I think typically, you just have to create something that people want to download. It starts there.

I wouldn’t put Opera in the applications bucket, as web browsers are somewhat of a commodity.

The one exception to this is location based services. GPS-enabled applications are doing well and making money. In Q1, LBS applications accounted for 33% of carrier revenue in the apps space (games excluded). It seems to me that most people care where they are and care where they are going and these applications command price points at a premium to other types of content, specifically becuase of thier inherent utility.

2. They are not compelling enough, as someone else said. I developed an application that I thought would be a hit, but no. Applications that don’t cost anything, that aid user-to-user communication, and that also make using a phone less expensive, seem to be slam dunks though (read: free SMS, free chat, free email). The question is then how to get alternative revenue streams. Advertizing is low-hanging fruit.

3. If we talk stand-alone non-communicating apps, no I don’t think so. If it’s not compelling one way it’s probably not compelling any other way either, unless part of an interesting whole (like a mobile community).

Also, volume of course doesn’t necessarily mean revenue if the application is free for the consumer, but in the case of Opera Mini there’s revenue. I believe Opera gets revenue both in terms of search advertizing and by bundling it with certain operators’ phones.

The key insight was from a teenager user forum. Out of 10 participants, only 1 downloaded a mobile client. Ever. All ten, on the other hand, use mobile internet.

Mobile clients still don’t make the cut. They are too complicated to download and install, do not connect to the network smoothly enough, get hidden in conspicuous folders and provide too little value for the hassle.

with the exception of (a) preloaded games, (b) very focused applications for niche markets such as travel assistance and (c) horizontal killer apps of mega brands such as gmail, I don’t see the effectiveness of launching a client. If you’re a mobile innovator, your chances are much higher with reaching users through the standard mobile browsers. Just like PC services migrate from the desktop to the web, only with much greater incentives.

Are mobile app a dud:
So far very few of the applications have had any kind of success.

Why is this:

IMHO there are three main factors to this
a: it is a non trivial amount of effort required to download an app, ‘specialy if you have to pay for it.
b: the applications end up in a folder buried in the phone menu, and out of site oi out of mind.
c: the applications are not able to sustain enough interest to keep the user returning to them, because to date it has been so hard to create excellent apps that work on a broad range of consumer devices.

I posit that most apps will be used for a month, and no more.
mostly because of a combination of b and c.
Despite the assertion that the phone is personal and imediate for the user, most live their lives inside bags/pockets, out of sight.

So to turn the question round, how do you make an app survice longer than a month ?
again imho you need to find other routes to remind the user to use the app and keep their interest in it. Thus external stimulation is required, unless of course you can get your self on the idle screen, which is not possible for the majoriy of the mid/low tier consumer devices.

Steve

i stand up and full support midget tossing. the more mobile midgets are, the better in my book

Web or local — it is about value. People will download, if there is any value to the application….

1. Do you agree that mobile apps so far have been a bit a dud?

ceo: yes, the majority have….

2. If you do agree, why? Is it because the apps themselves are simply not compelling enough? Are good ones just too hard to explain in marketing terms?

ceo: yes (to first part), because they haven’t been compelling enough, or, because there are better or more effective non-application approaches to accomplish the same thing (such as texting, where the native texting app takes precedence). Second part of the question: nah, if they are too hard to explain, then the real value isn’t there.

But web apps can’t be as rich as local are, not today. For application that don’t require to be rich, mobile web is just fine.

ceo