Author: Kimberley DERUDDER

Kimberley DERUDDER has been marketing and communication officer at GREENSPECTOR for more than 3 years. Kimberley graduated with a master's degree in Marketing - Communication and specialized in Inbound Marketing after her first two years at GREENSPECTOR. Today in charge of the animation of the marketing, social media and lead generation strategy, she also takes care of app comparisons and battles.

RocketChat vs Slack

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Today’s match will oppose two collaborative communication platforms for professional teams: RocketChat and Slack. Collaborative platforms have replaced emails to facilitate exchanges between individuals and teams and also have improved their productivity.

On the left corner RocketChat, is an open-source collaborative communication platform launched in 2016 and has one of the largest numbers of members of the GitHub developer community.

On the right corner Slack, collaborative communication platform created in the USA in 2013. Slack has 10 million active users per day.

The weighting

At weighing RocketChat is the heavier application with a weight of 94 MB. Its opponent Slack is lighter with a weight of 90 MB, or 4% less.

The fight

All the lights are now turned on the fighters and the match can finally begin.

In the first part of the battle to measure the impact of the launch phase of the application, Slack (1.2 mAh) wins the first round by consuming 17% less than his opponent RocketChat (1.4 mAh). In the second round that corresponds to the use scenario, Slack (6.5 mAh) still leads to RocketChat (8.4 mAh) with a 29% lower consumption. To end this confrontation, we have set up two decisive rounds of observation of the rest phases of each opponent. Slack is still the leader of the game with a consumption of less than 3% for the background inactivity phase. For the foreground inactivity phase it is a perfect draw!

The bell rings, end of the match!

The winner

Without any surprise, it’s the Slack app that wins this game with an overall score of 9.9 mAh at 12.1 mAh, a 18% difference in consumption against its opponent RocketChat. For the data exchanged, it is the same observation, the application Slack is less consuming by 84%.

For those who like numbers

ApplicationVersionDownloadsPlaystore GradeApp weight (MB)Exchanged data (KB)Memory consumption (MB)Energy consumption (mAh)
RocketChat3.5.1100 000+2.5941.1176.112.1
Slack19.09.10.010 000 000+4.5907.3181.29.9

On a 1-minute usage scenario, Slack has a consumption equivalent to that of an application direct messaging such as Line. As for RocketChat, its consumption is similar to an application such as Microsoft Outlook. (Source: Study Consumption of top 30 most popular mobile applications)

The measurements were carried out by our laboratory on the basis of a standardized protocol, respecting a specific user scenario (launch of the app, product searching, product overview). The other scenarios are the launch of the application (20”), inactivity in the foreground (20”) and inactivity in the background (20”). This methodology makes it possible to estimate the embedded application complexity and its energy impact during the use phase.

Find the battle of last week : United Wardrobe vs Vinted
Battles ideas? Contact us!

The battle of the week: United Wardrobe vs Vinted

Reading Time: 3 minutes

“Second-hand” clothing applications are a hit with fashion lovers and platforms, and platforms have proliferated in recent years. Today we compare two competing apps: United Wardrobe and Vinted on their mobile energy consumption.

In the left corner United Wardrobe, created in the Netherlands, a real community market designed to buy and sell items from the world of fashion. Their mission is to “democratize used clothes”.

In the right corner Vinted, created in 2012 in Lithuania and which landed in France in 2013, is also a community online market whose purpose is to buy, sell and / or exchange used clothes. 1.4 million users in the hexagon.

The weighting

At weighing United Wardrobe is the heavier application with a weight of 81 MB. Its opponent Vinted is lighter with a weight of 71 MB, or 13% less.

The fight

All the lights are now turned on the fighters and the match can finally begin.

In the first part of the battle to measure the impact of the launch phase of the application, United Wardrobe (1.5 mAh) wins the first round by consuming 52% less than his opponent Vinted (3.2 mAh). In the second round that corresponds to the use scenario, United Wardrobe (6.9 mAh) still leads to Vinted (7.7 mAh) with a 10% lower consumption. To end this confrontation, we have set up two decisive rounds of observation of the rest phases of each opponent. United Wardrobe is still the leader of the game with a consumption of less than 30% for the foreground inactivity phase and 18% for the background inactivity phase.

The bell rings, end of the match!

The winner

Without any surprise, it’s the United Wardrobe app that wins this game with an overall score of 10.6 mAh at 13.8 mAh, a 23% difference in consumption against its opponent Vinted. For the data exchanged and memory consumption, it is the same observation, the application United Wardrobe is less consuming.

For those who like numbers

ApplicationVersionDownloadsPlaystore GradeApp weight (MB)Exchanged data (KB)Memory consumption (MB)Energy consumption (mAh)
United Wardrobe3.9.01 000 000+3.3811.57010.6
Vinted8.41.1.25 000 000+4.5716.313713.8

On a 1-minute usage scenario, Vinted has a consumption equivalent to that of an application like ShareIt. While United Wardrobe is getting closer to consuming an video games app such as PUBG. (Source: Study Consumption of top 30 most popular mobile applications)

The measurements were carried out by our laboratory on the basis of a standardized protocol, respecting a specific user scenario (launch of the app, product searching, product overview). The other scenarios are the launch of the application (20”), inactivity in the foreground (20”) and inactivity in the background (20”). This methodology makes it possible to estimate the embedded application complexity and its energy impact during the use phase.

Find the battle of last week : Leboncoin vs Locanto
Battles ideas? Contact us!

The battle of the week Twitter special: video vs image vs gif

Reading Time: 2 minutes

A special battle for this new season: different media on Twitter: video, image and gif. Which one is the most energy and resource consuming media when viewing a tweet?

The fight

All the lights are now turned on the fighters and the match can finally begin.

In terms of energy consumption, a tweet with video consumes 63% more than tweet with image, and 25% more than tweet with gif . The consumption of the tweet with image is equivalent to that of a tweet without media since the images remain relatively small. Nevertheless the consumption increases when the user clicks on an image and displays it in real size.
On the data side exchanged, without any surprise, the tweet with video is the most consuming media with 1.91 MB, unlike tweets with image (112 KB) and gif (92 KB), a ratio of 20 between the heaviest and the lightest. On the occupied memory side, no significant difference in consumption, the values oscillate between 244 and 228 MB.

The bell rings, end of the match!

The winner

The winning media of this match remains the tweet with image, 63% less consumer than a video and 23% than tweet with GIF. So focus on the image to the video for your tweets. In our study on the energy consumption of the 30 most popular apps in the world , we found that the category of social networks was among the most consuming. Video is the new medium favored by users. Application publishers must be vigilant and optimize their use.

For those who like numbers

ApplicationVersionDownloadsPlaystore GradeApp weight (MB)Exchanged data (KB)Memory (MB)Energy consumption (mAh)
Twitter with video8.10.0500 000 000+4.51001.912448.5
Twitter with image8.10.0500 000 000+4.51000.112228.35.2
Twitter with gif8.10.0500 000 000+4.51000.092231.26.8
Twitter without média8.10.0500 000 000+4.51000.042239.85.3

The measurements were carried out by our laboratory on the basis of a standardized protocol, respecting a specific user scenario: displaying a tweet containing a media (image, video or gif)
Kapten vs Uber

Find the battle of last week: Mixer vs Twitch
Battles ideas? Contact us!

You may also like:

Twitter vs Twitter Lite

L’impact des services tiers comme Twitter sur l’autonomie des batteries

WEBP vs PNG vs JPEG

The battle of the week: Mixer vs Twitch

Reading Time: 3 minutes

A few weeks ago, the famous American streamer under the pseudonym of Ninja announced that he left the streaming platform Twitch for its competitor: Mixer. In just a few days, the milestone of one million paid subscribers had been reached and the platform was the top spot for the most downloaded free apps in the United States. Today’s match is between these two competing applications: Mixer vs. Twitch.

In the left corner Mixer, (formerly Beam) the video game streaming service launched by Microsoft in January 2016.

In the right corner Twitch, leading platform for streaming video games (and other broadcasts) launched in June 2011. It has more than 35 million unique visitors per month.

The weighting

At weighing Mixer is the heavier application with a weight of 114 MB. Its opponent Twitch is lighter with a weight of 95 MB, or 16% less .

The fight

All the lights are now turned on the fighters and the match can finally begin.

In the first part of the battle to measure the impact of the launch phase of the application, Twitch assom Mixer in consumption more than 3x less energy. The difference in consumption is quite marked also on the streaming phase. Indeed, Twitch (11.6 mAh) dishes Mixer (15.4 mAh) K.O with a lower consumption of 24%. To end this confrontation, we have set up two decisive rounds of observation of the rest phases of each opponent. During the foreground phase, Twitch is still the master of the game, consuming 60% less. For the inactivity phase in the background it is a perfect draw!

The bell rings, end of the match!

The winner

Without any surprise, it’s a knockout victory for the Twitch app, declared victorious against its opponent Mixer on an overall score of 15.3 mAh at 23.9 mAh, either by consuming overall 56% less energy. Note that the Twitch power consumption is still very high. Twitch also dominates its competitor Mixer on memory consumption (-45%) and storage space. Mixer is doing well on data exchanged (-9%).

For those who like numbers

ApplicationVersionDownloadsPlaystore GradeApp weight (MB)Exchanged data (KB)Memory (MB)Energy consumption (mAh)
Mixer4.7.310 000 000+4.111444.5427.923.9
Twitch7.13.450 000 000+4.69549.1231.315.3

On a 1 minute usage scenario, Twitch has a consumption equivalent to a browser app such as Google Chrome. (Source: Study Consumption of top 30 most popular mobile applications)

The measurements were carried out by our laboratory on the basis of a standardized protocol, respecting a specific user scenario (launch of the app, live streaming). The other scenarios are the launch of the application (20”), inactivity in the foreground (20”) and inactivity in the background (20”). This methodology makes it possible to estimate the embedded application complexity and its energy impact during the use phase.

Find the battle of last week : Kapten vs Uber
Battles ideas? Contact us!

The battle of the week: Kapten vs Uber

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Today’s match will oppose the two VFH (Vehicle for Hire) leaders of the French market: Kapten (formerly Chauffeur Privé) vs Uber.

In the left corner Kapten, formerly Chauffeur Privé, the French VFH company founded in 2011, quickly established itself as number 2 of the French market. The company renamed Kapten early 2019, wants to conquer more users internationally.

In the right corner Uber, the American giant founded in 2009 of the VFH which has more than 100 million users internationally. Find the battle opposing UberEats vs Deliveroo.

The weighting

At weighing Uber is the heavier application with a weight of 255 MB. Its opponent Kapten is lighter with a weight of 73 MB, or 71% less.

The fight

All the lights are now turned on the fighters and the match can finally begin.

In the first part of the race which consists of measuring the impact of the launch phase of the application, it is Uber which is heading by consuming 10% less than Kapten. On the itinerary and driver research phase, Kapten (11.7 mAh) takes the advantage over Uber (11.8 mAh). To end this confrontation, we have set up two decisive rounds of observation of the rest phases of each opponent. During these periods of inactivity in the foreground and in the background, it is Kapten which is headed with a lower consumption of 7% and 3.7% compared to Uber.

The bell rings, end of the match!

The winner

The race was tight nevertheless it is Kapten which is declared victorious against the American giant Uber on a score very close to 15.4 mAh at 15.5 mAh by consuming globally 1% less energy. Let us note here that these two applications are nevertheless very energy consuming. We can decide between those two apps with the amount of data exchanged because Kapten consumes 21% less than Uber! This is the same finding with the memory consumption, where Kapten is much less consumer (-40%). Finally, if the storage space of your smartphone is precious for you, also prefer the Kapten application.

For those who like numbers

ApplicationVersionDownloadsPlaystore GradeApp weight (MB)Exchanged data (KB)Memory (MB)Energy consumption (mAh)
Kapten3.66.01 000 000+4.37310.4185.415.4
Uber4.272.10001500 000 000+4.225513.2309.415.5

On a 1 minute usage scenario, Kapten and Uber have a consumption equivalent to a web browser app such as Google Chrome. (Source: Study Consumption of top 30 most popular mobile applications)

The measurements were carried out by our laboratory on the basis of a standardized protocol, respecting a specific user scenario (launch of the app, car ordering). The other scenarios are the launch of the application (20”), inactivity in the foreground (20”) and inactivity in the background (20”). This methodology makes it possible to estimate the embedded application complexity and its energy impact during the use phase.

Find the battle of last week : Drivy vs Ouicar
Battles ideas? Contact us!

The battle of the week: Drivy vs Ouicar

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Today’s match will oppose two carsharing apps: Drivy vs Ouicar. True concept of collaborative economy launched a little over a decade ago, those applications allow car owners to rent their vehicle to individuals or professionals.

In the left corner Drivy, a French car-sharing company founded in 2010. The service is available in 6 European countries and brings together more than 2 million users.

In the right corner Ouicar, application and collaborative platform launched in 2007 by SNCF. It connects car owners with their future tenants and it too, brings together more than 2 million users.

The weighing

At weighing Ouicar is the heavier application with a weight of 65 MB. Its opponent Drivy is much lighter with a weight of 42 MB, or 35% less.

The fight

All the lights are now turned on the fighters and the match can finally begin.

In the first part of the fight which consists of measuring the impact of the launch phase of the application, it’s a draw for the two apps. The second round corresponding to the order of a car is a bit different. Indeed, Ouicar (9.3 mAh) puts Drivy (10.5 mAh) by the side of the road with a consumption lower by almost 11%. To end this confrontation, we have set up two decisive rounds of idle observation for each opponent. During the inactivity phase in the foreground, the two applications are once again at the same speed, however Ouicar go ahead Drivy during the phase of inactivity background, with a lower consumption of 9%.

The bell rings, end of the match!

The winner

The race was tight nevertheless it is Ouicar who is declared victorious against its opponent Drivy on a global score of 12.7 mAh at 14 mAh by consuming overall 9% less energy.

For those who like numbers

ApplicationVersionDownloadsPlaystore GradeApp weight (MB)Exchanged data (KB)Memory (MB)Energy consumption (mAh)
Drivy7.7.2500 000+4.2423.621814
Ouicar7.0.3100 000+4.3651.719212.7

On a 1 minute usage scenario, Ouicar has a consumption equivalent to a direct messaging application such as Line. (Source: Study Consumption of top 30 most popular mobile applications)

The measurements were carried out by our laboratory on the basis of a standardized protocol, respecting a specific user scenario (launch of the app, car ordering). The other scenarios are the launch of the application (20”), inactivity in the foreground (20”) and inactivity in the background (20”). This methodology makes it possible to estimate the embedded application complexity and its energy impact during the use phase.

Find the battle of last week : Happn vs Tinder
Battles ideas? Contact us!

The battle of the week: Happn vs Tinder

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Today’s match will oppose two social and dating apps: Happn vs. Tinder. Based on the same geographical proximity asset, where contact is created after validation of the two people via their profile, the two applications are a real current social phenomenon.

In the left corner, Happn, a French dating application created in 2014. It allows its users to find people they crossed in the day.

In the right corner, Tinder, American giant created in 2012, Happn’s competing application for networking and dating.

The weighing

At weighing Tinder is the heavier application with a weight of 170 MB. Its opponent Happn is much lighter with a weight of 79 MB, or 53% less.

The fight

All the lights are now turned on the fighters and the match can finally begin.

In the first part of the match which consists in measuring the impact of the launch phase of the application, it’s Happn that wins the first round by consumming 35% less than Tinder. The difference in consumption is very marked on the swiping profiles phase. Indeed, Happn (8.7 mAh) puts Tinder (18.6 mAh) K.O with a lower consumption of 53%. To end this confrontation, we have set up two decisive rounds of idle observation for each opponent. During the inactivity phases in foreground and background, Happn still leads with a 65% lower consumption compared to Tinder for this foreground phase and 8% for the background phase.

The bell rings, end of the match!

And the winner is…

Without any surprise, it’s a victory by knockout for Happn app, declared victorious against its opponent Tinder on an overall score of 13.5 mAh at 27 mAh, by consuming 50 % less energy.

For those who like numbers

ApplicationVersionDownloadsPlaystore GradeApp weight (MB)Exchanged data (KB)Memory (MB)Energy consumption (mAh)
Happn24.10.050 000 000+4.3794.525213.5
Tinder10.20.0100 000 000+41704.5310.527

On a 1 minute usage scenario, Happn has a consumption equivalent to an application like WhatsApp. (Source: Study Consumption of top 30 most popular mobile applications)

The measurements were carried out by our laboratory on the basis of a standardized protocol, respecting a specific user scenario (launch of the app, profiles swiping). The other scenarios are the launch of the application (20”), inactivity in the foreground (20”) and inactivity in the background (20”). This methodology makes it possible to estimate the embedded application complexity and its energy impact during the use phase.

Find the battle of last week : Bankin vs Linxo
Battles ideas? Contact us!

The battle of the week: Bankin vs Linxo

Reading Time: 3 minutes

We are interested this week in budget management applications: Bankin et Linxo. Created by startups and the real new success of fintechs, budget management applications are recent in the banking market. Based on a system of accounts aggregation, they simplify the banking plurality of consumers by displaying on the same screen the accounts held in different institutions. They also allow users to manage their finances and budget by categorizing expenses. They also alert if necessary using forecasting statistics.

In the left corner Bankin, created in 2011 and with more than 3.2 million users, Bankin is proud to be the only independent bank player in Europe.

In the right corner Linxo, Bankin’s main competitor, it was created in 2010 and has more than 2.8 million users.

The weighing

At weighing Linxo is the heavier application with a weight of 70 MB. Its opponent Bankin is much lighter with a weight of 65 MB, or 7% less.

The fight

All the lights are now turned on the fighters and the match can finally begin.

In the first part of the match which consists in measuring the impact of the launch phase of the application, Linxo takes the advantage, consuming 13% less than Bankin. The difference in consumption is very important on the accounts’ consultation phase. Indeed, it is Bankin (6.4 mAh) which takes the advantage and put Linxo (11 mAh) K.O with a lower consumption of 41%. To end this confrontation, we have set up two decisive rounds of idle observation for each opponent. During the inactivity phase in the background, it is a perfect match, both opponents consume 1.1 mAh. It’s Linxo who wins the last round by consuming 49% less than Bankin on the inactivity phase in the foreground.

The bell rings, end of the match!

And the winner is…

After a hard fight, the Bankin application is declared victorious against its opponent Linxo on an overall score of 10.8 mAh at 14.7 mAh by consuming 26% less energy.

For those who like numbers

ApplicationVersionDownloadsPlaystore GradeApp weight (MB)Exchanged data (KB)Memory (MB)Energy consumption (mAh)
Bankin3.12.41 000 000+4.565136160.510.8
Linxo6.6.1500 000+4.470296.3121.114.7

On a scenario of consultation during 1 minute, Bankin consume 8% more than an application like Discord. Linxo‘s energy consumption is equal to Snapchatone’s. (Source: Study Consumption of top 30 most popular mobile applications)

The measurements were carried out by our laboratory on the basis of a standardized protocol, respecting a specific user scenario (launch of the app, consultation of the lastest banking operations). The other scenarios are the launch of the application (20”), inactivity in the foreground (20”) and inactivity in the background (20”).

Find the battle of last week : ADA vs Europcar
Battles ideas? Contact us!

2019 Mobile video games ranking : 12 apps measured

Reading Time: 3 minutes

The 2018 year was a record year for the mobile application market, with more than 113 billion downloads worldwide, up 10% from 2017. These are video sharing and “casual games” applications which have been the most downloaded (Source: AppAnnie). If the carbon footprint of storage servers increases and has a strong impact on the environment, mobile applications are also becoming more and more energy intensive because they are demanding technical resources (RAM, CPU, Data, etc.). GREENSPECTOR has measured the energy consumption of mobile casual games apps. At the top of this ranking, Candy Crush Saga is the most energy efficient one.

Digital power consumption is up 9% a year, according to the Digital Environmental Impact Report released Oct. 4 by The Shift Project , think tank of the carbon transition. The share of digital in global greenhouse gas emissions has increased from 2, 5% in 2013 to 3.7% in 2018, representing an increase of 450 million tonnes in the OECD. These are the data centers that host softs and data, but also the use of terminals and networks. “The energy impact of watching video is about 1,500 times greater than the simple power consumption of the smartphone itself, the report.

In the study conducted in partnership with Atos, on the top 30 most energy-consuming applications, we have also identified that video game applications are among the most demanding applications, after those of social networks and browsers. This consumption has a significant impact on the battery life and therefore on the user experience: the drop in the battery level affects the remaining playing time before recharging.

Results

  • Subway Surfers, last in the ranking, consumes almost twice as much as Candy Crush Saga;
  • if Candy Crush Saga was running continuously on a smartphone for 60 minutes, the app would consume 19% battery, against nearly 40% for Subway Surfers.

The high energy and resource consumption of some applications can be explained by:

  • 3D games such as : Temple Run 2, My Talking Tom or Subway Surfers tend to be more consumer than 2D games like Candy Crush Saga, Hill Climb Racing or Pou;
  • some applications include unwanted ads that disrupt the user experience and increase energy consumption, aurtres offer to visualize advertising videos to win rewards in the game.

If we compare the energy consumption of these mobile video game applications to a heavier platform game (like Rayman Adventures for example, developed by Ubisoft), this one would be in the average consumption: it would only consume 24% battery and the average is 26%. Only the storage capacity of the device (weight of the installed application) would be more impacted.

For those who like numbers

ApplicationVersionDownloadsPlaystore GradeApp weight (MB)Exchanged data (KB)Memory (MB)In game Energy consumption (mAh)
8 Ball Pool4.3.1100 000 000+4.51650.77189.416.3
Candy Crush Saga1.147.0.2500 000 000+4.51320.22254.812.2
Clash of Clans11.446.11500 000 000+4.61350.8488.814.3
Clash Royale2.6.1100 000 000+4.51280.126261.914.9
Fruit Ninja2.7.2.504834100 000 000+4.31406.03294.414.8
Hill Climb Racing1.41.0500 000 000+4.41078.59211.111.7
Minion Rush6.4.1100 000 000+4.52101.51182.118.2
MyTalkingTom5.2.3.326500 000 000+4.51882.0345020.7
Pokemon Go0.137.2100 000 000+4.12180.27145015.4
Pou1.4.77500 000 000+4.3430.83139.813.9
Temple Run 21.55.3500 000 000+4.112016.65280.516.3
Subway Surfers1.100.01 000 000 000+4.516535.75320.923
Rayman Adventures3.9.010 000 000+4.65241.34326.615.5

The measurements were carried out by our laboratory on the basis of a standardized protocol, respecting a specific user scenario (launch of the app, launch of the game). The other scenarios are the launch of the application (20”), inactivity in the foreground (20”) and inactivity in the background (20”). This methodology makes it possible to estimate the embedded application complexity and its energy impact during the use phase.

Note: Find our other comparative applications articles:

Fight of the week: UberEats vs Deliveroo

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Today we will study food delivery applications. These applications have multiplied in the last three years. In France, two leaders share the majority of the market:UberEats and Deliveroo. We decided to compare these two challengers to confront them on the following criteria: their energy consumption, their amount of exchanged data as well as their busy memory.

Deliveroo is a British company, created in 2013 and the main competitor of UberEats in France, covering more than 45 French cities.

UberEats was designed by the creators of Uber in August 2014 and is available in several countries of the world, and in more than 70 cities in France and this 24/24.

These two applications allow you to order and receive meals delivered from restaurants near you.

Weighing

From the point of view of the app weight, Deliveroo is the featherweight. Indeed, its weight (22 MB) is 1.4 times lower than that of UberEats (31 MB).

Match

From the beginning of the match, UberEats takes a clear advantage over his opponent with a launch that consumes 13% less battery. He manages to maintain his advantage during the decisive phase of this match, which consists of ordering a meal (-2.5%). The confrontation ends with two rounds of observation of the rest phases of each opponent, during which the two competitors are tied.

Over the whole match, UberEats wins on the points against Deliveroo that resists well.

Note that we are dealing here with two “heavyweights” who will both mark your battery their footprint!

And the winner is…

For this very first fight, the match is tight but UberEats wins 15.7 mAh at 16.2 mAh in front of Deliveroo, consuming nearly 3.5% less energy.
Note however that the Deliveroo app is lighter to download and consumes less data – so if you have a small data package or unstable connection, it can be interesting.

These two applications can be compared on a one-minute scenario to the energy consumption of a Netflix, they are also 1.6 times more consuming than an application such as Spotify. (Source: Study Consumption of top 30 most popular mobile applications)

For those who like numbers

ApplicationVersionDownloadsPlaystore GradeApp weight (MB)Exchanged data (MB)Memory (MB)Energy consumption (mAh)
Deliveroo3.4.15 000 000+4.2223.35218.8512.02
UberEats1.201.1000250 000 000+4.2313.66227.7411.72

The measurements were carried out by our laboratory on the basis of a standardized protocol, respecting a specific user scenario (launch of the application, selection of a delivery address, scroll on the pages of choice of restaurants and selection of a restaurant, scroll on the page of the dishes and add in the basket). The other scenarios are the launch of the application (20”), inactivity in the foreground (20”) and inactivity in the background (20”).