As reported earlier this month by NetBanker, the University of Wisconsin Credit Union just became one of the first — if not the first — financial institutions to offer smartphone-based remote deposit without a native mobile app. To use it, UWCW customers simply go to the credit union’s mobile Web site and follow the instructions to deposit a check. Now, the distinction between a mobile app and a mobile Web site may be a matter of mere semantics to many users, but to those of use involved in the remote deposit capture business, it’s significant for two reasons.

First, there’s the ease-of-access issue — not just for consumers, but for the banks and credit unions themselves. While downloading an app is the familiar way for most of us to use a smartphone-based service, a bank also has to consider the development cost for different platforms. It may be no problem for Chase to roll out an app for each mobile operating system, but for smaller banks and credit unions with limited resources, the cost and especially the time required to develop and test multiple versions of an app has to be considered. Even though the majority of financial institutions, large and small, minimize their own headaches by outsourcing the actual development and maintenance of their mobile RDC apps, it’s still not a free and painless process.

As a subset of the access issue, you have the unfortunate 10% of individual smartphone users who aren’t on one of the two major mobile operating systems, Android and iOS. The official word from UWCU is that, as of this writing, its mobile RDC service does not work with BlackBerry or Windows Phone. But if, say, Microsoft were to triple its market share next year, my guess is that making a Web-based service accommodate it would be quicker and cheaper than developing another native app and getting it approved for the app store. It’s the same principle that countless companies have been leveraging to make their services work on OS X and other non-Windows operating systems: Ditch installed software, use a browser and let the cloud do the work. It’s always struck me as funny that leaning on the cloud is the modern way to do things on “dying” devices like desktop or laptop PCs… but on cutting-edge devices like smartphones and tablets, the preferred method is to use an app, or in other words, to use installed software.

This probably made a lot more sense five years ago, when coverage was worse, loading times were longer, typing was done with a numeric keypad, and the mobile Web was generally a lot slower and less reliable than it is today. But as people get used to better speeds and interfaces, less and less has been separating the two methods, and it can be possible to “fake” an app reasonably well. There’s a good chance this approach could pick up steam among developers whose primary purpose doesn’t depend on getting noticed in the App Store or Google Play.

At any rate, while that 10% of lesser-known OS users represent one potential market that could be reached by the mobile Web,another may surprise you: Smartphone users who don’t trust mobile banking apps. In a recent Federal Reserve Board study, fewer than 40% of consumers rated mobile banking apps as “somewhat safe” or better. Apps have a reputation among many, deserved or not, for taking root on your phone and keeping your sensitive data easily accessible, for you for or anyone else who gets their hands on your phone. (Never mind that much of this risk can be prevented by simple measures such as password-protecting your phone or adjusting its permissions settings, or that most banking apps are themselves password-protected; the perception of risk is what counts.)

So is the mobile Web any better? That may seem like a silly question, given that it and apps transmit data to the bank in essentially the same way — but there’s one important difference, even if it’s mostly a psychological one. To some, the “one-and-done”style of a mobile website feels like it carries less long-term risk if they were to lose their phones or fall prey to malware. In other words, a website feels more like it protects us from ourselves. Will everybody feel that way? Probably not: In the FRB study, consumer trust in mobile websites came in with similarly low numbers — 36% compared with 38%. But chances are, these 36% aren’t all the exact same people who trust apps, so anyone who falls in one category but not the other is a potential gain. In this facet of banking, if it helps allay security fears, it counts.

Does UWCU’s new appless mobile RDC app signal a new trend in mobile banking? Probably not right away. It is, however, a bold step in a new direction that holds promise for both a user-friendly cross-platform experience, and for helping overcome one of the great hurdles to widespread mobile adoption.

About the Author: Jeff Hempker is Vice President of Digital Check Corporation, an Illinois-based manufacturer of check scanners and imaging equipment for the financial industry. Visit Digital Check online at www.digitalcheck.com.