Empirical Assessment on User Acceptance of Mobile Applications Deployment

Thorsten Caus, Stefan Christmann and Svenja Hagenhoff Department of Information Systems and E-Business

University of Göttingen Göttingen, Germany

{tcaus | schrist | shagenh}@uni-goettingen.de

Nowadays, mobile phones are widespread. However, the development, distribution and installation of software on these end devices is a complex problem due to the very heterogeneous landscape of mobile end devices (especially with regard to software platforms, operational concepts and functionality), and the wide range of technical expertise on the side of the end user. Up to now, there are no empirical surveys on the deployment of software on mobile end devices that allow users to understand and assess not only practical usage situations but also further imaginable distribution instruments. Such a study was carried out on a mobile application which users installed on their own mobile phones via Bluetooth.

Keywords: mobile applications; deployment; distribution;

user acceptance; user study

I. INTRODUCTION Mobile end devices and communication technologies are

becoming more and more efficient and promise a high potential of universally applicable data-communication-applications [1], referred to as “mobile applications” in the following.

Exaggerated expectations towards the success of mobile applications in combination with economic failures have led to a loss of confidence in the mobile phone market. High data transfer costs, lacking user acceptance [2][3] and the high complexity and heterogeneous standards are the main reasons for the rather insignificant distribution of mobile applications on most platforms so far [4][5].

Research studies have mainly concentrated on the user acceptance of mobile applications [6][7], approaches to simplifying the development of mobile applications [8][9][10] and new business models [11][1][12][13]. Some approaches aim at reducing the described complexity through web-based technologies, especially in order to avoid the installation problem [14]. However, up to now web applications are only able to replace installable mobile software to a very limited extent, as information has to be displayed through a mobile web browser. These mobile browsers usually have no or only very limited capacities of saving data on the mobile device, displaying information when connections break and detecting context information (e.g. the user location), as they have little access to low-level functions of mobile end devices so far. In order to use low-level functions, it is therefore necessary to install software on the mobile end device.

Different software platforms, operational concepts and usage situations have to be considered when installing applications on mobile end devices [15]. Currently, only few articles refer to the organisation and acceptance of different software distribution-methods, as needed in the deployment of mobile applications (see Section 2). There are no empirical surveys which present persons with concrete usage situations and show further imaginable scenarios which they can assess. Such a survey was done using a mobile application, which the users installed on their mobile phones via Bluetooth. Section 2 defines software deployment and presents the state of the art in mobile applications. Section 3 describes the research cycle, the research problem, the test applications used, the conduction of the user study and selected results and implications for the deployment of applications on mobile end devices. The paper finishes with a conclusion in Section 4.

II. STATE OF THE ART ON DEPLOYMENT OF MOBILE APPLICATIONS

In the context of software lifecycle management, software deployment generally encompasses all activities that prepare a software system for practical use. This includes the following activities: (a) Release activities comprising the arrangement of the software system and the transport to the user, (b) installation and activation activities that save and activate the software on the targeted end device, as well as (c) deactivation, (d) adaptation, (e) update, (f) installation and (g) replacement mechanisms [16]. This paper focuses on activities (a) and (b), as these have a significant influence on the acceptance of mobile software. Furthermore, they provide hints on the hitherto rather limited acceptance of mobile applications [2][3].

Locally installed software for mobile end devices can either be developed directly for a specific operating system (e.g. Android, Windows Mobile, Symbian OS, iPhone OS) or in Java Micro Edition (Java ME), in order to achieve greater independence of operating systems [17]. Different versions of Java ME are available. These versions differ with respect to configurations, profiles and interfaces supported, the so-called Java APIs [18]. Java ME-Software developed on the basis of a certain version (e.g. configuration: Connected Limited Device Configuration (CLDC) 1.0, profile: Mobile Information Device Profile (MIDP) 1.1, APIs: JSR 179, JSR 82) does not run on end devices with differing configurations and which do not

2010 Ninth International Conference on Mobile Business / 2010 Ninth Global Mobility Roundtable

978-0-7695-4084-9/10 $26.00 © 2010 IEEE

DOI 10.1109/ICMB-GMR.2010.14

244

2010 Ninth International Conference on Mobile Business / 2010 Ninth Global Mobility Roundtable

978-0-7695-4084-9/10 $26.00 © 2010 IEEE

DOI 10.1109/ICMB-GMR.2010.14

243

support the required APIs [19]. Despite using Java, it is still necessary to adapt the software to the respective end device. In addition, the application needs to be able to be operational using different input concepts (e.g. joystick, touch screen or keyboard). This adaptation of mobile Java-software is not necessary for very simple applications. However, as soon as menu navigation and graphic depictions are used, an end-device-adaptation has to be carried out [20]. This phenomenon is well-known when buying Java-games for mobile phones. When downloading software, the phone’s model always has to be specified, as the individual installation versions are only compatible with certain end devices. In the context of the release activity (a), it is therefore necessary to adapt software to mobile end devices and to transfer it through a wireless technology or a cable connection onto the mobile end device.

This transport process can be differentiated economically with respect to channel, mode and instrument of distribution [21]. Distribution channel here refers to the way software is distributed, which can happen directly from producer to the end customer or via different participants in the value chain, such as merchants [22]. As the user does not realise whether the software is downloaded and installed directly or indirectly, this aspect is not relevant for assessing acceptance and is therefore not dealt within this survey.

The mode of distribution can be differentiated with regard to whether the user has to actively request the software (pull-method) or if he receives it automatically (push-method) [23]. Distribution instruments are technologies that distribute the software to the clients [24]. Mobile software can be distributed via different instruments. These can be classified into three groups depending on the possibilities of communication of mobile end devices [25]:

(1) A mobile application can be installed via a computer

(scenario 1). The user has to start a software (e.g. a web browser or Apple iTunes), look for the desired applications and specify his mobile phone model. The application is then downloaded onto the computer and transferred and installed on the phone (communication technology: USB or Bluetooth).

(2) Without a computer an installation of mobile

applications can be carried out at a Bluetooth-hotspot (scenario 2). In this case, the user can signal his interest in receiving the application in different ways. The signalling is required legally as this technology uses the push-principle to transfer the software onto the mobile device. There are different ways of distributing software through a Bluetooth-hotspot to mobile end devices that comply with legal requirements: The user can change the Bluetooth device name of his mobile to a label promoted at a Bluetooth-hotspot (e.g. “download1”). The spot recognizes this and only sends the software to mobile phones that have chosen this device name (scenario 2.1). Or a file can be sent to the Bluetooth-hotspot: In this case the user can take a picture and send it via Bluetooth to, for example, “gamespot1” or he can use any other file. The file itself

is insignificant and is not saved on the hotspot. It only contributes to getting the user to agree to the sending of the software (scenario 2.2). The last possibility is that the user only activates Bluetooth on his mobile phone. The operator is then not allowed to directly send him the software, but has to inquire whether the user wants this. For legal reasons, users who have already received the software or who have declined installation must not be asked again. Therefore it is quite impossible in this scenario to repeat failed installations and downloads (scenario 2.3) (communication technology: Bluetooth). Using NFC (Near Field Communication) would be another possibility. Here, mobile end devices only have to be held close to the hotspot in order to signal the desire for installation. These technologies are not yet widespread available on end devices and distribution stations and were furthermore developed for entirely different usage scenarios (e.g. mobile payment), which require special software on end devices. Therefore this option will not be elaborated in this paper.

(3) Via WLAN (scenario 3.1) or mobile networks, mobile

end devices can connect to the internet, access the corresponding webpage (alternatively an application like the Apple AppStore can be used) and download the mobile application. However, mobile browsers often do not allow the direct download of Java ME-programmes. Often, instead of downloading the software directly, the mobile phone number has to be entered into a web form, and the software provider then sends the direct download link via SMS (scenario 3.3) (communication technolgoy: GPRS, UMTS, WLAN). Fig. 1 depicts the scenarios presented above on the deployment of mobile software.

The installation and activation activities (b) include

finding the transferred applications on the mobile end device and installing it and finding the installed application and starting it.

Figure 1. Scenarios for the distribution of mobile software

Content provider

PC

Mobile device

Internet

Scenario 1

BT-Spot

WLANAccess-Point

Radio cell

BluetoothUSB

Scenarios 2.1-2.3

Scenario 3.1

Scenarios 3.2+3.3

245244

As these installation processes run analogue, no meaningful scenarios could be identified that further differentiate deployment. In the course of this study, a target application based on Java is to be independently adapted by a server system to different mobile end devices, and then sent to the respective users and installed by them. Java was chosen because many mobile applications are being developed in Java ME and because otherwise users would not be able to use their own mobile phones for user studies for incompatibility reasons.

III. USER STUDY

A. Course of research and design At present only few empirical studies on software

distribution and on the automatic adaptation of software to mobile end devices are available. The user study on the distribution of mobile applications presented here follows Diekmann’s research course [26][27][28]. It encompasses both the technical research perspective and the user acceptance. The aim of the study is to determine which experiences the users made with the distribution of software and which distribution instrument they prefer. The study focuses on the acceptance of selected distribution methods and on comparing them to other methods. Furthermore, usage forms and the users’ behaviour during the selected distribution processes are studied. Scenarios 1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 were selected as described in Section 2.

Four research questions (Q1-Q4) were defined to describe the research problem and further specified by ten hypotheses (H1-H10). These were partly derived from studies related to the mobile Internet [29][30][31][32][33][34].

The data collection tool was a questionnaire aimed at providing measurable insights into the hypotheses in the course of the survey and the data analysis. The research questions are presented in Table 1. The hypotheses (H1-H10) are described in Table 2:

TABLE I. THE STUDY’S RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Q1: How well accepted is the selected scenario that distributes applications to the users’ mobile phones?

Q2: Are users able to transfer and install the application using the selected scenario without additional help? Which problems did arise?

Q3: How is the acceptance when compared to other imaginable distribution scenarios?

Q4: How do demographic characteristics of the userinfluence the acceptance and usability of the distribution scenarios?

TABLE II. HYPOTHESES THAT FURTHER SPECIFY THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Q1: H1:

The majority of the users accept the selected distribution scenario as a possibility of acquiring applications on the mobile.

H2: On average, the users assess the selected distribution scenario at least satisfactory.

Q2:

H3: The majority of users are able to use the application on their mobile phones.

H4: The majority of users are able to use the application on their mobile phones in an acceptable time span.

H5: The majority of users are able to use the application without additional help.

Q3:

H6: The majority of users prefers such mobile applications to be distributed free of charge via a mobile communication technology.

H7: Users who do not know their own fees for data transfer prefer communication technologies that are free of charge.

Q4:

H8: Users with an affinity for technology are prepared to pay more transferring mobile applications.

H9: Users with an affinity for technology will evaluate acceptance and usability of the distribution scenario higher.

H10: The majority of users do not know the costs for using mobile data connections.

B. Architecture, functions and usage of the mobile test application Bluetooth was used for the distribution of the test

application, and scenario 2.2 (see Section 2) was chosen as test scenario. This was done because the users used their own end devices and because data communication was to be free of charge. Scenario 2.2 was selected because - next to replacing cable connections - Bluetooth (which is also often used as a replacement for cable connections) is the most frequently used technology for transferring data between two mobile end devices. It was therefore assumed that this use would be easier for the users than, for example, changing the Bluetooth-name (see Section 2).

The mobile test application consists of several components implemented in Java. A server application is installed on a notebook, communicating with the user's mobile phone via Bluetooth. Two Java ME client applications were developed: (A) a minimal application to be sent to the mobile end device by the server to read the required device information, and (B) the target application, which the server adapts to the kind of device established before and which will be installed on the mobile end device. The target application is the Hydra framework which has simplified the development of context-sensitive mobile applications [10]. In this context it only serves as a sufficiently complex mobile application for the automatic end device adaptation. The test application provides the following functions for carrying out the test:

246245

- Detect the installation request of the user (server). - Send the minimal application (A) to the requesting user

(server). - Establish the characteristics of the mobile end device

(minimal application, A). - Accept the reply by the minimal application and

process information about the target device (server). - Adapt target application to the mobile end device

(server). - Send adapted target application (B) to user via

Bluetooth (server). - Inform user that the test run was (successfully)

concluded (target application, B).

The server application was implemented using Java SE (Java Standard Edition) and installed on an ordinary notebook equipped with Bluetooth hardware. The mobile minimal application only has a simple text output informing the user about the process. It uses Connected Limited Device Configuration (CLDC) 1.0 in order to be compatible with older Java ME capable mobile end devices which can only implement these older standards. The target application uses CLDC 1.1 and MIDP 2.0 and is adapted to other configurations and profiles by J2ME Polish [35], the server application and the information provided by the minimal application.

Fig. 2 shows how the test application was distributed. The first step in the selected scenario for distributing the target application is to establish whether the user is requesting the installation. In this study, the user signals readiness by sending any file to the server using Bluetooth (steps 1 – 2). When the user has signalled his interest, the mobile test application is sent to him automatically by the server (step 3). When the mobile test application has been installed and run (step 4), the type of device and the version of CLDC and MIDP used are established and returned to the server (step 5). Having received the information, the server starts adapting the target application to the mobile end device (step 6). Once the adaptation is finalised, the server sends the adapted target application to the mobile end device (step 7).

C. Planning, preparing and carrying out the data collection The data was collected in two phases, with the usage

experiment at the beginning of the study (see Fig. 3). With the help of a support person, the users go through both phases of data collection. (1) The usage experiment was carried out first, estimating the time required and the type of mobile phone used for each user. (2) A questionnaire

provided data on how the distribution scenario was perceived (quantitative).

Figure 3. Data collection methodology of usage study

This research approach is specifically geared towards the

prospective analysis of interchanges between new technologies and their usage [36]. During the usage experiments, the users used their own mobile phones as far as possible. Where this was not possible, a mobile phone was supplied (Sony Ericsson K750i). The users received brief instructions in the form of an advertising flyer for a mobile application to help them with the installation. Support persons were available if required. Besides the software distribution and installation carried out in the usage studies, other distribution scenarios were presented by drawings and verbal descriptions in the questionnaire and assessed by the users. Resulting from the communication possibilities of mobile end devices, three basic scenarios are possible, which have been described in Section 2.

As the usage study was very cost- and time-intensive per participant, the number of users was restricted to 50. Therefore the results may not be completely generalised, but they still provide valuable results to answer the research questions. The sample consisted of 14% female and 86% male users. 58% of the users thought it is important to own the most up-to-date technical devices. These persons were regarded as technophile. The average age of the sample was 25 years.

D. Selected results of the user study The following section presents selected results of the

user study. In order to present them with adequate conciseness, we will here consider the results and implications of distributing mobile applications on the level of the research questions.

Q1: How is the selected distribution scenario to bring

applications to the mobile phones of users accepted?

Usage experiment incl. observation

Questionnaire

Figure 2. Sequence of installing the test application

247246

The acceptance of the selected distribution scenario using Bluetooth (scenario 2.2) can be described as overall positive. 82% of users would choose this scenario to install programs or games. Hypothesis (H1) claiming that the majority of users would accept this scenario has therefore been verified. 88% of the users rated the procedure as satisfactory or better. Hypothesis (H2) stating that at least 50% of the users would rate the selected distribution scenario as “satisfactory” or better, has been verified at a significance level of 0.05.

Figure 4. Rating of distribution scenario using Bluetooth by school

marks Q2: Using the selected scenario, are users able to

transfer the application to their mobile phones and install it without additional help? What were the problems occurring, if any?

60% of the users rated the distribution scenario as very

good or good. 64% of the users needed less than 3 minutes to make the test application available on their mobile phone. Fig. 5 provides an overview of the average time required. Hypothesis (H4) that the majority of users would be able to make the application usable on their mobile phones within an adequate period of time may therefore be regarded as verified, provided that 3 minutes is seen as adequate.

Figure 5. Time required for transfer and installation in the Bluetooth

installation scenario The majority of users (72%) are able to make use of the

application without assistance (H5). 83% succeed with the

help of a support person (H3). The reasons for failures in this process can be seen in the following problems:

(1) The end device does not support Java or data exchange

via Bluetooth (e.g. some Windows Mobile devices, older versions of iPhones without Bluetooth support)

(2) The users were not able to activate Bluetooth on their own.

(3) Users had difficulties retrieving the installed program on their mobile phone.

(4) Compilation error in adapting the application to the target platform.

(5) The file signalling the request for installation to the server could not be sent from the mobile phone to the server through Bluetooth.

The hypothesis that more than 50% of the users would

be able to use the application without outside assistance was verified by the data at a significance level of 0.05.

Q3: How is the acceptance as compared to other

imaginable distribution scenarios? Schematic drawings on the sequence of the different

distribution scenarios were inserted into the questionnaire, and it was also indicated which scenarios would imply fees for the transfer of the mobile application. 40% of the users would accept fees for the transfer of the application to their end device, e.g. for the use of mobile networks. 60% of the users refused to pay any fees for the service. Those accepting fees would be ready to pay 0.44 Euros on average per application for the data transfer.

Hypothesis (H6) that more than 50% of the users would prefer the distribution of such mobile applications free of charge could be verified at a significance level of 0.05. It has to be noted that 44% of the users did not know their own data transfer tariffs or said they had no special data tariff. 59% of these users were not prepared to pay fees for the data transfer. Among the users who had a special data transfer tariff, or said they had one, 61% were not ready to pay.

Hypothesis (H7) saying that users not knowing their own data transfer tariff would prefer a cost-free communication technology for the transfer of the application was verified at a significance level of 0.05. However, there is only a slight difference between the two groups of users, meaning that data transfer costs are generally rejected.

Fig. 6 shows the average rating of the distribution scenarios using school marks, broken down by users who have a special data transfer tariff or know it and those persons who do not have a special data transfer tariff or do not know how much it is. The results show that the knowledge of one’s data tariff and the structure of the tariff do not seem to have a significant influence on the rating of the different distribution scenarios. Among the most popular are scenario 3.1 (installation through WLAN), scenario 2.2 (installation through a Bluetooth-hotspot, signalling the request for installation by sending a file) and scenario 1

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%

less than 2 min.

less than 3, more than 2

min.

less than 4, more than 3

min.

less than 5, more than 4

min.

more than min.

248247

(transfer of required application via PC). Scenario 3.3 (request via web browser, download-link by SMS), scenario 3.2 (download through mobile browser) and scenario 2.3 (sending the application through a Bluetooth-hotspot, signalling request for installation by activating Bluetooth) met with the lowest acceptance. This is surprising, as the current trend goes towards bringing mobile software to the mobile end devices of users through scenarios 3.3 and 3.2. Obviously, this is not in line with the wishes of the users.

Figure 6. Rating of distribution scenarios by users with and without

known data transfer tariffs Q4: What influence do demographic characteristics of

the users have on the acceptance and usability of the distribution scenarios?

The user study captured various demographic

characteristics of the user (age, gender, attitude towards new technologies). No effects of age and gender on acceptance and usability could be established. However, attitudes towards new technologies seem to have an influence on acceptance. The more technophile the users, the more money they are willing to spend for the transfer of mobile applications. 58% of the users said they found it very important to own up-to-date technical devices. 48% of this group would pay money for the transfer of mobile applications. Only 39% of the non-technophile users would be ready to do this.

Hypothesis (H8) stating that users are prepared to spend the more money for data transfer the more technophile they are, can be verified at a significance level of 0.05. However, the majority of technophile users (52%) were not ready to spend money on it.

Fig. 7 shows the average rating of distribution scenarios broken down by the demographic characteristic "attitude towards new technologies". As for the results on data tariffs (Q3) the attitude towards new technologies has little influence on the rating of different distribution scenarios. However, it should be noted that non-technophile users rate scenarios 2.1 - 2.3 (installation through a Bluetooth-hotspot) slightly more negatively than the technophile group, while they give scenarios 3.1 - 3.3 (installation through mobile technology) slightly better ratings. This may be due to the fact that non-technophile users have not yet become used to

the Bluetooth features of their mobile phones. The scenarios most popular with non-technophile users are therefore scenarios 3.1 and scenario 1. Scenarios 3.3 and 2.1 - 2.3 are the least popular with this group. The technophile group also likes scenario 3.1 best, but here it is followed by scenario 2.3, which is rather unpopular with the non-technophile users.

Figure 7. Rating of distribution scenarios, breakdown by technophile and non-technophile users.

89.7% of the technophile users rate the distribution

scenario as satisfactory or better. 96.6% of this group would use this kind of software distribution. Hypothesis (H9) stating that acceptance and usability of the distribution scenario will be rated higher the more technophile the users, can be verified at a significance level of 0.05. 94% of the users said they did not know the fees for data transfer or gave no particulars. Only 6% of the users said they knew the costs of data transfer. The hypothesis that the majority of users did not know the cost of using data connections has been verified at a significance level of 0.05.

IV. SUMMARY AND OUTLOOK The user study on the deployment of Java-software on mobile end devices provides a lot of new insight into the future development and distribution of mobile applications. Selected technical aspects, forms of usage and user acceptance were investigated with respect to various possible distribution instruments. The research problem was specified by abstract research questions and concrete hypotheses. The research problem thus specified allowed a quantitative and qualitative analysis through a research sequence that was especially geared towards the prototypical test environment. The research showed a high readiness to use the selected distribution scenario, which uses a Bluetooth-hotspot for the transfer of the application to the mobile phone. A large part of the users was able to install the mobile test application on their mobile phones without assistance. On average, 3 minutes were required for distribution and adaptation of the software, installation, retrieval of the installed application on the mobile phone and starting the software.

2,5

3

2,4

2,7

1,9

2,9

3,4

2,4

2,7

2,5

2,9

2

2,9

3,4

1 2 3 4

PC (1)

BT-change device name (2.1)

BT-send f ile (2.2)

BT-activate (2.3)

WLAN (3.1)

Mobile radio, direct downl. (3.2)

Mobile radio, SMS link (3.3)

do not know tariff

know tariff

2,5

2,9

2,2

2,6

1,9

3,1

3,4

2,4

2,9

2,9

3

2

2,6

3,3

1 2 3 4

PC (1)

BT-change device name (2.1)

BT-send f ile (2.2)

BT-activate (2.3)

WLAN (3.1)

Mobile radio, direct downl. (3.2)

Mobile radio, SMS link (3.3)

non-technophile

technophile

249248

Only 6% of the users could put a number on the magnitude of data connection costs for their mobile phone. This may be a reason why installations not incurring any data transfer costs were generally preferred. The influence of demographic characteristics on the acceptance of various distribution scenarios could only be found for the attitude towards new technologies. In the selected sample, no influence on the course of the research or on the rating of the distribution scenarios could be established for age and gender. Installation scenario 3.1 (installation using WLAN) met with the highest acceptance. It was followed by scenario 2.2 (installation using Bluetooth-hotspot) in the technophile group, whereas the non-technophile group preferred scenario 1 (installation at home using a PC). Mobile applications that are needed on an ad-hoc basis and refer to certain locations (e.g. museum guides) are especially suitable for distribution using close-up-range radio technology as described in scenarios 3.1 - 3.3 (see Section 3.2). However, it seems to make sense to provide different distribution variants for mobile applications. Thus the user may be offered variants for different usage situations and choose the one that is most suitable for him to acquire mobile software.

REFERENCES

[1] T. Hess, S. Hagenhoff, D. Hogrefe, C. Linnhoff-Popien, K.

Rannenberg, and F. Straube, „Mobile Anwendungen – Best Practices in der TIME-Branche,“ Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Göttingen, 2005.

[2] E. Gerum, I. Sjurts, and N. Stieglitz, „Der Mobilfunkmarkt im Umbruch,“ Wiesbaden: DUV, 2003.

[3] B. Anckar, and D. D’Incau, “Value-added services in mobile commerce: an analytical framework and empirical findings from a national consumer survey, System Sciences,”, Proc. 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference (HICSS), IEEE Press, 2002, pp. 1444-1453.

[4] C. Kaspar, T. Diekmann, and S. Hagenhoff, „Kontextadaptive Systeme,“ Wirtschaftswissenschaftliches Studium, vol. 9, 2005, pp. 519-522.

[5] G. Acampora, V. Loia, M. Nappi, and S. Ricciardi, “Ambient intelligence framework for context aware adaptive applications,” Proc. Seventh International Workshop on Computer Architecture for Machine Perception (CAMP), IEEE Press, 2005, pp. 327-332, doi: 10.1109/CAMP.2005.9.

[6] J. Wu, S. Wang and L. Lin, “Mobile computing acceptance factors in the healthcare industry: A structural equation model,” International Journal of Medical Informatics, vol. 76, issue 1, 2007, pp. 66-77, doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2006.06.006.

[7] T. Koivumaki, A. Ristola, and M. Kesti, “Predicting consumer acceptance in mobile services: empirical evidence from an experimental end user environment,” International Journal of Mobile Communications, vol. 4, issue 4, 2006, pp 418 - 435, doi: 10.1504/IJMC.2006.008950.

[8] U. Varshney, and R. Vetter, “Mobile Commerce: Framework, Applications and Networking Support,” Mobile Networks and Applications , vol. 7, nr. 3, 2002, pp. 185-198, doi: 10.1023/A:1014570512129.

[9] G. Biegel, and V. Cahill, “A framework for developing mobile, context-aware applications,” Proc. Second IEEE Annual Conference

on Pervasive Computing and Communications (PerCom), 2004, pp. 361- 365 .

[10] T. Caus, S. Christmann, and S. Hagenhoff, “Development of Context-Aware Mobile Services: An Approach to Simplification,” International Journal of Mobile Communications (IJMC), vol. 7, 2009, pp. 133-153, doi: 10.1504/IJMC.2009.022439.

[11] C. S. Leem, H. S. Suh, and D. S. Kim, “A classification of mobile business models and its applications,” Industrial Management & Data Systems, vol. 104, nr. 1, 2004, pp. 78-87, doi: 10.1108/02635570410514115.

[12] G. Camponovo, and Y. Pigneur, “Business Model Analysis Applied to Mobile Business,” Proc. 5th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2003), 2003.

[13] A. Hentena, and H. Westh Nicolajsena, “Mobile and wireless communications: Technologies, applications, business models and diffusion,” Telematics and Informatics, vol. 26, issue 3, 2009, pp. 223-226, doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2008.11.001.

[14] D. Liu, and M. Anand, “MaJaB: improving resource management for web-based applications on mobile devices,” Proc. 7th International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications and Services, 2009, pp. 95-108, doi: 10.1145/1555816.1555827.

[15] F. H. P. Fitzek, and F. Reichert, “Mobile Phone Programming and its Application to Wireless Networking,” Dordrecht: Springer Verlag, 2007, pp. 14ff.

[16] A. Carzaniga, A. Fuggetta, R. S. Hall, A. Van Der Hoek, D. Heimbigner, and A. L. Wolf, “A Characterization Framework for Software Deployment Technologies”, Dept. of Computer Science, Colorado, 1998, pp. 857-98.

[17] J. Roth, „Mobile Computing: Grundlagen, Technik, Konzepte,“ 2nd ed., Heidelberg: dpunkt-Verlag, 2005.

[18] J. Gu, R. Mukundan, and M. Billinghurst, “Developing mobile phone AR applications using J2ME,” Proc. 23rd International Conference on Image and Vision Computing New Zealand (IVCNZ), 2008, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1109/IVCNZ.2008.4762116.

[19] U. Breymann, and H. Mosemann, „Java ME – Anwendungsentwicklung für Handys, PDA und co.,“ München: Carl Hanser Verlag, 2006.

[20] C. Greenhalgh, S. Benford, A. Drozd, M. Flintham, A. Hampshire, L. Oppermann, K. Smith, and C. von Tycowicz, “Addressing Mobile Phone Diversity in Ubicomp Experience Development,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4717, Heidelberg, Berlin: Springer 2007, pp. 447-464, 10.1007/978-3-540-74853-3_26.

[21] H. Ehrmann, „Logistik,“ Kiehl: Ludwigshafen 1997. [22] B. Paschelke, and A. Roselieb, „Online-Distribution, Implikationen

elektronischer Märkte für Strukturen, Produkteignung und Strategien im funktionalen Handel“, Erich Schmidt Verlag: Berlin, 2002.

[23] T. Köhler, „Krisen-PR im Internet: Nutzungsmöglichkeiten, Einflussfaktoren und Problemfelder“, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, 2006.

[24] T. Köhne, „Marketing im strategischen Unternehmenseinsatz,“ Wiesbaden, 2006.

[25] Haase & Martin GmbH, “Methoden des Bluetooth Marketing,” http://www.haaseundmartin.de/methoden-des-bluetooth-marketing.pdf, 2008.

[26] A. Diekmann, „Empirische Sozialforschung: Grundlagen, Methoden, Anwendungen,“ 9th. ed., Reinbek: Rowohlt, 2002.

[27] P. Atteslander, „Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung“, 11th ed., Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag, 2006.

[28] J. Bortz, and N. Döring, „Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation,“ 3rd ed., Berlin: Springer, 2002.

[29] L. Antovski, M. Gusev, “M-Payments”, Proc. 25th International Conference on Information Technology Interfaces (ITI), IEEE Press, 2003, S. 95-100.

[30] N. Kreyer, K. Pousttchi, and K. Turowski, “Mobile Payment Procedures: Scope and Characteristics,” e-Services Journal, vol. 2, issue 3, 2003, pp. 7-22, doi: 10.1353/esj.2004.0005.

250249

[31] Pago eTransaction Services GmbH, „Chancen und Risiken im Online-Handel für den deutschen Mittelstand“, Köln, 2003.

[32] E. Teo, B. Fraunholz, and C. R. Unnithan, “Inhibitors and Facilitators for Mobile Payment Adoption in Australia: A Preliminary Study”, Proc. 4th International Conference on Mobile Business (ICMB), IEEE Press, 2005. pp. 663-666, doi: 10.1109/ICMB.2005.47.

[33] Kirchner+Robrecht GmbH management consultants, “Mobile Research Guide 2008,” Frankfurt, 2008.

[34] P.-G. Schierz, and B. Wirtz, “Akzeptanz mobiler Paymentsysteme – Eine empirische Analyse,” Die Betriebswirtschaft (DBW), vol. 05, Stuttgart, 2009.

[35] R. Nkrumah, “Position Paper on Device Description Repositories,” DDWG Workshop, http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/DDWG/workshop2006/papers/Enough/Position_Paper_On_Device_Description_Repositorys_Enough_Software.pdf, 2006.

[36] H. Hanekop, „Die Herausbildung neuer Nutzungsformen von IuK-Technologien - Ein empirisches Forschungs-design basierend auf Nutzungsexperimenten,“ in „Die Natur der Gesellschaft. Verhandlungen des 33. Kongresses der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Soziologie in Kassel 2006“, K.-S. Rehberg, K.-S. (Ed.), Frankfurt a. M.: campus, 2006.

251250