"World" Wants to be a SuperApp: Who Will Want to Use It?
World is a mobile app including cryptocurrency that is designed to function as a Super App, a multipurpose app (similar to WeChat) combining a social network with commerce and currency support.
People might see significance in Sam Altman's (OpenAI) involvement. Elon Musk likewise is said to be interested in developing a Super App built around X (now merged with xAI).
Such apps typically start with a core service, such as messaging or ride-hailing, and expand to include various other features like payments, e-commerce, social networking,
Originally successful in Southeast Asia and China, there obviously is some interest in whether the same popularity will occur in other markets, especially where banking, payment and e-commerce ecosystems already are robust.
Super Apps also might have succeeded first in markets without a developed application ecosystem. The U.S. app market, for example, is mature and highly competitive. Dominant players already exist in virtually every key vertical that might be part of a single Super App:
* Social Media/Messaging: Meta (Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp), TikTok, X (formerly Twitter), Snapchat.
* Payments: PayPal, Venmo (owned by PayPal), Cash App (Block/Square), Zelle, Apple Pay, Google Pay, credit card companies.
* Transportation: Uber, Lyft.
* ood Delivery: DoorDash, Uber Eats, Grubhub.
Observers might also note that success so far has been most clear in culturally-homogenous countries, though it remains unclear whether this is a functionally-important issue or not.
Convenience often is said to be the driver behind consumer acceptance of Super Apps and some might note that adoption to date has been strongest in mobile-first countries in Asia where banking and payment systems often are less developed.
As has been the case for digital payment systems generally, countries and markets with well-developed payment and banking systems have not shown the same level of interest. It is likely no accident that Super Apps are not developed or used in North America, Europe and other regions with good banking systems and ubiquitous fixed network internet access availability.
Though "convenience" is said to be the driver of usage, perhaps it is something else that makes Super App usage attractive. A mobile-frist app might make lots of sense for users who are out and about quite a lot, living in highly-urban areas, always with a smartphone and culturally attuned to mobile app behavior rather than also having easy and convenient access to other device form factors (such as personal computers).
How much value does conducting any number of operations or experiences (using social media, consuming content, conducting transactions) within a single app actually provide, in markets where the "best of breed" or preferred providers are separate apps?
It often has been claimed that consumers prefer bundled services such as internet access, video entertainment and communications (mobile and fixed) from a single provider because of "convenience." I have often thought that was incorrect.
It is not the "convenience" of having a single provider of those services, on one bill, as it is the price discounts such bundling provides. "Lower cost" is the value, not convenience.
Similarly, it might be that some value other than mere convenience is the driver of Super App usage. Perhaps where it is successful, the various Super App component capabilities actually are the "best of breed" and preferred experiences.
That said, if the components are "best of breed," or close to it, then the integration of functions (chat, talk, share, schedule, purchase) in a single app might be useful.
Beyond consumer preferences for "best of breed" or "integrated" approaches, there are many potential softer issues that could limit Super App creation in some markets. U.S. antitrust and privacy adfocates would likely oppose any dominant supplier in any single market niche from gaining too much share in adjacent and complementary markets.
No comments:
Post a Comment