Mobile Client Architecture Web vs. Native vs. Hybrid Apps

Transcription

1 White Paper Mobile Cliet Architecture Web vs. Native vs. Hybrid Apps Choosig appropriate cliet architectures is a hotly debated topic of late. Havig bee party to these debates ad also to implemetatios usig all three approaches, it is evidet that some of the perceptios surroudig this debate do t coform to reality. Durig actual implemetatio, particularly sice the Hybrid approach is a mix of the two other approaches, some beefits ad drawbacks itertwie. Additioally, oe must view this decisio from the multidimesioal prism of developmet cost, TCO, multiplatform support, performace, cosumer perceptios, logevity, maitaiability ad brad equity (i case of cosumer facig applicatios). Sice margial adoptio is the price oe pays for selectig the wrog architecture, it is critically importat to choose wisely. This paper documets some of our fidigs, articulates our thought process, compares approaches ad provides a decisio framework.

2 About the Author Neeraj Mehta Educatio BE i Electrical Egieerig, 1992 MS i Computer Sciece, 2002 MBA, Uiversity of Chicago, Booth School of Busiess, 2007 Summary of Experiece Neeraj is spearheadig the developmet of reusable frameworks with fuctioal compoets for buildig mobile applicatios for a mobile workforce. He has close to 20 years experiece i buildig techology products ad services for telecom, software ad market research compaies, icludig the TCS mobile product Charts, which he built from the groud up. He has may iterests i the eterprise space, icludig biometric autheticatio ad mobility applicatios. 2

3 Table of Cotets 1. Abstract 1 2. Executive Summary 4 3. Backgroud 5 4. Itroductio 5 5. Mobile Cliet Architectures 6 6. Key Techical Criteria for Evaluatig Mobile Architectures 9 7. Key busiess criteria for evaluatig mobile architectures Comparative Aalysis Treds Coclusio Refereces: 16 3

4 Executive Summary Eterprise IT is facig a strog demad for iovative mobile applicatios to dramatically improve customer egagemet. Additioally, the demad is growig for mobile versios of existig eterprise desktop ad web based applicatios. I respose to this, we see eterprises embarkig o several mobile applicatio developmet projects. Oe of the first steps for developmet of ay mobile applicatio is selectig the right cliet architecture. There are three popular approaches today: Mobile Web App: I this approach, the applicatio rus o a mobile browser. The browser oly hosts the applicatio s presetatio layer that is desiged usig HTML5. The iterface typically looks ad behaves like a traditioal web site but is desiged for the mobile device form factor. Native App: I this approach, the mobile applicatio is custom built for the target device operatig system with a compiled programmig laguage like Objective C ad usig the ative SDK. This approach offers the ative look ad feel, the best performace, ad a great user experiece. Hybrid App: This approach emerged to address the iability of the Web App approach to access device sesors (like cameras ad Bluetooth) while preservig its highly desirable cross-platform support. The Hybrid App approach achieves this by buildig HTML5-based applicatios that ru i the browser. But ulike i the case of the Web App approach, here the browser is embedded iside a ative cotaier app that provides a bridge for the HTML5 pages to access the low-level device fuctios. The desig of mobile applicatios must take ito accout several uique aspects like the device form factor, sporadic coectivity, variable badwidth, multi-platform support ad user experiece. O these critical aspects, the three cliet architectures Web App, Native App ad Hybrid App differ sigificatly. This paper discusses how the three cliet architectures compare alog key techical ad busiess drivers like multi-platform support, access to device sesors, performace, ative look ad feel, app search, app distributio, app upgrades, coectivity ad developmet/testig effort, time-to-market, budget, TCO, cosumer perceptio ad BYOD. A decisio framework is provided that assists i the selectio of the appropriate cliet architecture for ay mobile applicatio. This decisio framework first zeroes i o the Web App or Native App approach based o primary applicatio eeds ad the fie tues the decisio based o other factors to decide whether the Hybrid App approach is suitable. TCS positio o the choice of cliet architecture is that the ideal cliet architecture for ay mobile applicatio depeds o the eterprise ad applicatio eeds. Yet, with a solid Hybrid Applicatio developmet framework, we lea towards the Hybrid approach more ofte tha ot with eterprises, sice it eables multi-platform support, has lower TCO ad does ot limit access to the device hardware. 4

5 Backgroud With the proliferatio of high-ed mobile devices alog with pervasive mobile broadbad, there are ew opportuities to dramatically improve customer egagemet ad employee-productivity. While eterprises are ackowledgig this ad buildig the capabilities required to eable mobility across the orgaizatio, IT orgaizatios are experiecig a strog demad from busiess uits for eterprise mobile applicatios. Oe of the cetral challeges associated with buildig mobile applicatios is selectig the appropriate cliet architecture. Today, the debate o cliet architecture revolves aroud mobile Web App, Native App ad Hybrid App approaches. While each of these architectures has its pros ad cos, it is crucial to pick the most appropriate optio. Thus it is importat to kow ad compare the actual beefits, drawbacks ad use a cosistet framework to select the best-fit for every mobile applicatio. Itroductio For eterprises, a disproportioately large portio of the demad for mobile applicatios is based o makig existig desktop or web-based applicatios available o mobile devices. Thus, there is a icliatio to reuse ifrastructure ad view mobile applicatios as merely a ew frot ed. However, the desig of mobile applicatios must take ito accout several uique aspects like the device form factor, sporadic coectivity, multi-platform support ad user experiece. O these critical aspects, the three cliet architectures web app, ative app ad hybrid app differ sigificatly. For example, the Native App approach delivers high performace ad compellig user experiece by leveragig all device capabilities i a itegrated way, while providig o way to support the multiple device OS platforms. O the other had, the Web App approach scores whe it comes to supportig multiple platforms, but struggles with performace ad does ot provide a way to access device sesors like a camera. Ad, with the Hybrid App approach, it is a mixed bag it delivers multiplatform support similar to the Web App approach ad it offers access to device capabilities like the Native App approach; however, the performace does ot match that of Native Apps. Moreover, there are a wide variety of applicatios with sets of cotrastig eeds ad characteristics that must ultimately drive the choice of the cliet architecture. Here are some ways to classify a applicatio based o its eeds: Customer facig vs. employee facig Data acquisitio vs. data sharig Rarely updated applicatios vs. frequetly updated applicatios Textual iterface similar to web sites vs. o-stadard graphical user experiece Stadaloe vs. coected Olie oly vs. offlie support whe ecessary 5

6 Custom ative look ad feel for each OS vs. commo web look ad feel Highly sesitive data vs. publicly available cotet Small set of highly motivated user base vs. large set of idifferet (mildly iterested) users App store vs. web based distributio approach Rarely updated app cotet vs. frequetly updated app cotet Paid app vs. free app Time to market For a limited marketig campaig vs. early permaet app associated with the core brad There exists o sigle cliet architecture optio that cosistetly outperforms the other two. Ofte, give coflictig real world busiess costraits, its difficult to pick the ideal fit every time. Nevertheless, it is imperative that this complex decisio still be a well-iformed oe. Mobile Cliet Architectures I the early days of mobile applicatios developmet for smartphoes, there were oly two domiat cliet architectures, the web app architecture relyig o the phoe web browser ad the ative app which ivolved custom developmet for the device OS. It was oly i 2009 that a third optio started to emerge. This was the Hybrid App approach, which attempted to plug the mai limitatio of the Web App approach: the lack of access to device features such as GPS ad Bluetooth. All mobile applicatios today use oe of these three mobile architectures. Hybrid App architecture is growig i popularity ad most eterprises are evaluatig various hybrid applicatio developmet platforms for eterprise-wide adoptio. Ofte, mobile applicatios are just supposed to exted the capabilities of existig desktop or web applicatios. However, i additio to the obvious differece i the form factor ad the touch sesitive scree, the user experiece expected is quite differet. The user is a lot less patiet with a mobile applicatio; typically, the user wats to quickly start the app, accomplish a task ad be doe. Moreover, the user expects a visually stuig, highly resposive ad ituitive iterface. Thus, mobile applicatios that simply port a existig desktop or web experiece to the mobile without rethikig the etire user experiece usually uder-perform. Cliet architecture plays a itegral part i the user experiece desig of the mobile applicatio. The uiverse of mobile devices comprises the etire rage of phoes, from low-ed feature phoes to high-ed smartphoes ad tablets. Buildig mobile apps for feature phoes is quite a differet challege ad ivolves a differet set of techologies like J2ME, BREW, cotet adaptatio, ad XHTML. With the growig rate of adoptio of smartphoes ad tablets across the world, there is a large demad for mobile applicatios desiged for popular mobile devices ruig operatig systems like ios, Adroid, Widows Phoe/8, ad Blackberry operatig systems. Moreover these apps eed to ru o devices with large touch screes, broadbad (Wifi, 3G) coectivity, camera ad other sesors. Here we focus o the architecture of mobile applicatios desiged for these smartphoes ad tablets. 6

7 Mobile Web App Approach Mobile web apps are desiged to ru o a mobile web browser. HTML5 is the most popular ad promisig techology for Write Oce Ru Aywhere. Almost all mobile web browsers ruig o high-ed mobile devices support HTML5 to a large extet, ad all are tryig to achieve full compliace. Thus, it is safe to cosider HTML5 as the techology of choice for developig mobile web apps. Middleware Compoets Web Server Sychroizatio Autheticatio tificatio Etc.. HTML 5 Web Pages Web Services AJAX Eterprise Network Databases CMS AS Data WH BI Reportig Figure 1: Mobile Web App Approach Native App Approach Mobile ative apps are built usig the ative device operatig system APIs ad SDKs. These are coded usig a platform specific laguage like Objective C for ios, Java for Adroid, ad C# for Widows phoe. Oe ca use the stadard GUI compoets that are part of the platform SDK, easily creatig a look ad feel that is ative to the OS ad straightforward. These apps ca access all the device hardware icludig the various sesors ad peripherals, if ay. These apps are quite fast sice the executables are compiled for the specific OS ad are ru directly o the OS. These come with their developmet eviromets icludig various simulators ad ifrastructure to do actual device testig. 7

8 Compoets Middleware Web Server Native Cotaier App Sychroizatio Autheticatio tificatio Etc.. Web Services Coectivity Layer Eterprise Network Databases CMS AS Data WH BI Reportig Figure 2: Mobile Native App Approach Hybrid App Architecture Hybrid app architecture emerged i 2009 but has oly become popular recetly. This approach achieves the middle groud betwee ative mobile applicatios ad mobile web applicatios. While mobile web apps attempt to provide platform idepedece, the price oe pays for this is that they do ot fuctio whe the device is offlie ad they caot access device hardware like the camera, Bluetooth, accelerometer, or compass. The Hybrid App approach evolved to deliver platform idepedece while providig access to the device hardware ad offlie operatio. This is achieved by buildig apps usig HTML5 pages that ru i the browser (e.g. uiwebview) embedded iside a ative cotaier app. This app the provides a bridge for the HTML5 pages to access the low-level device fuctios. The hybrid app is packaged as a ative app ad thus ca be distributed from the app store. They ca operate offlie sice the HTML5 pages are typically iserted iside the app; however, a good hybrid app developmet framework would allow these pages to be refreshed ad update the app without havig to update the ative app cotaier. Just like the Web App approach, hybrid apps leverage software staff with web techology skills while limitig the eed for expertise i the ative mobile operatig system developmet. 8

9 Middleware Compoets Sychroizatio Autheticatio tificatio Etc.. Web Server HTML 5 Web Pages Web Services Browse Cotrol ruig HTML5 GUI Javascript Iterfaces with the Bridgewrapper Hy5 Native Bride/Wrappig Native Portio to access device capabilities Eterprise Network Databases CMS AS Data WH BI Reportig Figure 3: Mobile Hybrid App Approach Key Techical Criteria for Evaluatig Mobile Architectures Multi-Platform Support: The pure Native App approach does ot provide multi-platform support. This is i stark cotrast to the Web App ad Hybrid App approaches that ca potetially support ay platform, icludig ios, Adroid, Widows Phoe, ad Blackberry. However, i our experiece, due to the ocompliace or atypical iterpretatios of the HTML5 stadards by mobile browsers o differet mobile operatig systems, a solutio with o platform specific code is elusive. Code braches that are specific to the mobile browsers are ecessary for true multi-platform support. A good user-iterface would also leverage the various JavaScript libraries like jquery ad Secha Touch, ad thus there is also reliace o their stadardized implemetatio across platforms. The more sophisticated the visual desig, the bigger the challege related to cross-browser compatibility. Additioally, older versios of browsers preset their ow challeges. The claim Write Oce Ru Aywhere that Web Apps boast of is true, but if the expectatio is that there will be o hurdles, the oe is likely to be surprised. Access to Hardware Sesors: Oe of the mai disadvatages of the Web App approach is the iability to access device capabilities. While GPS, touch, cotacts, caledar access are amog features that have bee supported by the ewer versios of HTML5, oe ca still ot access features like the camera, Bluetooth, compass or microphoe through HTML5/JavaScript. It is safe to assume that slowly HTML5 will support 9

10 most commo mobile phoe capabilities, but it will always lag behid ative apps sice device maufacturers will cotiue to add more sophisticated capabilities to smartphoes that HTML5 caot support, such as barcode scaers or magetic swipe readers. With the Hybrid App approach o the other had, oe ca access all device sesors. Most popular hybrid applicatio developmet frameworks provide access to almost all the importat device capabilities. But, seamless itegratio of the device sesor fuctioalities ito the applicatio user iterface ca be difficult. For example, it would take some platform specific codig usig a ative SDK to build a augmeted reality applicatio. If you wat to work with peripherals, the oe may have to exted the capabilities provided by the hybrid applicatio developmet framework through plug-is. Of course, ative apps are ideally suited to use all the device sesors ad various peripherals. It would provide a seamless ad ative user experiece that is resposive. Performace: Mobile web apps ad hybrid apps are slower sice their code is iterpreted by the JavaScript egie ruig withi the browser. Thus, if the user iterfaces are graphic heavy or require excessive data processig, the Web App ad Hybrid App approaches struggle to deliver the goods. As per PerfMarksII report by spaceport.io, the best ios ad Adroid smartphoes ru HTML5 eight times slower tha a laptop computer o average; the results are dramatically worse whe comparig agaist a average smartphoe. Cross-platform mobile applicatio developmet is what eterprises wat, ad although HTML5 may seem like the way to get it, performace of mobile browsers is still owhere close to where it ca be used for demadig applicatios. Thus, whe it comes to computatioal eeds, the Native App approach outperforms the other two approaches by a wide margi. Native Look ad Feel: There are several web frameworks that provide libraries that ca be used by mobile web apps ad hybrid apps to re-create ad imitate ative mobile iterfaces ad behavior. However, the effort required to build these iterfaces usig ative code is a fractio of the effort required to mimic the ative look ad feel. Oe of the primary reasos to select the Web App approach is multiplatform support. If oe wats to have a ative look ad feel for each platform, the it is difficult to do this, particularly with disparate code bases. Typically, with mobile web apps ad hybrid apps, oe has a commo iterface across various platforms ad thus oe forgoes the look ative to the platform. I fact, oe of the key differetiatig factors of a typical mobile web app or hybrid app is that it ofte belies its true roots sice it looks like a website. Of course with the Native App approach, oe automatically gets the ative look ad feel. Search, Distributio ad Upgrades: Mobile web apps ca be hosted o a web server like ay website; they do ot require ay dowload or istallatio. I cotrast, ative apps ad hybrid apps are typically hosted i a app store ad must be dowloaded ad istalled. Ulike cosumer apps, ative eterprise apps are hosted i eterprise app stores. Cosumer app stores are typically maaged by device maufacturers like Apple, Google ad Microsoft. Oe ca beefit from the itegrated paymet system i a app store, but pay up a sizeable fractio of the price for the app to the app store. Mobile web apps, o the other had, are either free or must rely o their ow paymet ifrastructure. Moreover, particularly for ios apps, there is a elaborate app validatio process that every update must go through, ad the the user must explicitly update the app by repeatig the process of dowloadig ad istallig. With mobile 10

11 web apps, just update the web app o the backed, ad the ext time the user accesses the app, the user gets the latest ad greatest. Moreover, the cotet i mobile web apps is searchable usig the stadard search egies. Hybrid apps share this advatage as well. Offlie Capability: Web apps require coectivity to be operatioal. This meas these web apps stop fuctioig whe the user experieces uexpected loss of coectivity due to etwork (Radio Frequecy) issues or the device deliberately goes off the grid (like whe o a airplae). HTML5 has some support for offlie fuctioality, but ot all mobile browsers support this i a stadard way. With the Native ad Hybrid App approaches, oe ca access the device database ad implemet a sychroizatio egie that would allow seamless operatio whe the device has sporadic coectivity. With the Hybrid App approach, although the iterfaces are desiged usig HTML5, these pages alog with the other resources like JavaScript, images, or videos are typically iserted iside the app ad thus do t eed to be dowloaded from ay server. Developmet & Testig: For a typical ative applicatio, roughly 20% of the effort is user experiece desig, 20% is requiremets ad desig, 40% is developmet ad 20% is testig ad miscellaeous. I our experiece, for the first platform, there are oly margial differeces i the developmet efforts for web, hybrid ad ative apps. The beefits come whe support for additioal platforms is implemeted. Whe oly oe platform is targeted, it is ofte easier ad more cost-effective to build a ative applicatio, sice the itegrated eviromet for ative app developmet ad testig speeds up developmet sigificatly. It is also possible to automate testig for ative applicatios more easily tha for web or hybrid apps. However, with the Native App approach, whe a ew platform is added, most of the app developmet eeds to be redoe, usually by a ew team sice developers with expertise o the ew OS are ecessary. Thus, eve whe the multiple platforms are ot built cocurretly, there is little beefit that carries over from havig built o oe platform. We have experieced that debuggig ative applicatios is geerally easier tha debuggig mobile web apps ad hybrid apps that ru withi the mobile browsers. With mobile web apps or hybrid apps, the egieerig skill set required is similar to that of web developers ad egieers. Workers with this expertise are relatively more abudat tha their traditioal web couterparts. However, the developmet is more ivolved due to the icosistet compliace ad icomplete implemetatio of the HTML5 stadard across mobile browsers. Additioally, debuggers ad other tools are o-stadard across device browsers. Developmet ad debuggig is eve more complicated whe workig with hybrid apps, sice there is a added layer of idirectio with the browser cotrol beig embedded iside a ative cotaier, ad because of iteractio with device hardware through the JavaScript Bridge. 11

12 Key busiess criteria for evaluatig mobile architectures Time-to-market, Budget ad Life cycle: Before developig ay mobile app, it is importat to thik of the full life cycle of the app from developmet to whe it is retired or replaced. If it is a simple app with ative look ad feel ad oly oe platform is targeted, the it is typically cheaper to use a Native App approach. O the other had, if oe eeds to support multiple platforms from the get-go or i the ear future, web app or hybrid app developmet offers a more cost-effective optio. I terms of time-tomarket, whe startig from scratch for the first platform, the three architectures are competitive; but with subsequet platforms ad updates, web apps ad hybrid apps have a advatage. I geeral, at the time of coceptio of a mobile applicatio, oe must look at the likely adoptio rates, the chage of the device populatio over time, the update mechaism, ad a meas of support sice these would likely ifluece the choice of the cliet architecture. Total Cost of Owership (TCO): The cost of keepig a app updated costitutes a large part of the total cost of owership oce the app has bee built ad deployed. With frequet updates to the operatig systems, it is imperative to retest the app whe a major OS release comes about. Testig, updatig ad upgradig ative apps is more effort tha it is with web apps. With hybrid apps, however, oe must test both the ative cotaier as well as the HTML5 based iterface. Native apps are also likely to icur associated helpdesk costs for supportig people who have ot updated a app. This challege exists to some extet for hybrid apps, but it is abset i the case of web apps. Typically, mobile applicatios do ot simply mimic their desktop or web couterparts; they ted to focus o a few use cases ad improve the way the user fiishes a task by leveragig the mobile device i some way. This ofte leads to chages i established processes, ad thus as part of the TCO, oe must also iclude the Orgaizatio Chage Maagemet ramificatios. Cosumer Perceptios: Mobile apps are a way for a brad to coect persoally with its customer base. Though this presets a great opportuity, a badly desiged app ca hurt the brad as well. Product maagers wat the widest reach ad thus lea towards web apps or hybrid apps. But, the early adopters ad the most loyal customers are the oes most likely to use the applicatios the most. Buildig to the lowest commo deomiator i order to reach the widest audiece meas that the user experiece for these opiio makers is sub-optimal. There are brads that are buildig both a web app for wide reach ad a powerful ative (or hybrid) app for heavy users. Brig Your Ow Device (BYOD): Earlier, eterprises would provide eterprise-liable devices to its employees. This made the selectio of platform for eterprise apps simple. However, with eterprises embracig BYOD, employee liable devices with differet operatig systems, form factors, brads, capabilities ad features will eed to be supported. Thus, most applicatios that were built or are beig built assumig a sigle platform will have to support other operatig systems. As a result, the TCO o these applicatios ad ROI models will eed to be updated. Eterprises are realizig this ad most eterprises that are aggressively adoptig mobility are evaluatig hybrid mobile applicatio platforms to adopt as a eterprise stadard. 12

13 Comparative Aalysis Key Criteria Web App Native App Hybrid App Multi-Platform Support Access to Hardware Sesors Access to peripheral SDKS Performace Native Look ad Feel App Search through App Store ad distributio Upgrades Backward/Forward Compatibility Developmet Support Testig Simulators Debuggig Offlie Support Time-to-Market Budget Total Cost of Owership BYOD Cotet Search Paid Apps Advertisig Aalytics Uique, ad Iteractive Game like Iterface Graphics Media Full Support Some Support Limited/ Support 13

14 Decisio Framework App Store deploymet Uique/gamelike Iterface App requires device sesors (camera/ accelerometer etc) Native App (expesive optios for multi-platform) Targettig multiple platforms? Required offlie? Hybrid App Frequet updates to the app? Uique/ gamelike iterface? Hybrid App Native App Brad/ Cosumer facig app? Hybrid app (Lower TCO as other platforms are added Native App Tight Schedule ad Budget Targettig multiple platforms? Native App (Cheaper/ Quicker) Native look & Feel is a requiremet? App eeds to be searchable Web App Web App Large data processig requiremet Hybrid app (Better Performace) Web App 14

15 Treds Hybrid All three cliet architectures have their beefits ad drawbacks. It is also clear that the ideal cliet architecture for ay mobile applicatio depeds o the specific set of applicatio ad busiess demads. There are, however, certai treds that are predisposig eterprise IT to lea towards the Hybrid App approach. The key tred is the fragmetatio of the smartphoe user base ad the emergece/adoptio of BYOD by eterprises. I the early days, ios was a domiat smartphoe platform, but as Adroid ad Widows Phoe market shares rise, ad device fragmetatio becomes eve more acute as cosumers i emergig ecoomies lea towards o-ios devices, eterprises must look at cliet architectures that provide multiplatform support cost-effectively, without compromisig applicatio performace or user experiece. This is why we see that most eterprises have either selected or are seriously evaluatig a hybrid applicatio developmet platform. Beyod Hybrid The true limitatio, as metioed i the previous paragraph, is the iability to build compellig ative user experieces usig HTML5. New tools are emergig that provide Java ad C# compilers for ios, Adroid, ad Widows Phoe 8 mobile devices. Additioally, they provide differet class libraries for UX o differet OS. With this ifrastructure, ad careful architecture usig Model-View-Cotroller, oe ca build apps with sigificat portios of reusable code. Basically, all o-ux code ca be reused while the UX code is platform specific. These tools allow you to build applicatios with sophisticated ative UX for multiple platforms with a coveiet tool chai ad limited platform specific codig. Coclusio Today, the cliet architectures used for mobile applicatios ca be broadly classified ito the mobile Web App approach, Native App approach ad Hybrid App approach. Each of these approaches has its stregths ad drawbacks. Oe size fits all is ot applicable. The choice of the cliet architecture for ay mobile applicatio depeds o the demads of the applicatio ad busiess cosideratios. There is a distict differece betwee the Web App approach ad the Native approach. The two key drawbacks of usig the Web App approach over the Native approach are: Iability of web apps to access the device sesors/other hardware Difficulty i buildig a uique game-like iterface with ative look ad feel. The key beefit of the Web App approach is cross-platform support. The Hybrid App approach emerged precisely to bridge the gap betwee the Web App ad the Native App approaches. With the Hybrid App approach, oe gets cross-platform support without havig to forgo access to device capabilities. 14

16 The decisio framework provided i this paper first zeroes i o the Web or Native App approach based o primary applicatio eeds ad the fie tues the decisio based o other factors ad suggests the Hybrid App approach if suitable. TCS positio o the choice of cliet architecture is that the ideal cliet architecture for ay mobile applicatio depeds o the eterprise ad the applicatio eeds. Yet, with a solid hybrid applicatio developmet framework, for eterprise applicatios we lea towards the Hybrid App approach more ofte tha ot sice it provides multi-platform support cost-effectively, has lower TCO ad does ot limit access to the device hardware. Refereces

17 About TCS Mobility TCS Mobility delivers best i class mobility services ad solutios with complete mobility lifecycle cosultatio ad developmet service alog with customizatio o top of pre-built solutios to provide the best i class beefits to our customers. Our passio for providig the very best ad comprehesive mobility services ad solutios to our customers is realized through our deep expertise i mobility gaied through the experiece of a strog team that has a career log experiece i mobile techologies ad a dedicated mobility user experiece desig team that is committed to leveragig the uique ative capabilities of each device platform. Cotact For more iformatio about TCS Mobility cotact [email protected] Subscribe to TCS White Papers TCS.com RSS: Feedburer: About Tata Cosultacy Services Ltd (TCS) Tata Cosultacy Services is a IT services, cosultig ad busiess solutios orgaizatio that delivers real results to global busiess, esurig a level of certaity o other firm ca match. TCS offers a cosultig-led, itegrated portfolio of IT ad IT-eabled ifrastructure, egieerig TM ad assurace services. This is delivered through its uique Global Network Delivery Model, recogized as the bechmark of excellece i software developmet. A part of the Tata Group, Idia s largest idustrial coglomerate, TCS has a global footprit ad is listed o the Natioal Stock Exchage ad Bombay Stock Exchage i Idia. For more iformatio, visit us at IT Services Busiess Solutios Outsourcig All cotet / iformatio preset here is the exclusive property of Tata Cosultacy Services Limited (TCS). The cotet / iformatio cotaied here is correct at the time of publishig. material from here may be copied, modified, reproduced, republished, uploaded, trasmitted, posted or distributed i ay form without prior writte permissio from TCS. Uauthorized use of the cotet / iformatio appearig here may violate copyright, trademark ad other applicable laws, ad could result i crimial or civil pealties. Copyright 2012 Tata Cosultacy Services Limited TCS Desig Services I M I 10 I 12