Which mobile application development method is right for you?
Development of mobile applications has long ceased to be a new trend in the field of IT . It is so popular that often mobile applications developed much earlier than the websites themselves. And as mobile communications become increasingly affordable, ways to develop applications for use in absolutely all circumstances it becomes all the more. We are often asked what method of development of mobile applications is the best – and in return we also ask the question. Or, to be more precise, questions:
“What is the purpose of your application and what are its main functions? On a user it is calculated? Finally, what is your budget? “
Naturally, each method has its pros and cons – and which one is best for your specific application will determine only your needs and goals. At Prakash Software we often use one of the following approaches to the development of mobile applications :
- Responsive web design;
- Platform Xamarin;
Let’s look at the advantages and disadvantages of each.
Responsive web design
This method is often used when an organization has a website, but it needs to make it more readable and easy to navigate on the small screen. In particular, Prakash software designed corporate website precisely according to the method of adaptive design. In fact, it is difficult to call this kind of product as mobile application – rather, it is just a website. That is why it is very much dependent on the mobile connection for mobile or Wi-Fi.
Mobile Application Developers
This type of mobile application development is perfect for applications with simple management information, which have limitations in data input and reporting. This approach is also good in that it dispenses with the need to follow the process of the application spread by publishing it in the app store. This facilitates the process of updating and making them, to some extent, for more complete user experience. In addition, in terms of technical support, always handy to know that all users downloaded the same version of your application – it is the one that is on the server. Of course, this is a simplified description of this approach, in fact, depending on the location, the specifics of the partnership agreement, etc., can be released completely different version of the application.
In this approach, of course, there are drawbacks. In addition to applications developed using responsive design sites, are very dependent on the quality of the connection to the Internet, they are web applications, and this seriously restricts the list of features of devices available to the application. In particular, developers can only use the opportunities for mobile applications that are included in the HTML5 standards and are supported by mobile browser (camera, microphone, geo-location services, internal database, etc.).
Basically, PhoneGap benefits include the possibility of having the same code on all platforms, as well as interact with native components for functionality that is not supported by the framework (e.g. the compound of Bluetooth). However, being dependent on a web-view for the user interface, the application does not work as quickly and smoothly as the native and standardized layout and design approach means that some elements of the recommended approach to design for a specific platform can be ignored, as, for example, transparency in iOS 7.
Xamarin is a cross-platform framework that allows the development of native iOS, Android and Windows applications written in C #. Xamarin developers can use a single existing C # code on multiple platforms. Thus, the base of suitable developers expands, because they have the opportunity to work with well known programming language.
Despite the fact that Xamarin argues that developers can combine 70-75% of code different mobile platforms, from our experience, you can combine only about 20-50%. However, working out with the help of Xamarin Forms can help achieve higher percent by reusing UI. Also, Xamarin platform creates a user a more holistic perception, retaining all the functionality of the mobile device as a native application uses the UI framework for real, rather than a web-view. However Xamarin is a commercial product, and therefore it is updated depending on the needs of the company and also requires certain costs, as, for example, licensing fees developers . Also, Xamarin technology uses Mono and Mono execution environment is necessary for Android platform, which in turn increases the size of your application.
Native applications are appropriate for mobile devices, working quickly, holistically and using their full functionality, including Bluetooth, NFC, and any other functions that ever they appear, such as temperature, pressure and humidity. However, since both of iOS , and Android occupy a very high position in the market of mobile native applications often need to be developed for both platforms that doubles the time and cost of development. And for those developers who want to take into account absolutely all types of devices on the market (Windows, BlackBerry), the amount of the costs even more. However, differing high functionality, reliability and performance, native applications continue to be very much in demand for certain purposes.
As you can see, each mobile application development method has its pros and cons. At Prakash Software, before recommending any particular method, we carefully take into account the needs and objectives of clients – in fact, the development of the method is determined by purely individual.
Prakash Software Solutions PVT LTD. Offer wide range of services to their clients all over the globe. We successfully delivered projects i.e. software development, cloud computing solutions, SharePoint development solutions, mobile app development and Microsoft technology solution to our Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, France, Norway, Germany, Spain, Italy, Switzerland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Ireland, United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Brazil, Peru, UAE, Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Singapore, New Zealand and Australia Clients.