Today, most businesses that want an app have an app. But having one isn’t the whole process. The creator of the app and the company behind the mobile app still have to make it work efficiently.
Because more and more people are using apps, many companies are focusing on bells and whistles to help them stand out – instead of designing the apps to achieve maximum efficiency. Often times, the app creator is more focused on monetizing a larger share of the app’s users than seeing the third-party entity earn a significant revenue share.
Consumers who download and install mobile apps are often stuck in the middle and then run into a less than pleasant user experience. They also have to tolerate poor – and even potentially dangerous – application performance.
This is a problem for both the company and the application developer. Flashy apps only improve the user experience when the app is fully capable of doing what it needs. Making sure an application works on both sides, even for the simplest of tasks, is essential to producing a high-quality application that all parties involved in the business process find valuable.
The bottom line for business owners and app developers is that most of the time, app functionality is insufficient. Business owners need to identify these gaps in their own application in order to provide customers with a fully functional and engaging user experience. The pressure is on as the use of mobile apps continues to soar.
At the root of this problem is a difficult dichotomy between monetizing a mobile app and creating a positive user experience, according to Hank Schless, senior manager of security solutions at Search. Mobile app developers are under constant pressure to deliver the latest compelling updates to users and find ways to monetize their apps.
“Most mobile users see ads as invasive and feel it reduces the overall experience. In order to monetize the app less invasively than ads that take up the majority of the screen, developers often integrate questionable mobile adware development kits (SDKs) that can run in the background, ”he told TechNewsWorld.
SDKs are a collection of software development tools in a single installable package. They allow a developer to create a custom application that can be added or connected to another program.
The most prominent example of an invasive advertising SDK is the Mintegral SDK for iOS apps, he added. This SDK, dubbed Sourmint, provides extensive visibility across user devices, returns URL requests from the app in which it is integrated to a third-party server, and can allegedly report false clicks on ads.
“These capabilities mean that any application with this SDK is classified as risky software, which means that there may not be pure malicious functionality in the application, but it could violate user privacy and guidelines for the use of company data, ”he explained.
Organizations need to have an overview of their mobile fleet to understand if any apps on employee devices are using risky ad SDKs like Sourmint, he warned.
“However, while advertising SDKs are not visually invasive, there is a risk that personally invasive capabilities may be hidden deep in the software code,” he said.
When application development teams are in a rush to release new versions of applications, they may not run these SDKs through proper security review.
A big part of that functionality problem is that developers can miss the business-important points behind the mobile app, according to Mike Welsh, chief creative officer of the digital consulting firm. Mobiquity. This is where the silent utility theory comes into play.
This happens when, for example, the retailer behind the app isn’t focusing on features that the retailer didn’t care about. This may involve the experience of retailing and selling their products or services.
“What they often skip is that consumers are only using 20% of the app’s functionality anyway. Developers are not spending energy on shopping cart checkout and integration experiences. “Welsh told TechNewsWorld.
App developers are dispersed in a landscape of different features and functions that users do not use. The retailer’s sales efforts will therefore fail despite the time, money and energy spent on features that will never be used and will in fact become a risk in the App Store, he explained.
“You don’t want a one-star rating on a feature you want. There is motivation for companies to seriously think about the possibility of having meaningful features for users who achieve their silent utility,” noted Welsh. “I don’t care to hear about your ratings and reviews in my app, because that’s a responsibility for me.”
Consistency is essential
The challenge is for the retailer or website owner to identify and then resolve customer experience issues. The trick is research, not data or surveys that nobody fills out and that are self-selected anyway. The solution is to use real research into this behavior, suggested Welsh.
Most of the time, companies tend to take away their PowerPoints and spreadsheets and all that other nonsense. They let that guide their behavior, and everything is focused internally, he added.
Retailers and app developers need to be on the same page for what the app needs to accomplish. Both need to know the driver to have an application. The goal of having an app developer is usually to try and participate in the purchase for the income. In this case, the developer of the application will remove anything that hinders the development of income.
If you are a retailer who has a digital channel set up including an app, website, retail store, and physical locations, you need to have consistency between these properties. These retailers must then begin to make roadmap choices around a holistic view of what they want for their consumers.