Looking back at 2007, I can’t help but think that the iPhone was probably the most important and influential technology phenomenon of the year. It’s been talked about so much that I’m actually starting to get sick of it. But that doesn’t change the fact that it has had a significant impact, particularly on the way the mobile web works.
One of the most striking developments that ensued are the moves by several popular web sites to provide versions of their offering which are specifically tailored to people visiting their site from an iPhone. Amongst others, I found:
(Most of these sites show their iPhone look only to web browsers which identify themselves as Safari Mobile. To test them in a desktop web browser, see this article.)
iPhone specific development is fashionable, it seems. Some of those sites actually borrow and incorporate iPhone design elements (such as the style of lists and tabs, animation and icons), further blurring the distinction between web sites and applications. A List Apart, a widely respected resource for web developers, has even published a long article on how to develop iPhone-specific web sites (Part I, Part II). Apple themselves also offer in-depth information. iPhoneApplicationList.com maintains an extensive list of iPhone-optimised web applications.
Christopher Schmitt argues that making websites accessible for people with disabilities would expand a website’s reach far more than making an iPhone-specific site does. And Scott Gilbertson of WIRED thinks that the current situation is very similar to the old days when people were designing web sites specifically for Internet Explorer 4 (which was ahead of Netscape at the time). Jeff Croft suggests the opposite, saying that device-specific application development is going to happen anyway, and it doesn’t really matter whether it uses web technologies or not.
iPhone market share
What is the market share of iPhone internet browsing actually like? Hard to say, because it depends so much on what you measure. In terms of sold devices, the iPhone is performing strongly, but it is still a small proportion of the overall handset market. There are at least 100 million mobile devices with modern browsers (Opera Mobile, Nokia’s S60 browser, both of which are capable of displaying standard desktop web pages) compared to an estimated 2 million iPhones. Phones with WAP/XHTML browsers or adaptation browsers (such as Opera Mini) are a lot more numerous still. So in terms of the number of devices, writing iPhone-specific sites (as opposed to Opera-specific sites, for instance) really doesn’t make much sense.
Hitslink/Net Applications’ operating system statistics show that in December 2007, iPhone and iPod Touch users accounted for 0.14% of web page views, more than all other mobile platforms put together (Windows Mobile: 0.06%, S60: 0.02%). The Register reported this too. However, Ray Anderson, CEO of Bango, points out that these figures are misleading:
Hitslink produced this report by using data from their analytics customers. These people operate HTML/PC websites. They say: “You simply paste a small piece of HTML code on each page you wish to track statistics on”.
The 300 million or so mobile phone browser users (say 50 million S60) can’t or don’t browse HTML sites. They browse mobile friendly sites (WAP or XHTML or iMode) which will not have this HTML code in.
Considering that organizations like Bango, Admob, Peperonity, Vodafone report mobile browser traffic in the billions of pages per day, most of thse being S40 or S60 its clear that by ignoring non-HTML sites these stats are misleading and mistaken.
– Ray Anderson, in an email to Mobile Monday London mailing list, 5 Dec 2007
In other words, all that Hitslink’s statistics say is that iPhone users are more likely to visit more desktop web sites, but it doesn’t say anything at all about usage of sites which are specifically designed for mobile use. The conclusion I draw from this is that an iPhone user is much more likely to visit desktop sites than Windows Mobile or S60 users, and therefore non-iPhone users either mostly use sites designed for mobile, or don’t use the web much at all. This may have a variety of reasons — due to its large screen, desktop web sites are more usable on the iPhone than they are on devices with smaller screens; Safari Mobile has pretty neat zooming capabilities; and maybe iPhone users simply approach the device with a more web-oriented attitude, because after all it is more of an internet tablet than a phone.
If iPhone users actually prefer desktop-style websites, because they work quite nicely on the large screen, it really doesn’t make much sense to design a specific iPhone version of a site. On the other hand, if it’s that increased usability of the iPhone web experience which drives web usage per person to be many times higher than on S60 and Windows Mobile devices… then there’s a very strong case in favour of designing device-specific sites.
Is iPhone-specific design just a case of companies wanting to look cool by having an iPhone-optimised site and jumping on the bandwagon? Is this just a fashion which will go away again as quickly as it came? Or do such companies actually derive significant benefits from iPhone users? I’d be interested to hear your comments.
11 Responses
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.
I’d love to point out two statements of your analysis: First, the ability of Safari Mobile to tackle “desktop” web sites and second, the incredible hype about the Iphone.
About the second point: I think that Iphone craze is not only about the device but also about the possibilities it offers (like e.g. direct Itunes connection and mobile internet connection via hotspots). Granted, the Iphone IS sexy as a gadget. But comparably to the introduction of the Ipod, people will soon notice that Apple is neither the only nor the best manufacturer of multifunctional bling-bling. Even worse, the Iphone has quickly gained the aura of “really cool, but mindlessly expensive and technically premature” which Apple managed to avert from the starting Ipod years earlier.
So, what will survive from the gigahype? The Iphone as an early adopter’s toy: Interesting right now, but no more than a smartphone among others within a year or two. And, much more important: Mobile services for everyone. Apple clearly was one of the pioneers, bringing the matter to the public. But others will come along with cheaper devices and cheaper rates, allowing the phenomenon to spread.
About the first point from above: Since Safari handles normal web sites, I cannot see a particular need for special *Iphone* web design. But: I see the need for *mobile* web development. (That’s the point where you Ept guys come in.) Which does not mean that web pages will have to be rewritten from scratch – in most cases only graphically redesigned. On the other hand there will arise web services which will only make sense in a mobile web context (like e.g. a bakery locator or tourist information).
So the overall goal must be to strictly separate content, design and technical background (like scripts) of a web site. This way, your informations will be adaptable to perfectly match any interface, be it a computer, a smart phone, a screen reader or your printer. Special versions no, special design yes.
I think that with reference to your Netvibes URL, the correct URL is in fact http://iphone.netvibes.com/
Thanks for your comments.
@Andrew — I’ve corrected the link.
@Johannes — I fully agree that there is a need for mobile-adapted design, and that it should take precedence over an iPhone-specific design. And in defence of the websites mentioned above, at least Amazon and Facebook already offer good sites for general mobile use (slim and compact pages, mobile-appropriate navigation) — not sure about the others. They’ve already got the general mobile users sorted out and still have cash left to spend, so they go a step further and make the iPhone version as a kind of intermediate between mobile and desktop (still a single-column layout, but with a more fancy design).
The separation of content, design and technology isn’t quite that simple though, due to the huge variation in phone browsers’ capabilities. Some browsers have very restrictive limitations, and these may affect the possible range of content if you don’t want to simply settle for the lowest common denominator. A second point is that navigation needs to be structured differently in a mobile site (in a nutshell, you can’t have as many links in a page as you could have in a desktop site). One day there will be frameworks which allow you to separate all these things cleanly, but I don’t think we’re there yet. At the moment, they really are different versions, merely drawing from the same data sources.
Check the dobMobi progress, and you will see the new trend for real mobile web!
dotMobi: http://mtld.mobi
dotMobi (the informal name of mTLD Top Level Domain, Ltd.) was appointed by ICANN as the official global registry for the .mobi top level domain.
dotMobi is backed by leading mobile operators, network device manufacturers and Internet content providers. Our investors include Ericsson, Google, GSM Association, Hutchison, Microsoft, Nokia, Orascom Telecom, Samsung Electronics, Syniverse, T-Mobile, Telefónica Móviles, TIM, Visa and Vodafone.
dotMobi Show cases, try it in your mobile, and you will love it:
google.mobi
msn.mobi
yahoo.mobi
bofa.mobi (Back of America)
Nokia.mobi
AAA.mobi
fox.mobi
foxnews.mobi
quote.mobi
weather.mobi
too much to list here …
Welll, I still consider the Iphone versions as an attempt to participate in the incredible hype. But since I dislike both the Iphone and Facebook, I better stop my rant here.
One of the most important things to understand about ANY kind of design is context. How, when, why, and where will this product be used, and how does the answer to those questions affect what makes good design? There are several things that are very unique about the iPhone (and possibly copycat devices like it) that give it unique context. In order to do the best possible design for the iPhone, you need to design for this context. For example:
* On the iPhone, you “click” with your fat fingers. Links and buttons may need to be bigger to accomodate this.
* On the iPhone, you have to scroll the page around a lot more than you do on a large desktop screen. Ideally, you design for minimal scrolling on the iPhone.
* On the iPhone, typing is much more painful than on a desktop computer, and you can’t copy/past. Because of this, you may design forms with more select/radio type fields, rather than text input.
* On the iPhone, you don’t have access to Flash or Java bits.
* Etc.
The mobile context (for both the iphone and other mobile devices) has several unique aspects, too.
The point of doing specific designs for iPhone is that we recognize the unique context iPhone users are in when they visit our sites, and we want to give them the best possible experience for that context.
Are iPhone-specific sites necessary? No. The iPhone can browse websites designed for desktop computers in a totally passable way. But, for some of us, “passable” isn’t good enough. The only way to make something that kicks ass on iPhone is to design for iPhone. Period.
What does Jeff Croft mean when he says “On the iPhone, you don’t have access to Flash or Java bits” – does he mean the iPhone doesn’t have a Flash player?
Pete — that is indeed right, there is no Flash player on the iPhone at the moment (although rumor has it that it will be coming at some point). This means that a lot of sites which rely on Flash are simply not going to work on the iPhone. YouTube, for example, uses Flash on its standard website — for the iPhone, however, the videos have to be translated to the H.264 video standard. This sort of translation is possible for some types of content, but it definitely adds another level of complexity.
Jeff Croft mentions a lot of points why viewing “normal” sites on the iPhone is sometimes only passable. Sorry, but Apple have been touting this for ages as the first phone with a “fully-fledged” browser on-board. I’m able to browse sites just fine on my LG Shine using Opera Mini Browser, and with the exception of typing (which is always going to be difficult on ANY hand-held device), browsing the web is a pleasant experience. I don’t see why developers should be forced to cater for the iPhone because Apple rushed it and said goodbye to usability.
Clearly, from looking at preliminary statistics, it is obvious that rather than focus on iPhone specific design, we should develop for mobile phones. Period. The iPhone is not ready, it doesn’t have a Flash player, it can’t handle Java (which most modern phones can do), navigation is an issue if you have fat fingers (and with populations in the locations the iPhone is sold getting larger, this IS an issue,) where do I stop?
In short, developing websites according to standards never got anyone fired, but trying to develop for new, unknown technology that is not ready for the market did. Enough said.
iPhone specific pages are so annoying! I have an iphone simply because it has real web browsing- if I wanted to have a specific iPhone page I would just get the app version
I really hope apple release something that will make it so websites can’t see we’re on an iPhone so we won’t get directed to those sites. I always click on the “regular site” buttonthats usually avaliable which means it’s an extra step- again SO annoying!
Continuing the Discussion