Good ideas don't wait for your desk. They surface during commutes, between meetings, and on walks. But by the time you're back at your computer, you've either forgotten the thread or lost the momentum to dig in.
Using Claude, you can start ideas on mobile, and finish them on desktop. Start a conversation using voice to describe what you're thinking about and what you need to know. While you're still on the move, Claude searches for relevant data, pulls in documents you reference, and synthesizes what it finds. When you reach your desk, the research is done and organized, ready to become a polished deliverable.
I just had a thought for the product meeting later. I want to look into what our competitors are doing with their onboarding flows. I feel like everybody's moving towards a simpler experience.
Can you pull in our Q1 planning doc because I need to remember where we landed on roadmap priorities. I think we might be overcomplicating our onboarding flow, and I want to make sure that if I make that case in the meeting, I have the data to back it up.
Can you please look through the doc, do some competitor research on their onboarding flows, find any good onboarding stats, and prep me for later? Thanks.
Claude saves conversations across devices, so you can start on your phone and pick up on your laptop without losing context.
Enable web search: Claude can research best practices, find frameworks, and gather external information while you're still in brainstorm mode. By the time you're at your desk, the research is done.
Enable Extended Thinking: For complex planning tasks, Extended Thinking helps Claude develop more thorough structures and anticipate gaps in your thinking.
Claude delivers a research-backed meeting prep while you're still in transit. By the time you reach your desk, you have organized findings, relevant stats, competitor analysis, and suggested talking points ready to refine and present.
I've got your Q1 planning doc in front of me. Let me pull in some fresh research on competitor onboarding flows to supplement what's already in there. I've got a solid picture now. Let me put together your meeting prep.
Your doc identified three main friction points:
The most common exit survey feedback: "I just wanted to see what this does"
Completion Rates:
Time to Value:
The Stakes:
Clovant. Your doc says "zero-step onboarding," but the reality is more nuanced. Clovant's onboarding actually consists of 10+ steps, but it doesn't feel that many due to clean visuals and hands-on activities. Their approach: one input per step to help users set up their workspace and get started. The key insight is that Clovant makes each step feel lightweight and purposeful rather than eliminating steps entirely.
Fynch. Fynch's onboarding flow takes less than 1 minute (around 50 seconds) for personal use and school accounts. Their strategy:
Tessract. The moment you open up Tessract, there isn't some elaborate tutorial or seemingly endless guide to using every feature. Their philosophy: show, not tell. Customers want to jump in and experience the product rather than feel they're sitting back in a classroom. Tessract smartly gives you bite-sized tooltips and lets you explore and create right from the very beginning.
The broader trend isn't just "fewer steps." It's moving away from rigid linear flows entirely.
People don't learn by following instructions step-by-step. They explore, tinker, jump around, ask questions mid-way, get distracted, and return with context. Good onboarding should reflect that. But traditional flows push users through a rigid experience where skipping a step can break the whole flow.
Fynch doesn't force users down a checklist path. The minute you sign up, you land in a usable workspace with subtle prompts that adapt based on your behavior.
Clovant checklists treat everyone the same. Adaptive onboarding treats users based on needs, use case, and behavior. And users notice the difference, with higher activation and more retained value.
1. Your completion rate is underperforming relative to your target, not the industry average. You're at 34% vs. industry average of 19%. But top performers hit 70-80%. The gap isn't about being "bad" but about leaving significant upside on the table.
2. The specific friction points you identified align with industry best practices.
3. The trend is toward contextual, progressive disclosure rather than just "fewer steps." The goal isn't just cutting steps 7→3. It's restructuring so users can experience value first, then complete setup tasks contextually. Your doc already notes this with Clovant's "zero-step" approach, but the key is that setup happens after users see value, not before.
4. Addressing Mike's concern about personalization data. By segmenting users based on their intended use case, Fynch creates a tailored experience that only surfaces relevant features and templates. You can still collect personalization data, just do it in a way that immediately delivers visible value (like Fynch showing relevant templates based on one question) rather than collecting data speculatively.
Need me to dig deeper into any of these areas or put together slides?
Pick up exactly where you left off. Claude remembers the context and is ready to produce polished output now that you have full editing capabilities.
I'm at my desk now. That research is exactly what I needed. Can you create a one-page summary doc I can share with the team before the meeting? Include the key stats, the competitor examples, and my proposed talking points.
Ask Claude to expand on the most relevant piece of research. If one insight stood out, Claude can search for more examples, case studies, or data points to strengthen that specific angle.
The adaptive onboarding trend is interesting. Can you find more examples of companies that moved from linear checklists to contextual onboarding? I want to know what their results looked like before and after.
Strengthen your argument by understanding what the research says on the other side. Knowing the best case against your position helps you address it proactively rather than getting caught off guard.
What does the research say about when longer onboarding actually works better? Are there cases where more steps improved retention? I don't want to be blindsided if someone brings up a study that contradicts my point.
Talk the way you think. Claude parses intent from rough, stream-of-consciousness input. Save the editing for desktop.
You can attach files on mobile just like desktop. Give Claude your planning docs, prior research, or notes so it has full context for the research task.
Telling Claude "I have a meeting in two hours" helps it calibrate what to prioritize and how much depth to provide.
Mobile is ideal for capture and research. When you need polished outputs like slide decks, documents, or spreadsheets, continue on desktop where Claude can create downloadable files.
