Free Consumer Behaviour in Mobile Apps Dissertation Example
The developer’s experience in mobile applications and the user interface are plausible enough in maintaining the personalization options. With these options, customers are bound to experience excitement due to enjoying the features in these mobile apps (Davidson et al., 2014). Assuming a user is interested in wallpapers for their home screen and backgrounds, they will enjoy the installation of different apps that fulfill this feature. The flexibility of settings also makes it easier for developers to tweak their features and make it much easier for users to enjoy the app experiences. These customer preferences are also well-linked with the issues of privacy, whereby, users are capable of storing their details, and avoiding any form of data spread (Davidson et al., 2014). Sometimes users allow permissions to their devices, which share personal details with Facebook or Apple, thereby, placing themselves at risk of hackers (and non-confidentiality).
Seeing as there are both free and paid mobile applications in the Google and Apple Stores, users are more likely to settle on the former. They mostly pick the latter only when the apps offer them phenomenal experiences, which cannot be achieved via free apps. Factually, the mobile app industry is not known to remain stagnant (or standard). Therefore, consumers may also constantly shift their choices and only settle for the most functional apps.
Any of the issues within the apps should be handled to ensure there is no room for competitors as delineated in Porter’s Five Forces. Anyway, competition is not fully shunned since it works toward motivating the developers to improve their services (and features). Personalization, however, is one of the ways that developers are capable of maintaining their relevance amidst all the other existing mobile app initiatives. Having different apps is also quite helpful as it allows developers to retain their specific meet of customers. If the developers offer similar experiences to their users, it becomes difficult to have returning clients since none of them has any unique features.
The page that follows (not numbered):
When it comes to these mobile apps, developers should pay specific attention to issues of security due to the rampancy of data leakages and unsecured files. Rossi et al. (2001) look into the effectiveness of users creating personal profiles since apps cannot function with the reproduced content. The apps should be simple and appear user-friendly since this will heighten the extent to which users enjoy the experience. Developers should, therefore, strive to build apps that are fewer in the store to pique the users’ attention (Tiwana, 2014). For example, since there are countless social media and chatting apps, it would be unprofitable for developers to create apps along these lines. Replication and redundancy are bound to reduce the profits while preventing room for developing a relationship with any of the customers or users.
App personalization particularly depends on the preferences of customers since the application is developed for their purpose. Personalization of apps has different targets ranging from socio-demographics, context and behavior. Focusing on the socio-demographic features means that the developers are sensitive to the existing diversities among users. As indicated, the apps may be created depending on one’s age, sex, sexual orientation and any other unique aspect within themselves. In terms of context, therefore, developers should build upon apps that are in-line with the users’ devices. For example, if one is interested in the Apple Music app, it is only possible for them to come across it in the Apple Store. Apple Music predominantly belongs to iOS. Therefore, it cannot exist in the Google Play Store.
Additionally, in cases where developers have an interest in building food apps, they should look into the geographical proximities of their customers, to increase the application’s effectiveness. When it comes to the behavioral context, developers should look into the lifestyles of their consumers. If, for example, they are dealing with vegetarians, all the food options in the apps should only be vegetarian-friendly. Such personalization means that the users are more satisfied with the apps since developers are keen on their specifications (and preferences).
Adoption rates of mobile apps often categorized as high are bound to warrant low bargaining power from the buyers. Additionally, the latter is retained when supplies are low when there is a prevalence of app substitution, competition or threat of entry. The developer’s app cannot exhibit any effectiveness (or success) without adherence to all the predicaments in fulfilling the digital experience. According to Porter’s Five Forces, buyer power depends on 1) the populace of buyers in each of the markets 2) the place of these buyers in the markets and 3) the price bestowed upon buyers with different suppliers. With this, there is an exploration of supplier power, which depends on 1) uniqueness of the commodities or services 2) suppliers’ strength, ability, size and 3) the repercussions of having different suppliers.
Dealing with the competition, therefore, involves a scenario where developers continually update their apps. Flexibility with the changing environments raises the bar for developers since they do not restrict their users to ‘stagnated’ features. In the case of substitution threats, it would be plausible enough for developers to look into their app’s weakness, while fixing the app for an improved experience. When developers are aware of their weaknesses, it becomes difficult for the competing parties to use those against them. Some developers may offer applications that are so similar to one another that the users resort to picking other unique ones. A good example revolves around Taxi applications, which only started the business by offering vehicles for transportation. Other taxi apps, apart from Uber, included the option of using a motorbike, making it much easier for clients to settle for the former. It is only recently that Uber offered its users the option of requesting for a motorbike instead of vehicles. Since these motorbikes—as the alternatives—are, in fact, cheaper, it becomes much easier for their users to maintain their loyalty along that direction.
While looking into the developers’ projects, it is inevitable to experience the presence of stakeholders who have a role in looking at the end-products of the mobile app. Stakeholders have the mandate to look into the developer’s software; hence, their input in the building these apps cannot be ignored. According to Al-Hakim (2007), there are different types of stakeholders; each of whom has a distinct role in the developers’ projects. It is necessary for the developers to remain open-minded since the stakeholders offer both positive and negative feedback, all of which is warranted for the effectiveness of the app’s final product. The negative opinions, therefore, are supposed to enlighten the developers on the app’s weaknesses, which should be rectified. Their role as stakeholders is still realized since they are directly linked with the developers in building a specific project or mobile app.
Power, nature of urgency and legitimacy are the three categorized used to acquire a scope of the different stakeholders. Understanding each of the stakeholders’ places makes it easier to explore their influence on the developer’s projects. The troubles that developers undergo while building their apps are often reduced when there is an exposure to effective stakeholders. The diversity of these individuals makes it easier for developers to acquire more information and ideas for successful app development. Synthesizing input from all these stakeholders, on the other hand, augurs further influences since these developers become well-versed in their field.
Cyr (2015) reiterates that the stakeholders may be from different departments—such as IT or Marketing—showing their necessity in facilitating the developers’ projects. For effective building a mobile app, Hřebíček et al. (2013) explain the importance of having a diverse staff involved in the development process. If at all a project only maintains one worker, it may be difficult for them to carry out all the duties required in these developing projects. Since there is an individual has the capability of carrying out various duties, they may become overwhelmed, thereby, interfering with the app building. The building of the developers’ application also has deadlines, which cannot be completed by a single person. Sharing the duties, therefore, eases the workload while allowing the developers to complete their projects in good time. Having qualified workers (and members of staff) allows the overseeing of developer projects, which, inevitably lead to more effective projects—and mobile apps. According to Hřebíček et al. (2013) and Kemp and Guger (2013), the workers are quite useful during the mobile app development.
Cruz and Paiva (2016) reiterate that in developing mobile apps, it is impossible to denounce the prevalence of architectural alignment. They should be flexible enough to maintain the process of building mobile applications at the same time with web services. From the perspective of Mistrik et al. (2013), architects/developers of mobile app reiterate the necessity of architectural alignment during the mobile app building process (Mistrik et al., 2013). It is their role to make decisions regarding the designs of these mobile apps from the perspective of both hardware and software architecture.
According to the Software Development Standards, developers should employ some form of standards to facilitate the ease of software development. Longevity, from the perspective of Mistrik et al. (2013), is an extension of the fact that a mobile app has different stakeholders during its development process. Under the architectural alignment, as well, there is an exploration of IT, Enterprise and Infrastructure Architects, which play independent roles in the development of mobile apps—via a specific focus on the architectural alignment (Mistrik et al., 2013). Each one of them has specific duties in ensuring that the role of developers in architectural alignment is reduced to an extent. Finally, when it comes to documentation, Azarian (2013) explains its importance in offering guidance to the developers during the mobile app building process. Due to the extent of workload that the developers handle, it would be feasible enough to document and allow them to plan themselves, accordingly.
Do you need an original paper?
Approach our writing company and get top-quality work written from scratch strictly on time!