Zion Halcyon
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2007
- Messages
- 2,108
https://www.thurrott.com/windows/wi...d-apps-on-windows-sure-but-how-about-ios-apps
More after the jump.
More after the jump.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Windows 10 to run IoS and Android Apps
- Thread starter Zion Halcyon
- Start date
I was probably most excited by the free Visual Studio Code editor for OS X and Linux. http://techcrunch.com/2015/04/29/mi...itor-for-os-x-linux-and-windows/#.famhsq:6YFX
Zion Halcyon
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2007
- Messages
- 2,108
I just read the build notes from the keynote off of a live blog.
MS, just basically threw down and said "Fuck you all, Apple, Linux, and Google. We're not just going to run your apps, we're going to make our apps run on your shit too."
That combined with the hololens stuff - this is crazy. Microsoft is doing what is next to impossible for a giant corporation - they are truly becoming agile and changing with, if not driving the technological times here.
usually its some upstart that eventually becomes tomorrow's generation's Monopoly, only to have another young company do it to them. That MS finally is pulling out some really radical shit here for a mega-corp; fascinating times.
MS, just basically threw down and said "Fuck you all, Apple, Linux, and Google. We're not just going to run your apps, we're going to make our apps run on your shit too."
That combined with the hololens stuff - this is crazy. Microsoft is doing what is next to impossible for a giant corporation - they are truly becoming agile and changing with, if not driving the technological times here.
usually its some upstart that eventually becomes tomorrow's generation's Monopoly, only to have another young company do it to them. That MS finally is pulling out some really radical shit here for a mega-corp; fascinating times.
Whew! Let's put that kool-aid down for a second. Its all great in theory - allegedly enabling the "porting" of iOS or Android code to make metro apps - but that doesn't mean developers are going to care, because the problem remains that windows phones aren't something consumers give a shit about, and the Metro UI is still god awful. And desktop users sure don't give a crap about feature-crippled smartphone apps on the desktop.
Last edited:
Zion Halcyon
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2007
- Messages
- 2,108
Not even remotely saying that.
I don't give a crap about the windows phone.
But imagine running all your library of Android/IoS apps from your Windows desktop without the need of a 3rd party software like BlueStacks?
All in all, its all pretty neat stuff from a technological and corporate philosophy standpoint.
There's nothing phone-specific about this announcement. It's consistent across all Windows 10 devices, just like Modern apps are already.
This will be amazing if the apps will run in the same contexts as Modern apps do right now. Live Tiles for Android apps in the Start menu? Yes, please. Chrome OS already does this and it's great. Even if Microsoft just replicated the way Chrome OS does it, it's more than enough of a start.
Ofcourse its phone-specific. All the "One Windows, All Devices" b.s. is just an abstraction. Because mobile and specifically phones is where MS is failing, and that's where they're trying to make gains by attempting to create perception that there's this large userbase for Metro apps by trying to shoehorn desktop users into that pool, in turn to attract developers and achieve the slightest shred of relevance in mobile. Unfortunately desktop users do not care about feature stripped smartphone apps on their PC's, and developers know this, so MS isn't fooling anyone.
Maybe this will get some sloppy ports to winphone that more or less work, but unfortunately, there is no shortcut to a great app or app ecosystem, no matter how hard Microsoft tries. A great app is not one that has been thrown together using machine generated code. A great app is one in which the developer has written and/or analyzed every line of code to maximize the aesthetics and performance on the platform it is running on. Windows' automated code conversion isn't going to encourage the really good apps to migrate, although it might entice some cheap knockoffs or poorly designed apps to ship an equally poorly designed experience on Windows.
Developers don't avoid Windows Metro apps because it lacked a code conversion tool. If all it involved was learning a new language or porting some code, developers would do it, just like they learned to go from Objective C to Swift. Developers avoid Windows for far more complex, intangible reasons that go way beyond a code converter. There are all kinds of perceptions about Windows phone and Metro that simply will not change because of this tool. iOS and Android developers will continue shipping their apps where the action is. Its great Microsoft overcame the technical challenges of creating this tool, but sadly they have not overcome the perception and mindset challenges of a shrinking marketshare.
Last edited:
Except the ones who do.
It's of limited use for for most desktop/laptop users* and mobile apps, but it's a very good strategic feature for the future of Windows Mobile since many iOS and Android apps can be ported for almost free. It also makes managing a desktop version in addition to mobile versions in one codebase easier. Again, that's not terribly useful for most applications, except when it is useful.* most touch controls are fail for non-touch screen devices
Again, I'm not even talking about Windows Phone. I don't care about it. I don't own one and don't want to. I use an Android phone right now, and I have a lot of Android apps I rely on. It would be great to use these apps on my Windows computer the same way I do on my Chromebook, and would bring me useful productivity improvements. That's all I care about from this announcement, and I'm looking forward to it.
ManofGod
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 12,863
Whew! Let's put that hater-aid down for a second. Everything you just said in this post is pure BS that you pulled from you butt. Oh well, I realize you do not like or want open and honest debate about this so I will not bother giving it to you.
OP, thank you for the heads up on this. I do have a Windows Phone and love it, it works great out of the box and with all the Apps I use on it. However, having more stuff can only be a good thing going forward. I agree, Microsoft and thrown down!
MS tried bribing developers to make Metro apps a couple years back, and then reversed policy and made some statement that they didn't want to set a precedent or some such.
Whatever, I'm just glad they're finally admitting Metro failed and are moving away from that UI/UX. The tiles will still be in Windows 10 so they're not moving that fast, but maybe by 10.1 or 11
Last edited:
Zion Halcyon
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2007
- Messages
- 2,108
I see the disconnect. You still think this is about windows phone, even though all of us have told you it isn't, and even Microsoft via build verified it isn't.
So yeah, you're just in some major ignorant denial.
ManofGod
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 12,863
Except that this is the new Microsoft with new leadership. But hey, things do not change until they change, eh?
As a developer, and as someone that owned and ran a mobile development studio (sold it recently), I’d say that this is potentially interesting – but only given a number of caveats.
As a studio we saw so little traction on Windows Store Apps I actually shut down that part of the operation and re-tasked/trained staff for iOS and Android. Typically the incremental cost of adding a Windows Phone (for example) port of an application was only 20% and most customers didn’t want to bother with that.
We were already doing any likely cross-platform work in a portable form, so it was mostly the native UI integration and access to device capabilities that were OS/device specific. If all this new model from Microsoft achieved was to be able to use Objective-C instead of plain C or C++ then it just would not be interesting at all.
As a developer, with my own suite of applications, I don’t bother with Windows Mobile/Apps versions. Depending on what really comes out of “Project Islandwood” I might start, but the “rework” is going to have to be incredibly minimal for me to bother. And when I say “minimal” I mean pretty much “load existing XCode project, adjust resources and hit build”.
Even that assumes that I’ll have the full suite of capabilities available that I have with the native iOS APIs, libraries and frameworks. In other words, if the middleware Microsoft has in place doesn’t have full coverage (and even if it does, it is going to have to lag any updates to iOS by some margin) I’m not going to be interested in the level of “rework” necessary to adjust for it.
I suspect, though would be happy to be wrong, that the necessary middleware to make this work well will result in a lowest-common-denominator solution (which tends to be half-assed), and one that lags the current releases of iOS and Android. If that’s the case I think it fails, since I can already do that in at least half a dozen different ways and without needing anything from Microsoft.
Also, being able to port a very simple game which is largely going to be coded against open, rather than iOS specific, APIs and very generic device capability abstractions is not what I’d consider a convincing case. Show me some apps that have been ported, without significant rework, that use the native platform richly and I’ll be a lot more impressed.
Still, looking forward to seeing how this plays out …
As a studio we saw so little traction on Windows Store Apps I actually shut down that part of the operation and re-tasked/trained staff for iOS and Android. Typically the incremental cost of adding a Windows Phone (for example) port of an application was only 20% and most customers didn’t want to bother with that.
We were already doing any likely cross-platform work in a portable form, so it was mostly the native UI integration and access to device capabilities that were OS/device specific. If all this new model from Microsoft achieved was to be able to use Objective-C instead of plain C or C++ then it just would not be interesting at all.
As a developer, with my own suite of applications, I don’t bother with Windows Mobile/Apps versions. Depending on what really comes out of “Project Islandwood” I might start, but the “rework” is going to have to be incredibly minimal for me to bother. And when I say “minimal” I mean pretty much “load existing XCode project, adjust resources and hit build”.
Even that assumes that I’ll have the full suite of capabilities available that I have with the native iOS APIs, libraries and frameworks. In other words, if the middleware Microsoft has in place doesn’t have full coverage (and even if it does, it is going to have to lag any updates to iOS by some margin) I’m not going to be interested in the level of “rework” necessary to adjust for it.
I suspect, though would be happy to be wrong, that the necessary middleware to make this work well will result in a lowest-common-denominator solution (which tends to be half-assed), and one that lags the current releases of iOS and Android. If that’s the case I think it fails, since I can already do that in at least half a dozen different ways and without needing anything from Microsoft.
Also, being able to port a very simple game which is largely going to be coded against open, rather than iOS specific, APIs and very generic device capability abstractions is not what I’d consider a convincing case. Show me some apps that have been ported, without significant rework, that use the native platform richly and I’ll be a lot more impressed.
Still, looking forward to seeing how this plays out …
ManofGod
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 12,863
Even to this day, it amazes me that the best is not always the one that wins out. The Windows Phone 8.1 platform is the best available to date. Turn it on, set it up, do not have to download anything additional to get the system to work, done. iOS and Android still need additional apps that are not in the box to get to parity with the Windows Phone platform.
Now, that is one reason I stick with the Windows Phone platform, it just works and works well. If someone wants me to support their efforts, they will have to come my way first. I will not run out and buy a too expensive Iphone 6 or slow down over time Android phone which does not support the things I do out of the box just so I can use a couple of upgraded "apps".
Make money all you want and I think that is the way to stay in business. It just will not be my money, thanks.
Now, that is one reason I stick with the Windows Phone platform, it just works and works well. If someone wants me to support their efforts, they will have to come my way first. I will not run out and buy a too expensive Iphone 6 or slow down over time Android phone which does not support the things I do out of the box just so I can use a couple of upgraded "apps".
Make money all you want and I think that is the way to stay in business. It just will not be my money, thanks.
I guess if you use Outlook and OneDrive. Windows Phone still doesn't have a native app for either my primary personal email service nor the one I use for work, and it doesn't look like it will ever get one for either. It's easy to say "you don't have to download any apps to set it up" when there are hardly any apps available for it in the first place.
Hopefully this will help Microsoft flesh out their app store with software people actually want to use.
No, that's not what happened. While MS had been paying developers to port to Windows Phone, it was not initially doing the same for Modern apps.
In 2013, MS created a program for Windows 8 apps that ran for about 4 months and would pay developers $100 per app, up to a maximum of $2000. It had a limited duration from the start.
Precedent was already set with Windows Phone and earlier platforms (which were more often freebies or advertising co-promotion money than just cash). What you wrote is the exact opposite of what happened. lol
That's because different people have different definitions of "best" based on their particular needs. There aren't many cases where "best" is universally, definitively, completely clear cut and purely objective.
If you limit your criteria to what the phone can do out of the box then maybe Windows Phone is the best option.
For me, I rather like being able to use a single device to control my HVAC, Security, Sonos, Linn and Hue gear, my motorcycle comms ... and that's not possible today with a Windows Phone ... so it's not even an option much less "best available".
ManofGod
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 12,863
That is good but I do not have any of those devices and probably never will. However, my phone is able to connect to my car without issue, use Cortana through it to send voice to text and many other things I have not used that are built right into the OS and work well.
When my boss tried the same thing with an Android phone, a high end one, it ended up being a mess. He returned it and went right back to the Nokia Lumia 928 because it works very well. I have a HTC One M8 for Windows and the thing is fast, stable and beautiful. Battery lasts an extremely long time as well.
The stuff that comes with the Windows Phone is not limited either. Now, if they are able to get more apps, excellent but, I am not switching to a less capable phone so I can get an app or two. Hopefully, Windows Phone 10 will be that much better.
Edit: I am not saying that the Windows Phone is for everyone but, unfortunately, part of the reason it does not sell well is the places that it is sold at. Basically, most Cell Phone store salesmen are going to go out of their way to avoid the Windows Phone to the point where they are going to try to convince the customer it is not what they want, even though they do.
Last edited: