a photo of a funny ad, messages about your feeling, or philosophical thoughts about life and the world outside which you get in the train/bus because the trip takes too long and you're bored. It's good for quick chatting in a public place where you don't want every single person around you to know what you're talking about. In a way, it's kind of like IM, but implemented in an useful way : phones keep connected to the GSM network without consuming much power (they're designed for that after all), and if people are busy they just leave the text for later.

That latter part is an interesting side of texting, I think : you don't need to know whether people are free to discuss. You just send something. They read it when they want. If they're free right now, you can discuss it right away together, and if they aren't, well, it becomes slow-motion discussions like mail.

Phone calls are agressive. A ringing phone means "reply right now, you bstrd !". A text (or any form of written communication for that matter) is much more subtle, it's like "hey, take it and read it when you want ;) ". Written communication also has the advantage of concision : much less greetings overhead and "errr... hmmm...", typing on a phone is painful so you think more about what you're saying and go straight to the point.

Among written communication, texts are superior to mail because there's a lower barrier to entry (on many phones, setting up a text is just a couple of keypresses away, vs more lengthy procedures for mails), and much lower latencies (phones can't keep their mail client on and listening without getting terrible battery life, so they only poll once every few minutes or hours. With texts, the message is received nearly instantly). Unlike IM, texts do not require the recipient to be actively "connected" (and again seeing his battery sink at an impressive rate) : you can send a text and receive it whenever you want.

Hope this helps.

Reply Score: 1

Please mark the US.
by dsmogor on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 10:42 UTC
Member since:

The study was performed in the US which significantly differs from just any other mobile market.

Reply Score: 2

Comerciailising web content.
by dsmogor on Wed 22nd Jun 2011 11:21 UTC
Member since:

One interesting outcome of this study seems to suggest that the general public is ready to pay for web content.

For publishers (of any kind) mobile apps are simply enablers for that, that's why they are pushing it despite Apple tax.

Other thing is that majority of the App spent time (besides mobile games) are social networks that have always been just apps wrapped in web form anyway. It would be good to know it they also counted the time an app is launched in the backgroud polling for updates.

Reply Score: 2