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

1. 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 possible
Remark: Percentages are rounded to simplify.

2. Demographic evaluation

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. 55% of the participants are employed in a company.
Employee 55%
Self-employed 25%
Student 16%
Freelancer 4%
n = 152

5. 29% of the companies, in which the participants
work, 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. 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. 26% of the participants are involved in the mobile
industry 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. 67% of the participants have already developed a mobile
application for Android.
Android 67%
iPhone 56%
Windows Mobile 39%
Symbian 33%
Blackberry 26%
WebOS 14%
Palm 9%
Other 6%
mn, n = 152

9. Development of Mobile Applications

10. 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.
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. 46% of the mobile applications, which are in development
or 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. 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.
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
None Mobile RIA (Flash, JavaFX) MIDlet Hybrid application Mobile web application Native application
n = 152

13. 72% of the participants are currently developing or
planning 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. 46% of the mobile applications, which are in development
or 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. 75% of the participants consider the best possible user
experience as more important as a uniform user experience.
Best possible UX 75%
Uniform UX 25%
n = 152

16. Growth forecast of the examined technologies for the
next years:
Mobile web applications
Native applications
Mobile RIAs
Widgets
MIDlets
Decrease Unchanged Increase
n = 150

17. The following technologies were mentioned by the participants
for 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. Native Applications

19. The Top 3 reasons for the development of a native
application:
Distribution possibilities 59%
Performance 55%
User Experience 46%
mn, n = 112

20. The Top 3 reasons against the development of a native
application:
Adaptation effort 39%
Costs (development / maintenance) 39%
Training period 38%
mn, n = 18

21. 48% develop their native application for every operating
system 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. 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

23. The Top 3 most used frameworks for cross-platform
development are:
Titanium Mobile 32%
Rhomobile 16%
ELIPS Studio 16%
n = 24

24. 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

25. Effort estimation for the development of a native
application:
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. 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.
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 doesn't exist and is neither in
35%
development nor planned.
n = 112

27. Mobile Web Applications

28. The Top 3 reasons for the development of a mobile web
application:
Costs (development / maintenance) 53%
Open standards 47%
Range 42%
mn, n = 66

29. The Top 3 reasons against the development of a mobile
web application:
Limited access to device functions 67%
Browser incompatibilities 49%
User Experience 45%
mn, n = 51

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. Effort estimation for the development of a mobile web
application:
Implementation effort
Test effort
Maintenance effort
Adaptation effort
Low
0% Medium High
100%
n = 53

32. 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:
Distribution possibilities 65%
Marketing effects 39%
Access to device functions 30%
mn, n = 23

33. Widgets

34. The Top 3 reasons for the development of a mobile
Widget:
Costs (development / maintenance) 50%
Distribution possibilities 38%
Development time 38%
mn, n = 8

35. The Top 3 reasons against the development of a mobile
Widget:
No uniform standard 47%
User Experience 25%
Distribution possibilities 22%
mn, n = 36

36. MIDlets

37. The Top 3 reasons for the development of a MIDlet:
Target group 45%
Programming language 35%
Range 30%
mn, n = 20

38. The Top 3 reasons against the development of a MIDlet:
iPhone doesn't support Java 47%
User Experience 43%
Fragmentation 42%
mn, n = 53

39. 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

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. 55% use an additional mobile web-application in addition
to a MIDlet in order to extend their reach.
A mobile web application already exists, is in development or
55%
planned.
A mobile web application doesn't exist and is neither in
40%
development nor planned.
The MIDlet is not or only partly convertible as mobile web
5%
application.
n = 20