> but it's arguable as to whether that effect is actually the primary intention of driving users away from web content and toward standalone clients.
To the degree that people use dedicated apps, it is to that same degree that they're not using browsers and open media.
The motive for creating dedicated apps should seem obvious -- it turns a public forum into a series of competing private experiences, each with a loyal (or trapped) following. The classic example is Facebook -- people could have social media with a browser in a much less structured way, but people prefer Facebook, even though it is a highly structured, separate environment, one in which Mark Zuckerberg gets to decide what experience you have.
Because of Facebook's success, many other companies want some version of the same structure -- a controlled version of web browsing, separate from the public kind.
> In all likelihood, the net effect of attempting to shovel users off the web and into native apps is probably detrimental to the bottom line.
If that were true, people would avoid it (and Facebook would fail). But it's not true, and Web metrics support the idea that a dedicated app is a more efficient way to generate profits than waiting for people to visit your public Web site.
> To the degree that people use dedicated apps, it is to that same degree that they're not using browsers and open media.
True enough, but I'm not convinced that the latter effect is intended ore merely a side effect. This distinction is certainly key in assessing what alternatives those pushing native apps would be willing to consider.
> it turns a public forum into a series of competing private experiences
Again, this is a precipitate effect, but it's not clear that this is the intended effect that reveals the underlying motivation. I do think that motivation is present among some - Facebook, certainly, though they seem less interested in driving people away from the web than in hijacking the web and turning it into their own proprietary platform - but, again, I think that the native-app trend is largely bandwagonning initially motivated by smaller websites' management desiring to have their brand in readers' view for more often and for longer. If the UI for iOS worked differently, and RSS feeds could be accessed via a method indistinguishable from accessing native apps, I think we'd see far fewer native apps.
To the degree that people use dedicated apps, it is to that same degree that they're not using browsers and open media.
The motive for creating dedicated apps should seem obvious -- it turns a public forum into a series of competing private experiences, each with a loyal (or trapped) following. The classic example is Facebook -- people could have social media with a browser in a much less structured way, but people prefer Facebook, even though it is a highly structured, separate environment, one in which Mark Zuckerberg gets to decide what experience you have.
Because of Facebook's success, many other companies want some version of the same structure -- a controlled version of web browsing, separate from the public kind.
> In all likelihood, the net effect of attempting to shovel users off the web and into native apps is probably detrimental to the bottom line.
If that were true, people would avoid it (and Facebook would fail). But it's not true, and Web metrics support the idea that a dedicated app is a more efficient way to generate profits than waiting for people to visit your public Web site.
> ... to avoid "out of site, out of mind".
Cute pun on "out of sight, out of mind".