Loading
Español ¿Prefieres ver la versión en español?

Migration to HTML 5 web applications

icon

The return on investment did not add up, so they had to do a step back and start to migrate the whole platform into an HTML5-based web app, where the issues of proportionality or screen positioning were overcome thanks to the native browsers incorporated within the smartphones and tablets.

In a parallel case, the Financial Times facing similar issues with its iTunes and Google Play apps, decided to withdraw them definitely and launch a new HTML5 platform with the same functionality as the native apps, but run through a web app.


HTML5 development is a comprehensive solution which any device can read and interpret in the same way, whether it be a PC, laptop, smartphone, smart TV, iPad, iPod, or whatever else may come in the future. The advantages this brings include unifying control of the corporate identity, avoiding dependency on external companies, and enabling complete access to the content platform from the company website.

 

Real case stories on migration to HTML5 web apps

The lack of mobility and the high development costs associated with making native Apple and Android apps has meant that they are losing ground against web and HTML5 apps. After the initial boom of native versions, created for each mobile platform, development teams have tended to drop them due to their closed nature and slow integration, caused mainly by duplication of timings in both development and testing.

Digital contents editors such as the Technology Review or the Financial Times have stopped distributing digital contents through native  apps in favour of web versions using HTML5 as a standard multi-platform language.

The reason for this is clear –  if you want to use traditional apps, first you need to search for them on the Apple Store or Android Market, download them and then keep them updated, whereas with Web apps, you only need to save them once in your “Favourites”. On subsequent visits, you then automatically receive any updates, without any need for downloading. Another another advantage of Web apps is reduced development costs. With traditional native apps, every development environment is different depending on the device: Objective C for iOS, Java for Android and Blackberry, .NET for Windows Mobile and C++ or Java for Symbian, each with its own particularities and each requiring separate testing times for each platform.

 

Native apps which do not perform as expected

By way of example, Technology Review is a digital science and technology magazine offering daily updates in printed and digital formats. They started with a  native apps platform for Apple iOS and Android, downloadable for free, which allowed the online visualisation of the magazine, and made it possible to generate income through subscriptions and adverts.

After launching the platform, the problems started: iTunes was charging 30% of the purchase cost for each digital copy, making profit margins non-existent, which therefore translated to a loss on each transaction. Dependance on an external platform for purchases also made life more difficult for the users who were not offered a fully- integrated solution.

The problem within iPad and iPhone devices required some sort of solution, as Apple’s market share of the tablet market was far superior to Android’s.

The creation of web pages was costly and difficult as different versions were required for each format and size: horizontal and vertical interfaces for tablets, and smaller screen sizes for smartphones. This made development much more difficult than expected, although this was just the beginning of the problems.

The need to adapt to different formats was a real issue, because there was a dependence on minoritary programming languages, such as Objective C for iPad or Java for Android. This lead to hiring specialist external companies, which was costly both in terms of cost and time and was not factored in as a cost when initially calculating costs. Externalisation of services also meant less control over subsequent changes.

These native apps did not have the same dynamic as web pages, since the articles did not contain  hyperlinks to other articles and they depended on bespoke programming, making them much more rigid and costly, and as a result surfing from one article to another was more linear and limited than during normal web browsing.