The release of the Financial Times’ web-based HTML5 app has provided “a big wake up call” to publishers , said Andrew Grill, keynote speaker at the today’s Mobile Media Strategies day.
Earlier this month the FT released an HTML5-based iPad and iPhone app which circumvents the 30 per cent charges levied on app sales by Apple by allowing users to update content through the FT website and thus allowing the newspaper to take the full revenue.
The Economist is “watching closely” and Tom Standage, digital editor of the title, signalled it may follow suit.
“HTML5 will be the answer to all of our problems; even if it’s not yet,” predicted Ilicco Elia, a mobile product expert, who until yesterday worked for Reuters and is yet to announce where he will be working next.
Elia warned that “you can’t do everything in HTML5” and said it was a sensible option for the FT to launch in HTML5 compared with an unknown title. “It’s okay of you’re the FT because people know the brand in will go in search of it,” he explained.
Many publishers are now looking at the HTML5 hybrid: not a pure app, not a pure browser experience, said John Barnes, managing director digital strategy and development at Incisive Media, which works with B2B publishers. He explained the dilemma between developing apps when working with very different titles.
Barnes gave the example of two titles he works with: Legal Week, where 10.5 per cent of web visits are mobile, most of them accessing the site via a BlackBerry device. He urged the audience to compare this with Photography magazine which is mostly read on the iPad and iPhone.
During a session on how to make money with mobile media, Paul Lynette, head of mobile advertising at EMEA, Microsoft Advertising, showed the potential for in app ads using HTML5.
Thinking of developing an app, an mobile site or a HTML5 hybrid?
Considering the advantages of mobile editions (m.editions) versus apps versus the HTML5 hybrid, Barnes said the advantage of m.editions is they are browser-based and, therefore, provide full integration with a CMS, have the same domain name, integration with analytics and web trends.
And for news sites without an m.edition Elia gave a word of warning to the delegates of the event: “You should not be here if you don’t have an m.edition, you should be in the office coding.”
He warned there is “not a lot of margin in mobile” but it should be central to any online strategy.
Elia warned of the importance of listening to your audience. “You don’t have to be first when it comes to apps,” he said and suggesting it was better to spend more time developing a better app.
Barnes had a different suggestion to those thinking of creating an app: “Write the press release on the launch of an app before you build it. You’ll often realise it’s a crapp (crap app),” he said.
Bullshit. That’s what I say to all of these articles trying to tout html5 as some magic bullet that will save the publishing industry and allow them circumvent Apple’s app store.
1. You fail to mention that the same day they launched their web app that they also updated their native one in the app store. No, like many other “tech writers” you went with the spin as if there was no native app in existence. You also left out the fact that FT made a million dollars through their native app so while they are testing the waters with a web app, they will still be offering their native app for some time to come.
2. Web apps still aren’t the holy grail that html5 proponents would like to make them out to be. Ask Nomad Editions why it backpedaled on it’s original plan. Ask them why they were seeing larger number of signups through Apple’s app store than they ever did when their publications were web based.
3. Also what works for publications like FT won’t necessarily work for others. FT provides information that can’t easily be garnered from other sources and so their customers are willing to pay to have what they’re offering be it a native or web application.
4. I think Douglas from TalkingNewMedia.com sums it up best when he states:
“..I think publishers who are dreaming of HTML5 publishing should sit back a bit and ask themselves a couple of questions: first, how are their online products doing now compared to print? and how will they monetize an HTML5 magazine any differently than they would a natively designed app magazine?
The advocates of web-based publishing often forget that most print publishers are not exactly raking it in online right now. That is why a tablet magazine, with its closed environment, is actually more like print because print publishers are generally better at selling products than they are access.”
Pingback: #mobilemedia11: FT web-based iPad and iPhone app a ‘wake-up call’ to publishers | My Cell Phone Site
Pingback: The top 10 most-read stories on Journalism.co.uk, 11-17 June | Journalism.co.uk Editors' Blog