Responsive Website
Therefore, customers need a responsive website, but no app
Apps are neither panacea nor general purpose weapon.
The prophecy is that apps are “the new black”. Partially, it is recommended to use native apps instead of a responsive website. Why this is often exactly the wrong way, explains this article:
Let us define the concepts right from the start. When we talk about the site and the app below, we mean on the one hand the web-accessible presence and on the other the native app, as we know it from the app stores of this world. A web app in this sense would be a website with extended functionality. So, then it can go.
Rising as people spend a lot of time using their mobile devices
On the subject of the use of native apps, there are a whole series of different studies, which support the one, sometimes the other point of view. However, it is often the question of how to read the results of the study. Let’s look at the most striking example:
In June 2015, the statistics company Flurry Analytics published figures on the retention of mobile device users. It turned out that mobile users spent 90 percent of their time in apps and only 10 percent through mobile browsers in the open web.

90 percent of their time spend mobile users in apps. (Source: Yahoo Developers)
Well, this is a clear statement, your customer may now think: I need an app for my company. After all, I have a chance of 90:10 that I am perceived mobile! Alone, the assumption is wrong.
Because we look more closely at the apps in which users spend their time, it soon becomes clear that this is not a competition between the open web and the app cosmos. Users simply use their devices differently.
It is justified to take the Facebook app out of consideration with 19 percent of the usage, because this is only an appended form of web usage. Facebook is by far the largest digital presence of the planet. We can not see that as a reference. The same applies to Youtube with three per cent usage period. Here the use of the mobile site does not offer any advantages. The app accesses the same content.

Apps serve the pleasure rather than the work.
All the other major fields of use are those which hardly play any role on the stationary computer. This is mainly due to the very focused targeting of mobile apps on mobile devices. Of course, I’d rather play a small game (gaming is 15%) on my smartphone. After all, it has sensors that make playing more interesting, and I always have it with it. I also use productivity apps such as task planners, calendars, and so on on the smartphone, because I always have it available (productivity comes to four percent). Small utilities have created their eight percent share only by the availability of smartphones themselves. Also surprising is the strong performance of the messaging category with twelve percent. WhatsApp and Co are now mobile communication channels.
In the area of entertainment, which is also strong with 17 percent of the useful life, there are applications like reading eBooks or streaming music. Common to all is that they are predestined for mobile devices.

Top apps from today: No website as a native app to see.
What do you notice in the above study as well as in the screenshot just shown? Right, there is no big brand with an app that would take the classic tasks of the previous site.
We learn: apps are used very selectively and must be optimally suited for mobile use in terms of their application. Pure information retrieval takes place on mobile devices only in the amount of the already mentioned ten percent mobile browsing use. Therefore, it is not worthwhile to create an app that would serve the pure information acquisition.
The normal average app is dead
As early as 2014, the average smartphone user installed 8.8 apps per month. This number had hardly changed at the time in three years. It is also true that 25 percent of all installed apps are never started and a further 25 percent are never reused after the first use.
Even worse will be the outlook if we let Quettra come to the word that the average Android app loses within 90 days after the first use over 95 percent of its active users again. After just three days, the figure is 77 percent.
In June 2016, the number of apps available for iOS alone was around two million. In Google Play Store, we find even 2.2 million apps at the same time.
From these figures, only one logical conclusion can be drawn: never offer an app to your customers, unless it is one of the few cases that corresponds to the above profile.
Take Snapchat as an example. Here is the app’s product. The website only points to the download of the app. This company obviously needs an app, it is almost the app. But the normal average customer falls only on the nose.
We learn: mobile Internet usage continues to grow rapidly, but the use of apps is not. It is therefore not recommended to propose an app to customers. In almost every case, a responsive website will be the means of choice. Another thought: If your customer is looking for a restaurant, what do you think he will do? In the App-store but rather not, right?
Advantages of responsive websites compared to native apps
It may seem trivial, but there are of course a few handy advantages that delimit responsive sites from native apps. Of course, it is only about real advantages, if one had previously concluded that a native app is probably not the right tool for the customer Schmidtmüller. Here at t3n, we have published an infographics for decision makers on the topic years ago.

Typical is the use of apps and notebooks in parallel, but for different purposes.
The cost of a responsive website is much lower than the cost of an app. This is true, at least, if the aesthetic requirements are applied to the app and is not satisfied with the very first modular system.
No app-store processes of any kind
Native apps must be submitted for review and sometimes arrive in the app store after days, from where they can find their way to the terminal. Each update needs to re-run through this process. It is necessary to create and maintain corresponding developer accounts with the store operators. A responsive website is easy to get online.
Availability
The last sentence says it already: Responsive websites simply put online and already they are available. They do not have to be installed. It is absolutely impossible to make the responsive website quasi installable. The user then creates an icon on the Homescreen from where he can start the respective website at any time.
visibility
We create a responsive website according to all the rules of SEO art and ensure that it lands high up in the search results pages. With an app you can do this only indirectly, by a website, which promotes the download, according to the same rules. Who would consider such an intermediate step useful, especially since the visibility would not extend to the contents of the app? Also on this point wins clearly the responsive website
We design heroic websites! spain2brain – the marketing factory!
