Xamarin Profile. Service offering evaluation and user rating October 2013

Transcription

1 amarin Profile Service offering evaluation and user rating October 2013 : Unrestricted access to all employees within your organization

2 About research2guidance research2guidance is a strategy advisor and market research company. We concentrate on the mobile app eco-system. Our service offerings include: App Strategy: We help our clients in and outside of the mobile industry to develop their app market strategy. Our consulting advisory projects are based on a set of predefined project approaches including: App strategy development, App Evaluation, App Market Segment Sizing, App Governance and App Marketing Spend Effectiveness. App Market Reports: Our app market reports explore the major trends and developments affecting the app markets. Separate research papers provide both general and specific coverage of the market. The reports contain key insights for companies looking to enter or deepen their engagement with the mobile applications market, providing data and analysis on all relevant aspects of the market to ease investment decision-making. App Market Surveys: We leverage our app eco-system database to conduct surveys and reports for our clients. research2guidance UG Berlin, Germany +49 (0)

3 Related products and services: Cross-Platform Tool Benchmarking 2013: The hidden champions of the app economy Detailed Cross- Platform Tool Benchmarking 2013: A comparison of 10 leading tools for multiplatform app development Marmalade Profile: Service offering and user rating Corona SDK Profile: Service offering and user rating Unity 3D Profile: Service offering and user rating Click on the covers to get more information? Need help with finding the right Cross-Platform Tool? Use our standardized CP Tool selection process to find the right tool for your app projects. Contact the analyst Joachim Thiele-Schlesier: +49 (0) , js@research2guidance.com 3

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. amarin in a nutshell About this profile Scope of amarin s service offering Device class and platform support and feature availability Target user groups and industries Estimated familiarization and development time amarin offered support services User rating of amarin service offering User profiles and usage frequency Targeted industries and preferred app categories by amarin users amarin complexity evaluation Achieved time savings User satisfaction with platform, API and HW support User satisfaction with amarin s support service User satisfaction with app quality Cost-performance rating of amarin Strengths and challenges Appendix Benchmarking methodology About the authors List of figures and tables

5 1. AMARIN IN A NUTSHELL amarin, of the same name as its vendor, is a suite for cross-platform development and deployment. It consists of amarin Studio, amarin.android, amarin.ios (formerly Mono Touch), amarin.mac including test cloud services, libraries and documentation. amarin is built for professional mobile apps developers. amarin will be able to help developers publish mobile apps on tablets and smartphones as well as newer types of target devices like smart TVs or in-car devices. amarin is not suited for developers who want to build apps for feature phones or game consoles. With a wealth of APIs amarin gives professional developers a lot of options for their apps. In addition to the many APIs amarin offers a lot of hardware feature access. Claim: We have one of the highest customer satisfaction rates among all of the crossplatform tools. USP: Access to 100% of the native ios and Android APIs - anything that can be done on Objective-C and Java can be done in amarin in C#. Developers building apps with amarin get fully native user experiences and performance with no compromises, and also get all of the advantages of sharing code across device platforms (on average 75%). Reported number of developers: Reported number of apps: Not disclosed Reference apps: LabView TouchDraw Infinite Flight Pricing: License per seat using the solution Starter: Free Indie: US$ 300 / year Business: US$ / year Enterprise: US$ / year Address: 430 Pacific Ave, San Francisco, CA (USA) 5

6 2. ABOUT THIS PROFILE This benchmarking report provides a 360-degree view on amarin. It matches the perspective of the vendor with the experience of amarin s users. The benchmarking results are based on two research projects conducted between May and August The first project examined the features of the tools and the additional service offerings of the vendors. Research2guidance invited 90 cross-platform tool vendors, including amarin, to provide company and tool information with the help of an online survey. At the same time, users have been invited to share their experience with these tools. The analysis asked for feedback on 16 dimensions including tool awareness, quality and performance. The global online survey received over 1,000 responses from app developers and publishers. amarin has been one of the most rated tools. This report aggregates all information about amarin into a comprehensive profile. To allow the comparison of the amarin with similar CP Tools, the report also contrasts the user ratings for amarin with the industry benchmark. The report aims at giving a comprehensive decision support for the selection process of a CP Tool that includes amarin. 6

7 3. SCOPE OF AMARIN S SERVICE OFFERING amarin is a Cross Platform IDE 1 Tool that allows native and web app publishing on a large range of mobile and non-mobile platforms. The description of the service offering is structured into 4 areas: Device class and platform support and feature availability The number of supported device classes and platforms is an indicator for the multiplatform capability of a CP Tool. The variety of offered features determines the scope of options when creating an app and it critically affects the app user experience. Target user groups and industries Some CP Tools have a focus on specific industries. Beyond an industrial focus, CP Tools can target different user types according to company size or user profession. Estimation of familiarization and development time One of the major claims of CP Tools is to accelerate the app creation process. The lower the complexity of a CP Tool, the faster a new user will be able to handle the tool and start his app project. Support service offerings A good documentation and support can be a clear benefit of a CP Tool. CP Tools offer different support channels. The quality of the service provided, is key differentiation factor. The description of the service offerings is based on information submitted by amarin DEVICE CLASS AND PLATFORM SUPPORT AND FEATURE AVAILABILITY amarin is optimized for targeting smartphones, tablets and desktop for Windows and Mac. Furthermore, it allows the development of apps that are optimized for smart TVs and in-car devices. Benchmark: Compared to other CP Tools, amarin belongs to the solutions which offer the broadest device coverage. 1 CP IDE: Tools that allow multi-app/multi-platform app development. Most tools concentrate their output on native apps but some also create web apps. These tools use their own SDK to develop a single code faster and compile it to meet native requirements. 7

8 Smart TVs Table 1: Device class optimization of amarin Device class Smartphones Tablets Desktop / PC Smart TVs In-car devices Feature phones Game consoles Optimization CP Tools aim to support various platforms. This applies not only for device classes, but also for operating systems, mobile as well as stationary. amarin supports ios, Android, Windows Phone as well as desktop, Mac and HTML (targeting mobile). Support for additional platforms in the near future has not been announced. Interestingly, amarin does not support Blackberry and does not plan on doing so in the foreseeable future. Table 2: amarin - platform support mobile OS desktop OS other Benchmark: amarin s native platform coverage is in line with the CP Tools in the IDE 2 class. amarin s support for HTML 5 stands out, as only 4 out of 17 CP IDE Tools offer apps for HMTL 5 (mobile). If a CP Tool supports a particular platform, the accessibility of specific device hardware features and pre-installed applications is of interest. It is an indicator for the quality of the platform support. For the supported platforms, amarin allows access to all the device hardware features shown below: accelerometer, GPS, vibration, camera, multi-touch, landscape orientation, microphone, speaker, compass, speaker and NFC. 2 IDE: Integrated Development Environment, see Cross Platform App Development Benchmarking Report for a detailed description of CP Tool categories 8

9 Accessibility of pre-installed is comprehensive for all ios, Android and Windows: contacts, filesystem IO, calendar, image library, in-app , SMS etc. amarin claims: Our binding technology exposes all of the APIs available in ios and Android to your applications as regular C# class libraries. This means your amarin application can do anything a platform, or device, offers, with native user interface and excellent performance. Table 3: Accessible device hardware features and pre-installed applications Accessible device hardware features Accelerometer GPS Vibration Camera Multitouch/ Gesture Landscape orientation Compass Speaker Microfone NFC Accessible pre-installed applications Contacts Filesystem IO Calendar Image library In-app Phone SMS MMS Speech recognition Maps Benchmark: With this feature richness and broad device class and platform support, amarin is one of the most versatile cross-platform tools in the benchmarking. Ready-made APIs allow the integration of functionalities, such as in-app advertising, in-app purchase or social networks access, into mobile apps. The availability of ready-made APIs is a quality indicator for platform support. amarin offers broad integration of APIs, like analytics, advertising, mobile payment, billing and social network integration, integration of enterprise applications and remote monitoring. Benchmark: Compared to the other CP IDE Tools, amarin offers the broadest set of supported APIs. amarin offers the integration of all APIs that have been researched for this report. Only one other tool (Appery.io) can claim to offer this many API options. 9

10 Table 4: Integration of APIs Communication Commerce VOIP SMS MMS Social network access (e.g. Facebook) Advertising in apps (e.g. Inmobi) Billing (e.g. credit card or operator billing) Mobile payment (e.g. Paypal)/ In-app payment Access to commerce platforms (e.g. Magento) Access to enterprise software (SAP, Oracle, etc.) Monitoring API Location based services (maps, routes, traffic) App analytics (e.g. Distimo) Text-to-speech transformation mhealth monitoring Remote monitoring: home energy Remote monitoring: entertainment Remote monitoring: home security Integration 3.2. TARGET USER GROUPS AND INDUSTRIES amarin, like the majority of the observed tools, is not designed to develop apps for a specific industry sector or app category. amarin reference apps come from various industries like media apps (Rdio), utilities (LabView, TouchDraw) and games (Draw A Stickman, Infinite Flight). 10

11 Table 5: Target industries by amarin Industry General Utilities Games Retail Hotels/ gastronomy News/ Media Sports Medical/ health IT Financial Education Automotives Heavy Industries Aerospace/ defense Government Enterprise apps Focus amarin targets professional developers of all company sizes. It requires a background in C++. Benchmark: In terms of targeted company size, amarin is in line with the majority of the tools researched for this report. 11

12 Table 6: amarin targeted company sizes and user types Target Group Availability Consumers Targeted Company Size Small Medium Enterprise Professional Developer Novice Developers IT/ Telco Administrator Business Administartor / CO / Management Graphic Designers Web developers / web publishers Targeted Profession Non-Developers / Anyone Other targeted professions 3.3. ESTIMATED FAMILIARIZATION AND DEVELOPMENT TIME The necessary time to learn to handle a CP Tool is an indicator for its complexity. The average app development time mainly is an indicator for the complexity of app projects that are realized with a CP Tool. amarin claims that it takes weeks to learn to handle their SDK and an average application take only days to develop. According to the necessary time to learn, amarin quite well estimates the complexity of their tool. Benchmark: Compared to the average app development time claimed by the vendors themselves, amarin is in line with most of the other tools. By stating that their users average app project have a duration of months, amarin estimates the complexity of their users app projects of quite short length. Benchmark: According to estimated app development time, amarin is in line with most CP Tool vendors. 12

13 Table 7: Complexity of amarin in terms of time-to-learn and average app development time (vendor s view) Complexity Indicator Time-to-learn Average app development time Required programming skills Days Weeks Months Days Weeks Parameter Value C# 3.4. AMARIN OFFERED SUPPORT SERVICES amarin offers all major support channels, except personal phone support. Support is only provided in English. Table 8: amarin - available support channels Support channel On-site project support On-site training/ tutorials Personal phone contact Real time online support Time-delayed online support Online community Support available in languages: Availablility Benchmark: amarin support services include more channels than average. 13

14 4. USER RATING OF AMARIN SERVICE OFFERING The user rating is based on the results of the global online survey with more than participants, evaluating more than 90 CP Tools. Out of the total ratings, 31 developers and publishers have shared their experience with amarin USER PROFILES AND USAGE FREQUENCY The user profile is an indicator for which user types a CP Tool is appropriate. amarin users are mainly professional developers (85%). amarin is mainly used by single developers and small companies, but have also users working for enterprises. Figure 1: amarin users by company size and position amarin is used by all company sizes from single developers to enterprises amarin: User by company size User by position in the company Medium business 12% Enterprise 8% Just Me 32% Business administrator/ Management 8% Graphic designer 3% Other 4% Small business 48% Professional developer 85% Source: Global Cross Platform Tool Benchmarking 2013 research2guidance 2013 The usage intensity of a CP Tool shows how often a developer uses a CP Tool to deliver an app project. It is a good indicator for how the requirements of the applications can be realized with a specific CP Tool. This applies the more with increasing number and diversity of projects a user conducts. On average, amarin users developed 9 apps in the last twelve months. 14

15 Benchmark: Output quantity of apps of amarin users is below average for CP IDEs (across all CP IDEs the average is 14 apps). More than half of amarin users developed more than 50% of their apps with amarin. 26% of users developed exclusively with amarin. Benchmark: In terms of CP Tool usage intensity, amarin users are in line with other users of CP IDE Tools in the benchmarking. Figure 2: amarin users - total number of published apps and share of amarin apps 45% are just occasional users of amarin amarin users: Total no. of published apps in the last 12 months Intensity of usage ᴓ = 9 apps ᴓ = 55% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% # of apps developed in the last 12 months 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 45% Occsional users 55% Specialists Share of apps developed with Phone Gap in the last 12 months in % Source: Global Cross Platform Tool Benchmarking 2013 research2guidance TARGETED INDUSTRIES AND PREFERRED APP CATEGORIES BY AMARIN USERS Selecting the right CP Tool also depends on the industry and app category the app publisher wants to target. CP Tools sometimes offer industry or app category-specific features like design templates or interfaces to standard software packages that are commonly used within an industry. The comparison for which industries app developer make use of a CP Tool is a good indicator for the quality of the industry-specific features of a CP Tool. 15

16 amarin is used to mainly develop apps for the following industries: retail utilities, transport and logistics, news/ info/ media, healthcare and pharma, IT, games, sports, food and beverage, financial and oil and gas. Figure 3: amarin users - industry focus when using amarin amarin is a generalist, suitable to target various industries amarin: Industry focus when using amarin 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% INDUSTRY FOCUS Source: Global Cross Platform Tool Benchmarking 2013 research2guidance 2013 The spectrum of app categories which amarin users developed apps for is also broad. Utilities, productivity, business and travel are the most common app categories. Benchmark: amarin s targeted app categories differ from most of the other CP IDE Tools as users don t use the tool to develop games as much as users from other tools. 16

17 Figure 4: amarin users app category focus when using amarin Hence, amarin keeps the claim to be an allrounder tool. Users have a broad spectrum of target markets when developing with it. On average, amarin users target 2-3 app categories. Benchmark: The app category spread matches the results for Phone Gap, JQuery Mobile and Titanium. Users of CP Tools with designated industry focus, such as Unity 3D and Marmalade, each on average just targeted 1-2 categories AMARIN COMPLEITY EVALUATION amarin claims that it takes not more than weeks to learn to handle their tool (s.a.). The results of the benchmarking indicate that amarin is right with this statement. 62% of amarin users managed to handle the tool within days. amarin is one of the few tools in the benchmarking that could be mastered by such a big share of users in this short amount of time. For most tools in the benchmarking this was not the case. Probably driven by the intention to present the simplicity of their solution, vendors of CP Tools often have been too enthusiastic regarding complexity and learning time. 17

18 Average development time for an app created with amarin is measured in weeks. But there are also 35% of app projects taking months rather than weeks. Benchmark: Across all CP Tools 25% of app projects took days, 46% weeks and 25% months. The vast majority of amarin s users rate the complexity of the tools as moderate or low. Benchmark: The complexity of amarin, as perceived by the users, averages the benchmarking results. Figure 5: Complexity of amarin in terms of time-to-learn and average app development time (users view); Complexity rating amarin is of medium complexity compared to other CP Tools amarin: Complexity in terms of Familiarization time and Average app development time User rating: Complexity COMPLEITY Familiarization time Average app development time 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Days Weeks Months Complexity rating 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Low Average High Source: Global Cross Platform Tool Benchmarking 2013 research2guidance ACHIEVED TIME SAVINGS CP Tools are designed to reduce app development time for multi- platform publishing. Against the background of the normal project length is the time saving, made possible by the use of the CP Tool, an important indicator of the quality of the tool. amarin users do confirm that they have realized significant time savings against standard app development approaches. 84% of amarin users realized time-savings of 30% and more 18

19 compared to developing with native SDK. Time-savings of more than 50% have been realized by 53% of users. 16% of amarin users claim to not have been able to shorten their app development time. Benchmark: Time savings with amarin are similar to those that have been achieved with Corona SDK and Unity 3D. Time savings with amarin are above average. Figure 6: Realized time-savings in app development with amarin Only 16% of amarin users did not realize any time savings with the tool amarin: Realized time savings in app development TIME SAVINGS 60% 50% High: 84% Moderate: 0% No time savings: 16% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 50%+ faster 50% faster 40% faster 30% faster 20% faster 10% faster 0% faster 10% slower 20% slower 30% slower 40% slower 50% slower Faster Slower Source: Global Cross Platform Tool Benchmarking 2013 research2guidance USER SATISFACTION WITH PLATFORM, API AND HW SUPPORT amarin users mainly target ios and Android, further Windows 8 and Phone. Windows for desktop and Mac are the least targeted. Satisfaction with the amarin platform support (90% of users) is high. Benchmark: Satisfaction level of amarin s platform coverage is above average in the benchmarking. However, higher satisfaction levels have been reached by JQuery Mobile, Unity 3D and Marmalade (95% of satisfied users). 19

20 Figure 7: Targeted platforms by amarin users; satisfaction with platform support Satisfaction with platform support is above average among amarin users amarin: Targeted OS, platform support satisfaction 100% 80% TARGETED OS 60% 40% 20% 0% Android ios Windows 8 Windows (desktop) Windows Phone Html (targeting mobile) Html (targeting desktop) OS (desktop) Satisfaction with platform support 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Satisfied Unsatisfied Source: Global Cross Platform Tool Benchmarking 2013 research2guidance 2013 Availability of cloud API services (e.g. operator billing, in-app advertisement, app analytics or shop systems), accessibility of device hardware features (e.g. microphone, camera, speaker) and pre-installed applications (e.g. calendar, address book) help to manage the app lifecycle, ease the development process and/or allow the creation of sophisticated apps in terms of functionalities as well as look-and-feel. Access to APIs is for most of amarin users a nice-to-have feature. Only 24% of amarin users rate access to e.g. SMS, analytics ad billing as critical. Benchmark: amarin user API access importance rating is below average across users of CP Tools. Not surprisingly, the majority of amarin users only rarely or never make use of these features. Benchmark: amarin user API usage is below average across users of CP Tools. Even though API services are not being used very often by the users, the major share of users is happy with the offer. Benchmark: Service satisfaction with cloud API services among amarin users is among the highest in the benchmarking. 20

21 Figure 8: Importance, usage and satisfaction with amarin cloud API services Service satisfaction with cloud API services is highest among amarin users amarin cloud API services: Importance, usage intensity and service satisfaction CLOUD API SERVICES Importance 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Critical Nice to have Not relevant Usage Intensity 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Intensely Often Sometimes Rarely Never Service satisfaction 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Source: Global Cross Platform Tool Benchmarking 2013 research2guidance 2013 Access to device hardware features is rated critical by 67% of amarin users. 64 % of amarin users use hardware features, like microphone, speaker or camera, at least sometimes in turns their app projects. The majority of users is satisfied with the support amarin offers. Benchmark: amarin users regard access to device hardware features slightly more important than CP Tool users on average. Satisfaction with the service as well is above average. 21

22 Figure 9: Importance, usage and satisfaction with amarin accessible device hardware features Satisfaction with accessibility of device hardware features is above average amarin accessible device hardware features: Importance, usage intensity and service satisfaction DEVICE HW FEATURES Importance 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Critical Nice to have Not relevant Usage intensity 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Intensely Often Sometimes Rarely Never Service satisfaction 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Source: Global Cross Platform Tool Benchmarking 2013 research2guidance 2013 The accessibility of pre-installed applications is rated critical by 47% of users. 60% of amarin users at least use pre-installed apps sometimes. Benchmark: Usage intensity of amarin access features for e.g. calendar or contact book integration is second highest in the benchmarking. Only Phone Gap has more intense or often users of this feature. Satisfaction level is high. 72% of user are very satisfied or satisfied with the app support of amarin. Benchmark: Service satisfaction among amarin users is the highest in the benchmarking. Overall satisfaction with all three features, availability of cloud API services, accessible device hardware features and pre-installed applications is above average. 22

23 Figure 10: Importance, usage and satisfaction with amarin accessible pre-installed applications Satisfaction with accessibility of pre-installed applications among amarin users is highest in the benchmarking amarin accessible pre-installed applications: Importance, usage intensity and service satisfaction PRE-INSTALLED APPS Importance 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Critical Nice to have Not relevant Usage intensity 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Intensely Often Sometimes Rarely Never Service satisfaction 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Source: Global Cross Platform Tool Benchmarking 2013 research2guidance USER SATISFACTION WITH AMARIN S SUPPORT SERVICE Support services help to solve problems that occur during app projects. For all CP Tools, and in particular for those of high complexity, a helping support service increases their attractiveness. The variety of offered support channels and even more the satisfaction level with the support services are indicators for the quality of the customer service of a CP Tool. Online community and time-delayed online support are most frequently used by amarin developers. 93% of amarin users rate the support good or very good. Benchmark: Satisfaction with the support service is the highest in the benchmarking. amarin user on the user support: Very good isn't enough. Amazing comes close. 23

24 Figure 11: Usage of amarin support channels and support service satisfaction Online-communities and time-delayed online support are the most frequently support channels amarin support: Usage and service satisfaction 100% SUPPORT 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Online community Time-delayed online support On-site training / tutorials Real-time online support On-site project support Service satisfaction 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Very good Good Average Source: Global Cross Platform Tool Benchmarking 2013 research2guidance USER SATISFACTION WITH APP QUALITY An important indicator for the performance of the different CP Tools is the quality of the apps that have been developed with the help of a CP Tool. The quality of an app depends on the graphical standard, the usability, the performance, the revenue potential and how secure the app is against threats from viruses, data theft etc. The quality of apps that have been developed with amarin is rated as high. This rating refers to the revenue potential, security, performance, usability and design features. App revenue potential is rated same or higher by more the 80% of the users. Performance of amarin apps have been rated by 74% of users as native-like. Although performance is their major weakness, amarin apps received second best ratings in the benchmarking according to this characteristic. 89% of amarin users rate the usability of their apps as native-like. 100% of amarin users rate the security as native-like or even better. 89% of amarin user rate design quality of their apps same or better than native apps. 24

25 Benchmark: amarin apps are among the best rated apps in the benchmarking for app quality. Figure 12: amarin app quality rating amarin apps are among the best apps in the benchmarking amarin app quality rating vs. native apps APP QUALITY Generated app revenues Security Performance Usability Design -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Same or higher Lower Much lower Source: Global Cross Platform Tool Benchmarking 2013 research2guidance COST-PERFORMANCE RATING OF AMARIN Cost-performance ratio is an overall indicator of how efficient app developers rate the CP Tool-supported development and publishing process of an app. amarin offers price tiers for all kinds of users, from starters to enterprises. This pricing for the amarin suite seems to be well suited for amarin clients. amarin users rate the cost-performance ratio high. 44% of all amarin users rate the costperformance ratio as good value. Benchmark: Overall cost-performance rating is above average tool rating. 25

26 Figure 13: amarin - cost-performance ratio (user rating) Cost-performance ratio of amarin is rated best across all observed CP Tools. amarin: User rating of cost-performance ratio COST-PERFORMANCE RATIO Okay 56% Good value 44% Source: Global Cross Platform Tool Benchmarking 2013 research2guidance

27 5. STRENGTHS AND CHALLENGES User rating of amarin is overall positive: compared to the industry benchmark, the following strengths and weaknesses can be drawn from the feedback of amarin and CP Tool users. Strengths: Challenges: Very high user satisfaction with cost-performance ratio Access to many device types Versatile app categories and industries targetable API and feature richness Very high quality of user support High time savings High app quality No BlackBerry support Background in professional development required amarin is a clear allrounder. The tool is suited for a broad variety of mobile app projects and target smart TVs and in-car devices as well. amarin claims to have the highest user satisfaction among CP Tools. These results indicate that user satisfaction with amarin is in fact among the best in the CP Tool landscape. Tool complexity is acceptable, documentation is good, the support services are excellent, app quality is high. According to the benchmarking results, amarin is the tool of choice when looking for a generalist CP IDE that requires C++. 27

28 6. APPENDI 6.1. BENCHMARKING METHODOLOGY The profile is an excerpt from the Global Cross-Platform App Development Tool Benchmarking. This benchmarking of cross-platform development tools is based on two research projects conducted between May and August The vendor analysis examines the tool features, USPs 3 of the solutions, penetration and the service offering of the vendors. Research2guidance invited 90 cross-platform tool vendors to provide company and tool information with the help of an online survey. More than 50% of invited vendors participated, making it the largest cross-platform tool survey to date. Survey results have been enriched with expert interviews and secondary research. Figure 14: Benchmarking methodology The benchmarking matches the tool vendors view with the reality of the users Benchmarking process 1 Vendor survey 45 tools vendors have participated Vendors filled out questionaires about their solution 2 User survey 3 Benchmarking Matching vendor and tool user perspectives Tool comparison 1,021 app developers have participated Developers answered survey about their experience with cross platform tools Source: Global Cross Platform Tool Benchmarking 2013 research2guidance 2013 User awareness and performance rating is based on a global app developer and publisher online survey. The online survey received over responses. 3 USP: Unique Selling Proposition 28

29 Tool vendor offerings and user ratings are matched in the benchmarking, indicating gaps between vendors and user perception of today s leading cross-platform app development tools. Cross-platform tool users are located in regions around the world. Participants come mainly from the US (15%), Canada (11%), India (11%), Germany (10%) and UK (6%). Figure 15: Geographical overview of cross-platform tool users Tool users are spread around the globe Geographical distribution of participating developers Source: Global Cross Platform Tool Benchmarking 2013 research2guidance 2013 Tool user survey participants range from individual app developers to IT managers of multinational corporations. 29

30 Figure 16: Background of cross-platform tool users The cross-platform rating audience ranges from individual developers to IT managers of multi-national corporations User survey participants by company size User survey participants by position in the company Medium business 13% Enterprise 13% Small business 41% Just me 33% Student / Learning Graphic developer designer 2% 2% IT / telecom administrator 5% Business administrator / CO / Management 21% Other 12% Professional developer 58% n=888 Source: Global Cross Platform Tool Benchmarking 2013 research2guidance

31 6.2. ABOUT THE AUTHORS The authors of this report have been following the app market and CP Tools for many years. The first report on multi-platform app publishing tools was published in Since then, two other reports which cover the market for CP Tools have been published. OUR ANALYST TEAM Ralf-Gordon Jahns Ralf is the research director of research2guidance. He has worked for more than 19 years in the telecom and media industry. Prior to research2guidance he worked as a partner for Capgemini Telecom Media & Networks. Ralf is a frequent keynote speaker on mobile industry events, publisher of a multitude of mobile market reports and executive consultant of more than 30 clients in the telecom and media industry. Joachim Thiele-Schlesier Joachim is a research analyst at research2guidance. He is monitoring the CP Tool market since 2011 and has been responsible for publishing 3 reports on this topic. Joachim also engaged with projects on converging telecommunication networks and regulatory issues. He holds a degree in economics and specializes on infrastructure and network economics. Prior to research2guidance he worked for Markedskraft ASA as analyst and for the Fraunhofer Institute for Open Communication Systems and Center for Network Industries. 31

32 6.3. LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES Table 1: Device class optimization of amarin... 8 Table 2: amarin - platform support... 8 Table 3: Accessible device hardware features and pre-installed applications... 9 Table 4: Integration of APIs Table 5: Target industries by amarin Table 6: amarin targeted company sizes and user types Table 7: Complexity of amarin in terms of time-to-learn and average app development time (vendor s view) Table 8: amarin - available support channels Figure 1: amarin users by company size and position Figure 2: amarin users - total number of published apps and share of amarin apps Figure 3: amarin users - industry focus when using amarin Figure 4: amarin users app category focus when using amarin Figure 5: Complexity of amarin in terms of time-to-learn and average app development time (users view); Complexity rating Figure 6: Realized time-savings in app development with amarin Figure 7: Targeted platforms by amarin users; satisfaction with platform support Figure 8: Importance, usage and satisfaction with amarin cloud API services Figure 9: Importance, usage and satisfaction with amarin accessible device hardware features Figure 10: Importance, usage and satisfaction with amarin accessible pre-installed applications Figure 11: Usage of amarin support channels and support service satisfaction Figure 12: amarin app quality rating Figure 13: amarin - cost-performance ratio (user rating) Figure 14: Benchmarking methodology Figure 15: Geographical overview of cross-platform tool users Figure 16: Background of cross-platform tool users