Calling bullshit on 'mobile strategy' | Hacker News Reader

Calling bullshit on 'mobile strategy'

techinasia.com

25 pointsximeng24 comments

I'm calling bullshit on a strawman argument.

I'm not aware of anyone who really thinks that "mobile" is the be and and end all of their channel strategy. It's just the current/next (depending on where your company is at this point) channel to go after.

On the flipside, all channels are not created equally. Your mobile phone is not simply a version of your PC in your pocket. Nor is the car dashboard. All have an awful lot in common, but they also have their own specific features. Your laptop or your car is unlikely to become a replacement for your wallet at any point, for example (you could argue that your mobile phone doesn't seem to be doing that either yet, but you know what I mean). And there's plenty of things that make sense to implement on big PC or tablet screen, but make far less sense on a phone screen etc.

So while no-one should have a "mobile-only" strategy (which pretty much no-one does anyway), having a "mobile-specifc" angle to your overall channel strategy is entirely sensible.

> I'm not aware of anyone who really thinks that "mobile" is the be and and end all of their channel strategy

> So while no-one should have a "mobile-only" strategy (which pretty much no-one does anyway)

Path, Snapchat, Color, Flipboard, Pair, Yardsale, Rumgr, etc. There are lots more, those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

Do you really think that none of them are looking at other platforms?

Most of the ones I know on that list are already on at least tablet as well, and I would be amazed if someone there isn't at least thinking about future channels (whether that be smart TV, Google Glass or whatever).

There's a big difference between thinking about other platforms and actually supporting other platforms. Users typically don't care what a company is thinking of doing; they care what they're doing.

The article (and my reply) were about companies long term strategies, not what platforms they currently target.

Path is been out for how long now? Flipboard? Still mobile only. Of course, that depends on what you mean by "long term strategies" but in the internet startup world I strategies don't tend to be that long term.

Pretty certain I've got an optimised version of Flipboard on my tablet. Path I haven't got on my tablet, but there's an optimised version available if I want it.

What other existing types of platform would you expect their services to be on at the moment? Flipboard for one almost certainly wouldn't make a great deal of sense as a web app. That doesn't mean that they aren't considering whether it would look good on a gesture-controlled internet TV, or on Google Glass.

I guess I consider tablets mobile devices. But even so, my other examples still hold and there are lots more out there who focus only on smartphones and usually only iPhones.

Mobile as a general term covers most of the things that the article is talking about - Google Glass, car dashboards etc are all "mobile" technologies. If he means that wider term, then the article is even more stupid, so I can only assume he's referring to mobile phones specifically.

And again, what a company has in market now bears little relationship to what they have in their strategy. As far as "new" channels, my company currently only has a phone app , but we are regularly considering where we might want to go next. And I've not yet talked to a single supplier of any phone technology who isn't at least thinking about the future outside of that one channel (and I talk to a lot of suppliers).

I don't think the OP's point is a strawman, but a redirection of focus. I've seen it in my own clients. They get wrapped up in the buzz of 'mobile' and forget that they have a website, an email list, print material, trade-show booths, and product packaging which all contribute to their overall brand. They blow their budget making a native mobile app for every platform and the rest of their efforts are neglected.

'Mobile strategy' is one (of many) important parts of a company's overall effort. But I think the OP is trying to say that it shouldn't be treated as more important (or solely focused on) compared to the many other channels one can leverage. I agree that a business's focus should be it's customers, ubiquitously, without such heavy weight placed just on 'mobile'.

It's annoying when people assume that something that might apply to their own business is applicable to all businesses. Not every type of business needs to be ubiquitous to be successful; it depends on the market. For example, if your business is leasing virtual servers, it's not likely that you'd need to have a mobile app to do so. If you're Apple (or Microsoft or IBM), your software doesn't have to run on every computer architecture to be successful. If you have a successful game that runs on iOS and Android, you might not get a proportional return from investing the resources to make it run on Windows 8.

I don't think he's really talking about all businesses--only those who claim to need a "mobile strategy."

Agree, the search results for "mobile strategy" are rather breathless.

http://www.fastcompany.com/3001816/your-company-needs-mobile...

http://www.inc.com/ss/6-reasons-why-you-need-a-mobile-strate...

http://www.zdnet.com/a-better-mobile-strategy-quantify-this-...

What's even more annoying is when MBAs go around pronouncing vast generalizations based on which way the wind blowing with no basis in any actual real business. FWIW, I'm not sure if he is doing that, but it sure reads like that.

I don't understand the point of what he is saying. Is this just a dig at business cliches?

"Mobile" like "Computerization" or "Internet" or "Globalisation" before it is a big change to the world that affects most/many businesses in one way or another. Among some other effects, it affects how you interact with customers.

It's completely reasonable for businesses to spend some energy thinking about "How does/should this affect me?" Maybe the answer is "very little" but it's worth figuring out.

The OP has a point, however I'll add Supercell doesn't appear to be doing too terribly with their mobile only strategy.

http://pandodaily.com/2012/11/16/supercell-the-cash-rich-lit...

"If you want to build a formidable business for the long term then you need a ubiquity strategy, not a mobile strategy."

I like this idea, matches up with some of the strategies in robomartin's comment at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5068777 .

"I hold an MBA from both Columbia University and the London Business School."

If someones business (in software) needs to be 100% quality made, it needs to be native for that particular platform, using its native functionalities. Wether it's on iOS, Android or Windows.

For iOS, it's plugging into the notification centre, the ability to use the calendar as well as the address book. File storage, background services and etc.

'Mobile Strategy' is basically a strategy to be 100% quality on mobile.

It's not the end strategy, but if your customer base is mobile, then yeah, mobile strategy. Jeez, people like him generally don't grasp the complexity of software.

No one really has "ONLY" mobile, unless their business won't work on a desktop. Or they don't see any business value on being on the desktop.

> I hold an MBA from both Columbia University and the London Business School.

What's this ad hominem crap? The guy can't have an opinion on this because he's an MBA and "generally [can't] grasp the complexity of software"?

There are a ton of mobile apps out there that don't have any desktop analog and this guy is suggesting that's a poor strategy, just like having a desktop website with no mobile interface is a poor strategy. And what the heck does any of this have to do with whether or not you use native code?

It's a fallacy to state that software needs to be "100% quality made". What does that even mean? Bug free? Sure. Super pretty? Maybe? Native over web? Now come on...

> No one really has "ONLY" mobile

Path, Snapchat, Color, Flipboard, Pair, Yardsale, Rumgr, etc. All apps with little or no desktop web counterpart. The last two have to do with selling and require a large network effect, and yet they are both only available on mobile, and even worse, only on iOS; a perfect example of how a narrow "mobile only (ios first)" strategy can detract from your product.

That's a slightly odd article. It seems to concentrate on the form-factor of the screen, and ignore the most interesting parts of mobile strategy; the ability to react to the changing location and orientation of the user.

Isn't the article attacking corporate speak? I realise there is more to it, but its basically saying corporations call a screen size change a "strategy".

I've been thinking about way to describe UI in a matter of intentions ( "show this piece of data first, then this one, "warn the user", etc) rather than graphic property and let the device ( or a framework) generate that depending on the device. Anyone knows of such a technology ?

xForms

Read the article, thought it was a bit wooly and vague. Agreed with this comment which points out the obvious nicely.

http://www.techinasia.com/mobile-strategy-is-bullshit/#comme...

All nicely wrapped up.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com