Blog « Investor Relations (IR) app for iPhone, iPad and Android

HTML5 vs. Native Apps: The Debate Continues

Posted by Jeff Corbin on May 20, 2013

As I predicted a few months ago, the debate over the features of Native and HTML5 apps continues to wage on. A recent Business Insider article attempted to outline the difference between the two and, for obvious reasons, caught my attention.

It is no secret that mobile apps are becoming the new phenomenon among businesses worldwide. Not only do they offer convenience, but they also provide content optimization, something company websites cannot offer on the mobile device. If you have read my past articles and blogs on this subject, I am a strong proponent of native apps over HTML5 or responsive design websites. To be completely transparent, I founded an IR app technology business called theIRapp (www.theIRapp.com) that may taint my objectivity a bit. However, there are specific reasons why we at theIRapp chose to create a native app versus HTML5 or a hybrid approach. I want to use this opportunity to explain some of the clear differences between the two.

In the BI article, a claim is made that it is “more likely” HTML5 will take the cake over native apps. A chart in the article shows native apps only getting credit for “rich user experience and performance” and “monetization” purposes. What the article fails to explain are those crucial factors that should be considered when choosing between native and HTML5. HTML5 is listed as a “winner” when it comes to the ability to immediately update and distribute content. But is this really the case? The article also suggests a benefit of not being controlled by Google, Apple, Amazon or Samsung. But is being part of the Apple and Google world really a bad thing? A very important thing to know – HTML5/responsive design websites are not apps. They do not exist in the App Store or Google Play with the millions of others who have chosen native over responsive design.

Native apps offer push notifications, which allow for instantaneous alerts – HTML5 does not. Native apps provide offline viewing and listening capabilities – HTML5 does not. Native apps, as a result of the ability to allow for offline downloading do not always require Internet connectivity – HTML5 websites do.

The BI article also suggests that native apps are necessarily costly. I guess they can be, but so can everything. There are turn-key app solutions on the market that allow organizations to have all of the benefits of a native app but at a fraction of the cost of hiring an independent developer – theIRapp is a case in point.

Looking into the future, native apps will allow for conversations to take place between businesses and their targeted audiences – so much will be able to take place within the native app ecosystem as I refer to it. HTML5 optimized websites will always be what they are – a website where a company talks at its targeted audience.

Despite my reaction, the Business Insider article was important in that it demonstrates that there are different solutions available for companies to consider when looking to incorporate mobile into their businesses. It is important for businesses to understand the full landscape of what exists in the mobile world before investing.

A final thought: Facebook’s CEO, Mark Zuckerberg recently revealed in a Tech Crunch article this past February that Facebook made a mistake “betting too much on HTML.” LinkedIn just launched its latest mobile app and made a significant switch from being web-based to fully native. I am a gambling man, but would not bet against Apple, Google, Facebook and LinkedIn.

The choice is yours.

Tags: IR Apps, Mobility

Posted in: Blog

Institutional Investors – Dependent on Mobile

Posted by Jeff Corbin on April 30, 2013

The mobile industry is not only exploding – it’s rapidly eclipsing the long-lived monolith that was the desktop computer. This trend rings true for the investor relations industry too. To gauge IR professionals’ thoughts and tendencies with regards to mobile as an integral part of their work, theIRapp™ conducted a survey of more than 200 institutional investment professionals in the first quarter of this year.

As this infographic shows, investors overwhelmingly rely on their mobile device for their work over their desktop computer. These results show the significance of mobile devices to today’s institutional investment professionals. The numbers also bring the importance of having a mobile IR strategy into the spotlight. Mobile devices – and as an extension, the mobile IR app – are becoming the new investment communication standard.

The survey demonstrated that when it comes to their work, 83% rely on their mobile devices rather than the desktop. The survey also revealed the following:

47% of investors said that the device type most conducive to obtaining information is an Apple device (iPhone, iPad or iPad Mini)
21% said the Blackberry was sufficient
7% rely on Android devices

With regard to devices provided to investors by their employers, 92% of those surveyed said they were provided with a mobile device by their employer. Of those:

40% are Blackberry devices
22% are Apple devices (iPhone, iPad or iPad Mini)
2% are Android

Depending on the type of device provided by their employer, 68% also purchased additional devices to leverage the power of iOS and Android devices to do their work. Of the respondents, 41% carry and use 2 devices (including the one provided by the employer) and 26% carry and use 3 devices (including the one provided by the employer).

Tags: Investor Relations, IR Apps

Posted in: Blog

Is Someone at the SEC Really Listening? – A Significant Clarification on the Use of Social Media and Regulation Fair Disclosure for Public Companies

Posted by Jeff Corbin on April 4, 2013

In January of this year, I wrote a letter to the SEC criticizing their decision to possibly bring a claim against Netflix (NASDAQ: NFLX) for violation of Regulation Fair Disclosure. I reminded them that it had been almost 5 years (August 2008 to be precise) since the regulatory body had issued its last bout of guidance. It was then that the SEC basically condoned the use of corporate websites as an acceptable means to accomplish disclosure of material information.

Well, as we all know, the world has significantly changed since 2008 from a technology perspective – especially with respect to social media and mobile. Websites back then were the norm – now they are somewhat mundane. Mobile devices and social media were nowhere close in development and proliferation to what they are today.

In my letter to the SEC, I stated that given what has transpired over the past few years with respect to technology, they needed to update their commentary on Reg FD so that future Netflix situations would not occur. I argued that new guidance was needed to incorporate and allow for the growing importance of social media and mobile technology in public company communications.*

Well, I received a response from the SEC’s Chief Counsel, Thomas Kim, dated February 26 (and surprisingly not a form letter) that said:

“Although the guidance we provided in the 2008 release is principles-based, and therefore applicable to new or different types of social media and mobile technology communications, we appreciate hearing your thoughts on additional guidance that may be helpful in this area. In the event that we decide to update our guidance, we will consider the information you have provided to us.”

I am not sure what transpired between February 26 and yesterday, but kudos to Mr. Kim and the SEC for really considering the importance of social media to public company communications. By essentially acquitting Netflix and condoning the use of social media, the SEC is finally working to be ahead of the curve and to strive to prevent the next Internet Bubble from bursting.

The SEC’s statement yesterday said the following:

“The SEC’s report of investigation confirms that Regulation FD applies to social media and other emerging means of communication used by public companies the same way it applies to company websites.”

This is a significant development for public companies and the investor relations industry. While I don’t want to take credit for this development, I can’t help myself.

What does it mean? It means that public companies should no longer refrain or be concerned about communicating important information via social media channels like Facebook and Twitter. It acknowledges that social media is here to stay and that companies should not only acknowledge this but should embrace the importance of this relatively new medium as a way to communicate. And it confirms that times are a changing and that even bureaucratic organizations like the SEC are willing to listen and can sometimes be provocative and amenable in embracing new ideas.

Notwithstanding this success, additional clarity and guidance is still required. But let’s not look a gift horse in the mouth. As I did in my letter to the SEC earlier this year, I proffer thoughts on best practices on what a public company should do to ensure compliance with Reg FD when using social media:

Indicate each of the means by which it intends to communicate in its most recent Form 10-K.
For the dissemination of any material piece of information, file a Form 8-K and post material information to the investor section of its corporate website.
Be consistent and utilize all of the social media channels so indicated in its Form 10-K.

While not formalized at this time, what’s to think that the above 3 bullet points might not eventually be incorporated into a future SEC statement? The SEC clearly considered my thinking in their decision to exonerate Netflix. To the extent public companies should now embrace social media as part of their IR strategies; they should consider the above as a safe haven when doing so.

*For a copy of my letter to the SEC and SEC’s response, please email jcorbin@theirapp.com

Tags: Investor Relations

Posted in: Blog