Results of the survey:

[Cross-Platform-]

Development of Mobile Applications

Carried out by: Daniel von der Helm

E-Mail: info@daniel -von-der-helm.com

Realization period: September/October 2010

Number of participants: 152

The survey was carried out within the scope of a diploma thesis at

the university of applied sciences Kaiserslautern (location

Zweibrücken) 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.

Demographic evaluation

59% of the participants work in Germany.

n = 152

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

2%

3%

5%

6%

7%

13%

59%

Czechia

South Africa

Sweden

Russia

Netherland

Belgium

India

Canada

France

UK

Switzerland

USA

Austria

Germany

55% of the participants are employed in a company.

n = 152

55%

25%

16%

4%

Employee

Self-employed

Student

Freelancer

29% of the companies, in which the participants

work, occupy 11-50 employees.

n = 126

14%

23%

29%

11%12%

10%

1 2-10 11-50 51-100 101-1000 >1000

Freelancer

Employee

Self-employed

92% of the participants are active in the programming.

mn, n = 152

3%

35%

45%

53%

68%

92%

Other

Quality assurance

Project management

Design

Conception

Programming

Employee, Self-employed, Freelancer Student

26% of the participants are involved in the mobile

industry for one year.

3%

26%

24%

9%8%

12%

3%

5%

3%

1%

5%

1%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

n = 148

67% of the participants have already developed a mobile

application for Android.

mn, n = 152

67%

56%

39%

33%

26%

14%

9%

6%

Android

iPhone

Windows Mobile

Symbian

Blackberry

WebOS

Palm

Other

Development of Mobile Applications

74% of the participants are currently planning or developing a

native application - only 4% develop or plan a mobile

application with the technologies Flash or JavaFX.

mn, n = 152

74%

49%

16%

13%

9%

7%

4%

Native application

Mobile web application

Hybrid application

MIDlet

None

Mobile widget

Mobile RIA (Flash/JavaFX)

46% of the mobile applications, which are in development

or planning, are native applications.

mn, n = 138

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Mobile RIA (Flash/JavaFX)

Mobile widget

MIDlet

Hybrid application

Mobile web application

Native application

32% of the participants focused on the development of a

native application. 24% develop or plan a mobile web

application and in parallel a native application.

n = 152

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

None Mobile RIA (Flash, JavaFX) MIDlet Hybrid application Mobile web application Native application

72% of the participants are currently developing or

planning a mobile application for Android.

72%

66%

33%

26%

22%

18%

16%

5%

2%

1%

Android

iPhone

Blackberry

Symbian

Windows Mobile

Windows Phone

WebOS

Bada

MeeGo

Maemo

mn, n = 138

46% of the mobile applications, which are in development

or planning, are mobile information services.

mn, n = 138

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Mobile information services

Location based services

Mobile entertainment

Mobile communication

Mobile commerce

Mobile intranet applications

Mobile office

Mobile control applications

Augmented reality services

Mobile learning applications

Other

Native application

Mobile web application

Hybrid application

MIDlet

Mobile widget

Mobile RIA (Flash, JavaFX)

75% of the participants consider the best possible user

experience as more important as a uniform user experience.

n = 152

75%

25%

Best possible UX

Uniform UX

Growth forecast of the examined technologies for the

next years:

n = 150

Decrease Unchanged Increase

Mobile web applications

Native applications

Mobile RIAs

Widgets

MIDlets

The following technologies were mentioned by the participants

for the development of mobile applications:

• Airplay• DeviceAtlas• Django• Ruby on Rails• Dojo Toolkit• Elips Studio• embedjs• FITML • GWT • Google App Engine • iUI• J2ME Polish• jQuery Mobile • jQTouch• Lwuit• Mobile-Assistance-Framework• MooTools• MoSync

• Netbeans (Mobility Pack/Game Builder)• Netbiscuits• Phonegap• Qooxdoo• Qt• QuickConnectFamily• ramp• Rhomobile• SASS • Sencha Touch• Sproutcore• Sybase MEAP• Titanium Mobile• TouchScroll• Unify• Unity3D • WURFL • XMLVM

Remark: OS-SDKs are generally known and have been omitted.

Native Applications

The Top 3 reasons for the development of a native

application:

mn, n = 112

59%

55%

46%

Distribution possibilities

Performance

User Experience

The Top 3 reasons against the development of a native

application:

mn, n = 18

39%

39%

38%

Adaptation effort

Costs (development / maintenance)

Training period

48% develop their native application for every operating

system individually.

n = 112

48%

23%

20%

5%

4%

The application is developed for each operating system individually

The application is developed only for one operating system

Use of a framework for cross platform development

Other approach

The application is developed in one programming language (for one OS) and is ported afterwards on other operating systems

38% of the participants, who are currently

developing or planning a native application for

several operating systems, do not use a framework

for cross platform development, because they are

afraid of problems with the App Store approval.

n = 21

The Top 3 most used frameworks for cross-platform

development are:

n = 24

32%

16%

16%

Titanium Mobile

Rhomobile

ELIPS Studio

48% of the participants, who are currently

developing or planning a native application, are not

aware of a tool (e.g. XMLVM) for porting.

n = 21

Effort estimation for the development of a native

application:

n = 100

0% 100%

Implementation effort

Test effort

Maintenance effort

Adaptation effort

Only one OS [n=30] Several OS individually [n=50] Cross platform [n=20]

Low Medium High

48% use an additional mobile web-application in addition

to a native application in order to extend their reach. Only

17% stated that their application is not or only partially

implementable as a mobile web application.

n = 112

48%

17%

35%

A mobile web application already exists, is in development or planned.

The native application is not or only partly convertible as mobile web application.

A mobile web application doesn't exist and is neither in development nor planned.

Mobile Web Applications

The Top 3 reasons for the development of a mobile web

application:

mn, n = 66

53%

47%

42%

Costs (development / maintenance)

Open standards

Range

The Top 3 reasons against the development of a mobile

web application:

mn, n = 51

67%

49%

45%

Limited access to device functions

Browser incompatibilities

User Experience

82% optimize their mobile web application for the iPhone.

21% will not conduct any optimization efforts.

mn, n = 66

82%

61%

36%

33%

32%

27%

21%

5%

iPhone

HTC

Samsung

Nokia

Motorola

Sony Ericsson

No optimization

Other

Effort estimation for the development of a mobile web

application:

n = 53

0% 100%

Implementation effort

Test effort

Maintenance effort

Adaptation effort

Low Medium High

28% of the participants, who are currently developing or

planning a mobile web application, intend to port those

afterwards in a hybrid application e.g. by using Phonegap. The

Top 3 reasons for this are:

mn, n = 23

65%

39%

30%

Distribution possibilities

Marketing effects

Access to device functions

Widgets

The Top 3 reasons for the development of a mobile

Widget:

mn, n = 8

50%

38%

38%

Costs (development / maintenance)

Distribution possibilities

Development time

The Top 3 reasons against the development of a mobile

Widget:

mn, n = 36

47%

25%

22%

No uniform standard

User Experience

Distribution possibilities

MIDlets

The Top 3 reasons for the development of a MIDlet:

mn, n = 20

45%

35%

30%

Target group

Programming language

Range

The Top 3 reasons against the development of a MIDlet:

mn, n = 53

47%

43%

42%

iPhone doesn't support Java

User Experience

Fragmentation

50% of the participants, who are currently

developing or planning a MIDlet, use a cross-

platform framework. That with 40% mostly used

framework is J2ME Polish.

n = 10

Effort estimation for the development of a MIDlet:

n = 41

0% 100%

Implementation effort

Test effort

Maintenance effort

Adaptation effort

Without cross platform framework [n = 26] With cross platform framework [n = 15]

Low Medium High

55% use an additional mobile web-application in addition

to a MIDlet in order to extend their reach.

n = 20

55%

40%

5%

A mobile web application already exists, is in development or planned.

A mobile web application doesn't exist and is neither in development nor planned.

The MIDlet is not or only partly convertible as mobile web application.