There may be a decent argument to this effect, but the one presented is extremely weak. I don't understand why you get to ignore all[1] mobile native gaming because of an unsupported assertion that "most people" don't play web games. Firstly because it's not clear why you would ignore something people do on one platform because it's (allegedly) not done on another. Secondly because it's not at all clear that it's true.

FarmVille alone has in excess of 80 million users, some 20% or more of which play every day. Even the original Flurry post that the author links to points out that "Games, which typify the most popular kind of app played on the Facebook platform itself, are also the top categories on both Android and iOS platforms." (emphasis mine) How, then, does it make any sense to completely ignore native gaming without cutting a single minute off of web apps?

[1]:Oddly, the author cites web-capable portable devices used for gaming (like the Nintendo DS or Sony PSP) as something other than native mobile gaming. I can understand not including them at all, as they weren't part of the original comparison, but citing them as a reason to ignore gaming on iOS and Android is convenient.

Decent article. The amount of mis-information on mobile app usage is staggering. The point the article makes about mobile-as-game-platform is really solid. But, I have to question the pie chart about "time spent per category." I would classify "camera, calculator, calendar, mail, maps, phone, messages, notes, and weather" as all "other" on that pie chart and those make up 95+% of my usage. Similar to DHH's point from a few days ago.

There seem to be a lot of inferences made here. Do we know, for example, that the time discrepancy has nothing to do with time efficiency (speed of task) of the app? A poor/slow interface can double, triple...