Slashdot Mirror


Ballmer: Microsoft Mobile Should Focus On Android Apps Not Universal Apps (theverge.com)

UnknowingFool writes: Former CEO Steve Ballmer had some strong opinions about the direction of Microsoft's mobile strategy. As reported last month, Microsoft's Project Astoria has not been received well and is not going well. The strategy is to help build Windows 10 apps by making universal apps via easy porting from Android. Ballmer questions its effectiveness. "That won't work," he said. Instead he suggested that Windows phones should "run Android apps." This is a dramatic departure from the Microsoft-only focus that Ballmer championed during his tenure as CEO.

121 comments

  1. I agree by Gumbercules!! · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As an ex-Windows Phone user, I said many times I would have stayed on the platform if I could (reliably and safely) run Android Apps (I'm aware of the work over at XDADevs to make this happen but I don't want to have to get my app APKs from Russia - I want them from the Play Store). I actually quite liked the OS of Windows Phone - it was quite powerful, smooth and frankly, feature rich (mainly because it had to be, because there were no damn apps for it). If I could have Android apps - and they worked well and safely (you know... for Android) I'd call that best of both worlds and come back.

    1. Re:I agree by Njorthbiatr · · Score: 1

      But there are technical problems with this right?

      What is sounds like Ballmer wants would be programs for Linux to "just work" on Windows. I hope someone can help me out here.

    2. Re: I agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Android apps are really Java apps with lots of gui customizations. It's all the gui and OS specific calls that make translation difficult.

    3. Re: I agree by Gumbercules!! · · Score: 1

      The biggest issue I imagine would be all the Google specific calls - essentially all the Google Apps and fundamentals would need to be there, too (thinking things like Maps, Gmail integration, which is often interwoven into apps in the background).

    4. Re:I agree by jpkunst · · Score: 2

      Yes. Blackberry 10 can run Android apps. But it doesn't have the Googe Services (Google doesn't allow that). So apps that rely on that have problems or don't work.

      I guess that's why Blackberry's latest phone is an actual Android phone.

    5. Re:I agree by Jack+Malmostoso · · Score: 1

      I have had a Blackberry for the last couple of years. Yes, Android applications work when they work. But if you want to use an app that depends on Google Services, you have to jump through a million hoops. Sometimes apps just crash. And since it's an emulated environment, the average blackberry hardware is just too weak to maintain acceptable performance.

      So yes, it's "just Java", but there's more than that. As much as I hate Android, I had to switch, it just wasn't worth the effort.

    6. Re: I agree by jonwil · · Score: 2

      Do what others have done/started to do/tried to do and build an API/ABI compatible implementation of the "Google Play Services" module. Map the Maps APIs to Bing Maps. Map the Drive APIs to OneDrive.

      Some of the Google Play Services dont fit to Microsoft services (e.g. Wallet or Google+) and some cant be made to work cross-device on both Android and Windows (e.g. Drive and Game Services would need different back-ends on Android and Windows and you wouldn't be able to use data stored with an app on one platform in the same app on the other platform) but for many apps that dont use the cloud storage stuff or the features that cant be made to work on Windows, it could be made to work.

      Of course the downside to this is that it would show up Microsoft as hypocritical for copying Google APIs whilst at the same time supporting Oracle in its fight against Google for copying Oracle APIs.

    7. Re: I agree by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Except there is an app for that :)
      There is an existing compatibility framework for android that can run on other things. Jolla and others have licenced it.

    8. Re: I agree by 91degrees · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Amazon's Kindles are Android devices without the google stuff. A lot of apps are available on Amazon's store. Microsoft should be able to do the same.

    9. Re: I agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if you just forgot about all those apps, you'd still have a vastly larger app selection.
      There's probably more good and useful apps on F-droid alone than on the Windows Phone store (well, probably I exaggerate a bit).
      There's also all the apps in the Amazon app store that obviously work without the play services (though Amazon might have an emulation of it? But if Amazon can do it, certainly Microsoft can?).
      "Arc Welder" for Chrome also didn't have support for Google services originally.
      So there is a very significant number of apps where that is no problem at all, this seems more like a problem if you want to get the "last 20%" or so.
      Which would be nice, but hardly critical.

    10. Re: I agree by DarkOx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Android apps are really Java apps

      True for most apps, not always true for some of the fanciest games. I actually don't think putting together a compatibility layer that would enable the vast vast majority of Android apps to work would be a terrible technical problem.

      No matter what though there will always be the occasional app that does not work and it will probably be a constant source of frustration for some users.

      Android also has a lot of well Androidisms, around how notifications are delivered to the user, switching between 'activities' is handled what apps get broadcast messages and so fourth. Unless Microsoft mostly clones the Android UI the workflow will be different inside a lot of apps. Android apps don't operate in a vacuum quite the way typical desktop applications do. For example you encounter a certain media type your android app might send a message to something else to handle it, what that something else is, it does not know and when you are done the Android operating systems UI is depended upon to provide the 'back button' to get the previous activity, or to return you there otherwise.

      It would be like running Windows apps in Wine on Linux or OSX, where there is always some oddities around file pickers, windows controls, associations, cut paste interop, etc. It mostly works, and you can figure out what you need to do but it does not always feel right. The only difference is it will be even more pronounce on a phone.

      Nobody switches to Linux so they can run Windows apps on WINE. WINE lets them keep that one app they need so they can switch platforms for other reasons. I don't think you attract anyone to your platform by being the 'next best place to run their favorite apps'. So on that score Ballmer is wrong. Microsoft's entire mobile strategy is wrong. They need to admit they made some bad calls on their first gen smart device platform (Windows CE + Windows Phone -lt 6 ) and were simply to late to the party in the 'app' era. If they do anything they should focus on producing Apps for the other platforms. Give business users what they really want, full Exchange/Outlook support with all the manageability, some sort of Sharepoint application viewer, etc. That is where their bread is buttered. Microsoft should focus on being the top shelf app vendor, for their mobile play IMHO.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    11. Re:I agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a current Windows phone user, MS needs to use the same strategy that got them to dominate the PC market. Free stuff. Personally, I think they should just wait it out. Soon phone development won't be a special thing except for the UI - I should probably say UX. Phones today are more powerful than the original PCs that ran Windows 3.1 and nothing says you can't develop it like a desktop.

    12. Re:I agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >I'm aware of the work over at XDADevs to make this happen but I don't want to have to get my app APKs from Russia - I want them from the Play Store

      This will never happen - Google is very specifically against supporting any sort of setup like this. No matter how good Microsoft's compatibility bridge is, Google isn't going to release Play Services for it because they have no interest in supporting Windows anymore. They'll play in Apple's sandbox way before touching Microsoft's.

      The whole point of the Android and iOS compatibility bridges are to get people to port their APKs onto Windows 10. And in a sense this makes Windows 10 this decade's "OS/2": a better Android than Android and a better iOS than iOS.

    13. Re: I agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "killer feature" could be updates. Make it so the Windows Phone gets regular and proactive OS updates. The Windows Phone ecosystem doesn't include every crap phone at the dollar store, and Microsoft has more power to push updates past the hardware vendor and carrier.

    14. Re:I agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not on the Passport. As long as the app doesn't use Google Services, which 90+ percent don't, it runs just as well as on any Android device, sometimes better (e.g. Slack).

    15. Re: I agree by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      and they'll chew CPU because system calls won't be native

      I disagree. WINE does basically the same thing: it translates Win32 system and library calls to Linux equivalents, and programs running under WINE, when they work correctly (meaning all the calls they do are fully implemented and done correctly) reportedly run at full speed, sometimes even faster than on Windows itself. Remember, you're not talking about emulation here, you're talking about ABI translation. And since Android apps are (usually) Java-based, they have to be decoded from bytecode anyway, no matter the platform.

      because they'll use extra RAM hosting Windows plus an emulated Android environment

      Yes, that could be a problem; it's not emulated as I said before, but you do need a translation layer there (since WinPhone apps don't use Java AFAIK) which will take up more RAM. WinPhones I think are usually lacking RAM too, compared to Android phones, so this could be a problem.

      and probably the GUI will be slightly off

      This will probably be a big problem; they just won't integrate well with WinPhone. People have complained about PC-based Java applications this way for ages, that they look out-of-place no matter what platform they're running on. The same happens with WINE applications: they don't normally look or work like the regular Linux applications. The same will probably happen with any Android apps, unless MS does a really good job figuring out how to mitigate this.

      That will make Windows phones appear inferior. Windows phones would have to offer something else that users really wanted (like AD integration) to make people put up with poorer app performance.

      Well, they are inferior. Even if you're of the opinion that the OS is better (which I disagree with: I think it's butt-ugly and I absolutely hate the whole live tile thing, though I'll admit that their devices do seem speedier than Android phones which seem to need a lot of horsepower to have a responsive UI, but I'd rather have a laggy UI than suffer with the ugly abomination that is Microsoft's latest UI), no computing platform is of much use unless it has the applications you want or need. No one should know this better than Microsoft themselves: it's the whole reason Windows has been so dominant for so long. It's not because of their crappy OS, it's the availability of applications which keeps people tied to the platform. Well this whole dynamic is what's biting them in the ass now: they missed out on being early enough to the party (unlike with Win95) and building dominance, so other platforms have become the popular ones, and they're left out. If people can't easily install and run their favorite popular apps, the platform is simply a non-starter. Everyone has their own favorite apps; for me, if a phone won't run Tinder, for instance, there's no way I'm going to waste my time with it.

    16. Re: I agree by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Regular updates is a good feature, it's true, however you're seriously overestimating the wisdom of the masses. People just aren't that smart about things like that; they'll go for the cheap phone which seems to work well enough, and when the lack of updates shows itself to be a problem, they'll just get a new phone. You can get Android phones for $50 or less these days, and you can even get very nice models a year or two old on the used market for not much money. People don't see these things as an investment like you're thinking of. iPhone users probably do, because they frequently buy them new for absurd prices, but Android stuff is usually much cheaper, and involves a lot more churn. Go check out the prices of the small, cheap prepaid phones at Walmart.

      Your plan is likely to only have appeal to the high-end buyers: the ones who buy iPhones and flagship Androids. But those people are already happy with and tied to those ecosystems. The low-end Android users don't think about this stuff and/or don't care, they just want cheap-but-works, and MS isn't likely to make much money in that market segment. In a nutshell, Microsoft missed the boat.

    17. Re:I agree by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      No, they need to just throw in the towel. They were too late and missed the boat, and nothing's going to change that. The other two ecosystems have all the developer interest and consumer mindshare already, so it's like Linux vs. Windows on the desktop: no one wants to bother changing unless the incumbent gets SO bad that they're basically forced to. "Free stuff"? What are they going to do, give away the phones for free? Android is already dirt cheap and apps are largely free, so there really isn't anything the MS can do better here. Finally, the big differentiator like you said is the UX, and on Windows Phone, it's the pits. It's butt-ugly and weird with those stupid live tiles. There's a few weirdos who love it, but most people don't. The other platforms aren't that great either (since the whole flat-UI thing has taken over everywhere it seems), but MS's is the worst of the bunch easily, so they're definitely not going to get anyone to switch based on that. But even if they fixed that and came out with a UI/UX that everyone loved (haha, I have a hard time imagining that, MS UIs have never been very pretty), there's really no way for them to overcome all the inertia that Android and iOS have built up, and get all the app developers to switch.

    18. Re: I agree by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Android apps are really Java apps with lots of gui customizations. It's all the gui and OS specific calls that make translation difficult.

      Not all Android apps are Java apps. Many are written in a compiled language (usually C++), although they are a minority because they are not platform agnostic, so tend to be ones that require high performance or determinacy.

    19. Re: I agree by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      Windows Phones are sub $50 a lot, and they're good phones like the 640, it was on sale for just $30 on black Friday and is regularly $50-60. Windows Phones are pretty popular in countries like India too. MS is also doing OS releases more often, but with Windows 10 they don't have to, they designed it to be more app dependent than making the apps baked in. I have a Lumia 1520 and I'm on the Windows 10 beta fast ring and the OS is great. I had iPhones from 3G to the 5, I bought a 1520 then sent it back because of AT&Ts scheme with discounts and raising prices because I opted not to do the lease program, then I got a Note 4 or 5 whichever was new last year and I didn't like the Android OS. I wanted that Lumia back, but I got a lesser AT&T 1520. I still regret that.

    20. Re:I agree by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Live tiles can be disabled so that they look like the same dumb tiles on iOS or Android. But you're probably right - there ain't much of an opportunity for Windows 10 Mobile to make inroads. Had Windows 10 on the desktop really been a killer feature, as opposed to all the spying issues, it might have been. But right now, I don't see it. Also, Verizon doesn't look like they are remotely interested in this platform, so that's a good portion of the market right there.

    21. Re: I agree by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      Of course the downside to this is that it would show up Microsoft as hypocritical for copying Google APIs whilst at the same time supporting Oracle in its fight against Google for copying Oracle APIs.

      If Google is going to undermine Oracle's APIs, Microsoft might as well retaliate and undermine Google. That's not really hypocritical. That's like saying "I want us to go to the circus. But if we decide that we are going to the movies, I'm coming too since I'm not just going to sit at home."

    22. Re: I agree by jonwil · · Score: 2

      Clearly you dont understand the meaning of hypocritical.

      Arguing in court that something should be illegal while at the same time doing that very thing most definitely IS hypocritical.

    23. Re:I agree by dakohli · · Score: 1

      The Start of the End of BB10 was the realization (of the Company) that their App store was never going to compete with Google's, or Apple's app stores.

      I really liked my Q30. But in the end, I moved back to Android for a couple of Apps that I couldn't get to run. Now that the Priv is out, I'm really interested in returning to the BB fold.

      If MS adopts android apps, it will be a short trip to giving up on Windows Mobile. Microsoft's experiment in trying to use their desktop dominance to muscle in on the mobile domain may ultimately be viewed as a major mistake. Their Surface Line of devices are really laptops just masquerading as tablets, and that they are so successful right now are lending credence to the thought that tablets have come as far as they can, and they can't replace a good general purpose computer completely.

  2. too late Steveo by deodiaus2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think that your words will be ignored. Sorry Pal, you had a shot at the big chair and blew it. Well, some of us never were given the chance. Enjoy your cash.

    1. Re:too late Steveo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think that your words will be ignored. Sorry Pal, you had a shot at the big chair and threw it. Well, some of us never were given the chance. Enjoy your cash.

      Fixed that for you

    2. Re:too late Steveo by q4Fry · · Score: 1

      We'll keep you posted on this developing developing developing developing story.

  3. insensitive by nullchar · · Score: 2

    Some of us were hit by the shot of the short chair!

  4. Re: Apps are for Cows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If cows had more apps, could they app apps while they app apping cud?

  5. Ballmers by invictusvoyd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think Microsoft should focus on restoring Nokia to its former glory , apologizing to the people for screwing it and focusing on the crappy operating systems they make.

    1. Re:Ballmers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think Microsoft should focus on restoring Nokia to its former glory , apologizing to the people for screwing it and focusing on the crappy operating systems they make.

      Nokia were already screwing themselves before Elop/MS. Smartphone market share and stock price was plummeting (it would probably surprise many Slashdotters that you can't really see on the stock chart where Elop/MS came into the picture for Nokia, it just continues like before). Reason was that Nokia really didn't understand the shift to an app ecosystem driven smartphone market. They still thought it was about having the best hardware and a good OS, like the formula they had succeeded with for decades. But the users where choosing platforms that had all the apps they wanted.

    2. Re:Ballmers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think Microsoft should focus on restoring Nokia to its former glory , apologizing to the people for screwing it and focusing on the crappy operating systems they make.

      Nokia were already screwing themselves before Elop/MS. Smartphone market share and stock price was plummeting (it would probably surprise many Slashdotters that you can't really see on the stock chart where Elop/MS came into the picture for Nokia, it just continues like before). Reason was that Nokia really didn't understand the shift to an app ecosystem driven smartphone market. They still thought it was about having the best hardware and a good OS, like the formula they had succeeded with for decades. But the users where choosing platforms that had all the apps they wanted.

      Probably the single biggest mistake Ballmer did was to veto that Microsoft should invest in incentives and support programs for developers to adopt Windows Phone from the very start. He hadn't understood the shift of power and thought they would come anyway, because Microsoft. They did later try when desperate, but by then it was too late, the platform was doomed.

      If not for this, the situation both for Windows Phone and Nokia could have been very very different today.

    3. Re:Ballmers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Smartphones drop more calls than old feature phones. Nokia did not understand what people wanted from handys/cell/mobile phones.

    4. Re:Ballmers by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I'm not even a Millenial, but actually *talking* on the phone is one of my lesser-used functions for the device. I spend more time using it for: 1) texting, 2) Tinder, 3) mapping (both Google Maps and OsmAnd), 4) taking photos, 5) internet browsing, 6) games, 7) calculator (RealCalc in RPN mode), 8) random apps (like a Gauss meter, compass, etc.), and 9) visual voicemail (I'm never going back to the shitty old voicemail where I have to press numbers to navigate and listen to audio prompts) than I do with actually talking on the thing.

  6. Microsoft-only vs. running Android apps by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 2

    When Ballmer was at MS, he championed Microsoft-only because that was the way to keep people locked into Microsoft. MS had a dominant position already, and keeping things MS-only made sure any competition didn't have enough applications to be attractive. But now MS is going into a market where they don't have a dominant position, so MS-only just insures MS won't have enough to be attractive. The only option will be what MS did with IE back when Netscape ruled the Web: offer compatibility to lure users and especially businesses over, then slowly break compatibility to force a Hobson's choice.

    1. Re:Microsoft-only vs. running Android apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The only option will be what MS did with IE back when Netscape ruled the Web: offer compatibility to lure users and especially businesses over, then slowly break compatibility to force a Hobson's choice.

      You have no clue. They lured users to IE by having the most functionality. First plugin support (activeX). First AJAX support. First CSS support. People think that Microsoft somehow tricked users to use IE. It's not true. IE was at the time (~2000) the best browser hands down - with superior performance and memory usage.

    2. Re:Microsoft-only vs. running Android apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      maybe google should buy up companies trying to make Android apps work on Windows and shut them down?

      maybe google should start changing the API's when a working way to get Android apps running on Windows is released on devices?

      maybe google should require app developers to throw up a screen warning users when their apps are run on emulators run on Windows saying their application may crash and could be insecure when running on non-google OS's.

      shove that up your a55 Steve

    3. Re:Microsoft-only vs. running Android apps by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      But if Android compatibility isn't done well, then Microsoft could actually hurt what share they do have. Blackberry's Android support was just good enough to be bad, and BB's Android-compatible devices just gained a reputation for shitty native app support and limited Android app support.

      I think Microsoft is in the same position Blackberry was three years ago, beginning to realize that it's native apps just aren't large enough in number to make the platform desirable to a wide customer base, but still dithering about whether to commit the resources necessary to make it work. BB was far too late, and frankly I think their Android phone will sink like all their recent hardware. Microsoft certainly has the resources to pull a kind of Android Wine, but I still think they want the primary goal to be Windows, with Android as some sort of teaser. That didn't work for BB.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:Microsoft-only vs. running Android apps by spauldo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's not quite accurate.

      ActiveX wasn't the first plugin support, for starters. NPAPI beat them by a year, and Java applets were capable of most of what people wanted ActiveX for.

      IE did have the first CSS support, but it didn't mean much. CSS was more or less unknown until the IE4/NS4 era. Yeah, IE3 had some support for it, but CSS wasn't taken seriously back then.

      I notice you don't mention IE had the first implementation of the marquee tag. Why the omission?

      And if we're talking firsts, I don't think IE is going to beat Netscape here. Netscape's influence on the early web far outweighed IE's. I'll just drop the word "Javascript" here, as a conversation starter.

      Microsoft did lure businesses and customers over by being installed by default on desktops. Microsoft did break compatibility with web standards - that CSS you mention was a half-assed implementation at best. Remember how long it took them to fix their messed up box model calculations? Microsoft did target businesses with ActiveX (because only the insane would allow its use outside the intranet), a feature that no other browser wanted to support even if they could, for the horrible security problems. And I'm assuming you never had to deal with ActiveX applications that only worked on IE6, even years after IE6 was out of date, because of incompatibility problems.

      Superior performance and memory usage? Have you met users? They don't care about that. They use what's on the desktop. They click that icon that says "Internet" placed oh so handily on the left side of the screen under the recycle bin, or in large print at the top of the start menu. That's what the whole antitrust lawsuit was all about.

      The saving grace of it all is that Microsoft is just so very bad at all things internet-related. If they had kept working on IE instead of sitting on their laurels, Mozilla would never have been able to make a comeback, and Microsoft would be dictating the standards.

      --
      Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
    5. Re:Microsoft-only vs. running Android apps by bondsbw · · Score: 2

      Right, Project Islandwood (Microsoft's implementation of the iOS frameworks and Obj-C compiler) is looking promising. Microsoft doesn't really need to get both Android and iOS apps on Windows... it just needs one or the other to provide the easy route for most developers. I tend to see more iOS-only apps than Android-only. iOS apps are generally more polished. And Windows apps are conceptually more akin to iOS than to Android.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    6. Re:Microsoft-only vs. running Android apps by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      And job security, let's not forget that, IE meant job security for whole generations of IT security professionals!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:Microsoft-only vs. running Android apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I miss marques. Why don't I see them anymore?

    8. Re:Microsoft-only vs. running Android apps by spauldo · · Score: 1

      They're easy enough to make, with CSS animation or Javascript.

      --
      Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
    9. Re:Microsoft-only vs. running Android apps by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > IE was at the time (~2000) the best browser hands down - with superior performance and memory usage.

      LOL, revisionist history much?!

      IE was not superior; ActiveX was a security clusterfuck. I was using Netscape back in 2000; While IE had better memory usage because iexplore linked to a ton of system .dll's, Netscape had a far better bookmark system. IE used the stupid file name schema of Windows: You couldn't use / in your bookmarks. In Netscape you could manually control the sort order along with using manual separators. I switched over to Firefox ~2004.

    10. Re:Microsoft-only vs. running Android apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NS4 did not have CSS support in any meaningful sense.

      At that point Netscape were still pushing JSSS, with a Javascript interpreter that was WAY too immature to pull it off.

      IE had the first viable CSS support. End of conversation.

    11. Re:Microsoft-only vs. running Android apps by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      iOS apps are written for a very tiny number of devices. Aren't they even written for specific screen resolutions? They're nothing like Android apps, where they need to be able to run on all kinds of different devices and screen sizes.

      And finally, how exactly do you propose for WinPhone devices to connect to the Apple app store to download these apps? Apple sure as hell isn't going to allow that; they're more of a monopolist than Google is by far.

    12. Re:Microsoft-only vs. running Android apps by spauldo · · Score: 1

      CSS had nothing to do with IE's adoption. Users didn't (and still don't) know what CSS was. That's like saying Windows XP was adopted by home users because of NTFS.

      Hardly anyone was using CSS back then, anyway. I was experimenting with it with NS4 and IE, and while it was nice, it wasn't mature enough to rely on - in either browser.

      Besides, IE's CSS implementation was incorrect, and remained that way for ages. I don't know about Edge, but given Microsoft's track record, I'm not holding my breath.

      What's your hard on for IE, anyway? Did a Netscape employee run over your dog or something?

      --
      Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
    13. Re:Microsoft-only vs. running Android apps by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      That's not what Islandwood does. It is not a binary compatibility runtime and it does not allow you to run apps directly from Apple's app store.

      Islandwood lets the developer take his iOS app source code and build a 100% native Windows app from it. All you need to do is copy your Xcode project to your PC, run a simple command-line tool that builds a Visual Studio project around it, and then open that project in Visual Studio where it can be debugged, run on the PC, run in a simulator, or run on a Windows phone. You can go from iOS source code to a running Windows app in about 2 minutes.

      The developer is then in control over publishing that app to the Windows store, using the same procedures that any Windows store app developer would use.

      The beauty of it is that the Objective-C code is still Objective-C, and the developer still uses the same Cocoa Touch/Media/Core/Kit APIs. A compatibility layer translates those calls to Windows UWP APIs. If desired, the developer can make edits and integrate more richly with Windows APIs, meaning that he isn't stuck with an application that targets a particular device or screen resolution.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    14. Re:Microsoft-only vs. running Android apps by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Ok, that doesn't help much when developers don't bother going through this process to make WP apps. Just look at the number of iOS apps versus WP apps.

    15. Re:Microsoft-only vs. running Android apps by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      It helps developers reach a larger market that includes both Windows phones (which is currently a tiny market) and Windows desktop (which is a much larger market) and in the future even Xbox. If they make money on iOS and want to make more money, they'd do well to at least take a few minutes to try this out.

      But let's call this what it is: an attempt to make the Windows ecosystem more relevant in the post-PC era (particularly phones). The more decent apps are available, the more legitimate the Windows store becomes, the more popular the platform becomes. Then developers will begin find it worthwhile to do a full port which will help them take better advantage of OS capabilities, making the Windows store seem even more legitimate and the whole thing snowballs.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    16. Re:Microsoft-only vs. running Android apps by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I'm sure IBM thought this strategy would work just great with OS/2 as well.

    17. Re:Microsoft-only vs. running Android apps by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      You don't seem to be paying attention, or you don't understand how OS/2 and Windows application compatibility worked at all.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    18. Re:Microsoft-only vs. running Android apps by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I understand perfectly well. I've seen enough history to know that "me too!!" is rarely a successful business strategy.

  7. Re: Apps are for Cows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cows like to apper app app apps, but mainly Cows MOOOOOOOO! MOOOOOO Cows MOOOOOO!

  8. Dear Andy Rubin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read you are returning to smartphones and possibly Android phones, separate from Google.

    I can see that Android has become a massive surveillance device, with Google as lead spyware maker with its 'Google Play Services' and all the rest.
    People don't realize just how much of their lives are being watched by their phones, or just how sleazy the market for their data is. Microsoft are just the latest company to help themselves to their users phone books, even IBM has a detailed location track of all Android phones*.

    I see an opportunity to seize the Android device market here, a much needed Google free, privacy focussed handset.

    But that needs credibility, a person with a track record of delivering smartphones.... which is you.

    * It just bought the company that has the weather widget on most phones which has location permissions, and if you watch its access, it polls your locations and sends them off frequently, far more than is necessary and to far finer detail than is necessary. I'm sure Big Data IBM noticed this too. You don't pay billions for weather prediction given away for free.

    1. Re:Dear Andy Rubin by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Considering the level of spying going on in Windows 10, I don't think Redmond has that credibility.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Dear Andy Rubin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed, but that's why I think Andy Rubin is the major potential player here and not Microsoft or Google.

      Both have simply made surveillance handsets where the market is your private data and the customer is marketing companies, domestic and foreign spooks, and a bunch of shady data brokers (who sell your data to political lobbyists, Corps who want laws changed, Gerrymandering analysts, election riggers etc.).

      Rubin (ex Android founder) isn't shackled by the need to make handsets that spy on their users. He also has a history of delivering handsets, so he knows what he's doing.

      He also left Google over issues withing the Android management. Basically Google's CEO is Sundar, and Sundar see no issue with installing spyware on every handset. Google Play Services is spyware, and you might turn off individual services within Google, but Google still gets the raw data. There is no 'no you can't have my data' in Google 6, its been removed.

    3. Re:Dear Andy Rubin by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      I see an opportunity to seize the Android device market here, a much needed Google free, privacy focussed handset.

      You can have Google-free Android right now for a spyless experience. It's not even that hard.

  9. The easy route by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Grab some android code, make a fork, then get your windows code working on it. It is much easier getting your own stuff working on some open source project than it is to dance around api changes to emulate open source on your own code.

  10. Steve Ballmer's ideas are quite valuable. by bistromath007 · · Score: 5, Funny

    MS should really consider keeping him on as a consultant. They could pay him hundreds of millions of dollars a year to talk about anything that crosses his mind, and they'd turn a huge profit so long as they do the exact opposite of whatever he says.

    1. Re:Steve Ballmer's ideas are quite valuable. by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 2

      Well, for once he may be right, actually.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    2. Re: Steve Ballmer's ideas are quite valuable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A broken clock can be right at least once (or twice) a day.

    3. Re:Steve Ballmer's ideas are quite valuable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except he isn't. There's only three reasons to support another platform's apps in that way.

      One, the apps are the de facto standard and that support is enough to keep people on your platform (think WINE and OS/2 and see how well those platforms are doing).

      Two, the apps are part of your old legacy platform and it's a transitional step (DOS support, Apple's repeatedly migrational steps as it switched CPUs, etc). This is by far the most successful approach because it does nothing to diminish your position and gives you the flexibility to change.

      Three, the apps are being supported as part of a strategy to spur adoption to your platform (OS/2 could be said to be this in later years) but only as a plan that people start actually writing for your platform. There's plenty of actual examples where this worked (CP/M -> DOS, the various Java cell phones -> Android, Word supporting so many import filters, etc). But it always carries with it the point that people want, at some level, to switch to your platform and you're trying less to lure users as much as lure developers to your platform.

      If anything, Project Astoria is trying to be option three because it's the one that doesn't turn MS into just another Android tablet vendor (which is basically the road that Ballmer is choosing with option one). The real good advice would be to ditch the whole idea of interoperating with Android. I don't think MS has any chance really in the tablet space. The high end is taking up by Apple already and the low end is filled with Android devices. The area where MS can shine is the desktop. Everything else is too much of a "me too" that drags down their bottom line.

      The real sad truth is the writing on the wall. The desktop as their bottom line isn't the behemoth that'll support the company like they're used to. That means they should diversify (as much as I mocked the XBox when it came out, it's an area where MS was wise to diversify even if in a sane world their actual approach (being constantly in the red and effectively using a monopoly to buy a position in another market) should be illegal). So, if they're going to make a tablet or a phone or whatever, it should a MS Phone and not a Windows Phone.

      Clearly the problem is that MS can't or won't bleed money into a Phone or a Media Player or just about anything for years just to get a position in the market. That's actually a good thing from a free market perspective--they should earn a position from their products, not thrash about and burn money until they can drive enough of a wedge into the market to become profitable. Clearly the issue, though, is that only things like software have the sort of margins that MS wants. Perhaps ads and with Windows 10 they've got a chance. But there's plenty of people who are going mostly or wholly cell phone.

      tl;dr (I guess) - Ballmer would only be right if people actually wanted MS Mobile in the first place. Since that's basically not true, no, he's just wrong. And that's why it's good for MS that his legacy ideas of what MS should be aren't running MS. It's just not clear what MS will be and people like Ballmer will probably be convinced that if MS becomes another IBM that it's evidence of company mismanagement and not merely the natural evolution of a lot of companies in a free market as a result of technological progress.

    4. Re:Steve Ballmer's ideas are quite valuable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's like he's the Bill Kristol of technology.

    5. Re:Steve Ballmer's ideas are quite valuable. by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      Yup. Just as happened with OS/2, once people realize that they can support both platforms by writing the "common" software, but only your platform by writing "your" software, they'll never write another line of "your" software again.

      The only way to prevent that is to have some APIs that are only accessible through "your" software. Of course, convincing everyone to write "common" software and then making it suck just means that you've become a terrible Android device.

      Not seeing a good path to victory here.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    6. Re:Steve Ballmer's ideas are quite valuable. by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Maybe the Steve Ballmer idea was the normal Microsoft one:

      * Embrace
      (* Extend)
      * Extinguish

      If they don't feel competitive now and think that having the Android apps on their platform would make them that and even be able to take over the control from Google then that could work.

      You may not see that as viable and it wasn't for OS/2.

      On the other hand I guess JAVA and IE kinda may have showed another story.

      Since I was an Amiga fan I've always wanted multi-platform applications because my platform was dying without them - then again if one view the gaming and demo-scene some of that would be less interesting, harder to do and not as good using multi-platform solutions.

    7. Re:Steve Ballmer's ideas are quite valuable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Clearly the problem is that MS can't or won't bleed money into a Phone or a Media Player or just about anything for years just to get a position in the market

      MS gave Nokia a $billion a year trying to get a position in the market. They then gave Nokia $7billion and wrote it off. What part of "can't or won't" was that?

    8. Re:Steve Ballmer's ideas are quite valuable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MS gave Nokia a $billion a year trying to get a position in the market. They then gave Nokia $7billion and wrote it off. What part of "can't or won't" was that?

      Stupidity? I mean, really, if they had bought Nokia first... Seriously, though, I'd say you might be technically right. But it was done in such an ass-backwards way, you could argue that MS was trying to buy a position in the Apple market with all the ways it subsidized Apple and clearly that wasn't their intent. Hence the conspiracy theories about Elop.

  11. Opinion of a guy who blew it by nikkipolya · · Score: 2

    This guy blew it up at MS and the board scrambled to relieve him out of his chair ASAP. That didn't go well with him so now he is busy giving his "wisdom" retrospectively. Where were your statements when project Astoria started? Remember, MS is your screw-up.

    1. Re:Opinion of a guy who blew it by qubex · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well from a business perspective, during his tenure he tried to capitalise on MS’ dominant position on desktop and server in order to promote dominance on the emerging mobile-client platform. This he or the company he presided upon failed to do, and he retired after the “screw up”.

      But that does not mean that he must continue dumbly advocating that there be strict adherence to what he tried, and failed, to do. After all, consistency is only a value if you are not a screw-up.

      He continues to be MS’ largest single investor. That gives him a large vested interest in advocating that it behave rationally, even when rationality in this sub-game is at odds with the strategy he pursued previously.

      Ideally MS would have succeeded in perpetuating its dominance to the new platform. It did not, so now it’s the case to do something else which is at cross-purposes with what would have formerly been ideal. This is not evidence of fallacious thinking; much the contrary.

      --
      "Place me in the company of those who seek Truth, but deliver me from those who believe to have found it."
    2. Re:Opinion of a guy who blew it by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      He continues to be MSâ(TM) largest single investor. That gives him a large vested interest in advocating that it behave rationally, even when rationality in this sub-game is at odds with the strategy he pursued previously.

      Well, smart people do change their minds in the face of contrary evidence, but there is no particular reason to believe that his judgement of what is the best strategy for Microsoft is any better than his judgement in years past when he was CEO.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    3. Re:Opinion of a guy who blew it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he owns too many shares for the board to tell him to STFU so he still gets to be a mouth

    4. Re:Opinion of a guy who blew it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For me Microsoft is just a business that should die. Just like Nokia was just once a business that earned a naturally dead. Microsoft can still exist as a software solution make, but not as the one and only solution for every consumer to small to medium sized business. If they just became one of the many software providers, they would be able to do well. But this total domination of the market by one party should have ended 15 years ago, right when it started. It's about time that we can finally free all hardware devices from restrictive software licenses.

      Microsoft created many millionaires and even billionaires. Now investors, please use that money to invest in other parts of the economy instead of keep on fuelling a company that hampers further competition, or even better, just step back and enjoy your cash, support your family, and let new young blood take over the world of technology without putting them in a stranglehold of patents, licenses and aggressive buyouts.

  12. Womdows by nachtelfjeiu · · Score: 1

    What if... Windows 10 would also run Android apps? Perhaps without the Google frame work and with a different store, but essentially the same apps?

    1. Re:Womdows by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      What if... Windows 10 would also run Android apps? Perhaps without the Google frame work and with a different store, but essentially the same apps?

      You already can do that. In fact, the app has the seventh largest Android user base, beating companies like Xiaomi and Sony.

  13. I agree with Steve. by infernalC · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I spent part of the last 3 years (about 20% of it) developing and maintaining an iOS app (hybrid web app - UIWebView + a GWT/Java server side). It predated Swift. I come from a Pascal/C/C++/Java/C# background, and I hated every day of Objective C. I recently got a taste of Swift, but... why the hell can't Apple use a language with more typical syntaxes?

    We did iOS first, because among our particular customers, they had better than 80% market share.

    The business case recently came up to need to port it to Windows Embedded 8.1 Handheld to support a couple of particular devices. WHAT A JOY. I had this app up and running on two real devices in four hours. C#, Visual Studio Community 2015... no Xcode developer profile / provisioning profile / whatever issues. I can debug the app and use the barcode scanner at the same time because, unlike iThings, the device will debug and let you use a wired peripheral AT THE SAME TIME (haven't been able to do that since Lightning).

    The sad truth, though, is that Microsoft is late to the party. It was already too late when Steve started chanting "developers". They were already gone.

    Microsoft is going to have to do something very wine-esque to just get apps on their platform. They have single-digit market share.

    1. Re:I agree with Steve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe your post (and potentially experience) are misleading for two reasons.

      #1 a hybrid / UIWebview based app is *NOT*, *NOT*, *NOT* and iOS app. These hybrids are a nightmare to develop and debug.

      #2 your comparison of 20% over 3 years for iOS compared to "four hours" for Windows, even if accurate, is not really an appropriate comparison because a lot of those 3 years were invariably spent understanding the problem, debugging the architecture, refinishing the UX, and so on in a loop. Comparing a port to a new development is disingenuous.

    2. Re:I agree with Steve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sad truth, though, is that Microsoft is late to the party. It was already too late when Steve started chanting "developers". They were already gone.

      Microsoft is going to have to do something very wine-esque to just get apps on their platform. They have single-digit market share.

      WINE isn't a panacea for the migration of all those Windows gamers to Linux, why would running android apps on a windows phone be any different?

      The problem is more mindshare. There's just no incentive to go with a Windows phone. Android integrates with windows (kinda), though I don' t think many people do much other than copy pictures, movies or music back and forth. Apple has their own one-click ecosystem. Why should I go with a WinPhone? What does it give me that any other phone doesn't?

      Hell, I'm a tech geek and I don't give a crap about Windows Phone whatever. I couldn't even name any of the models, Nokia something? Don't they make android phones too?

    3. Re:I agree with Steve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Microsoft is going to have to do something very wine-esque to just get apps on their platform. They have single-digit market share.

      It didn't work for BlackBerry, why will it work for Microsoft?

      Anyone who uses a modern BlackBerry phone, even haters, would admit BB10 does a damn fine job running AOSP android apps (in comparison to Wine, or many other emulators) and that sure didn't save them.

    4. Re:I agree with Steve. by cybrthng · · Score: 1

      You are correct in many ways, but let's not forgot, a lot of people simply don't comprehend Windows 10 and its depth/reach.

      Windows 10 already has 150+ million installs, Windows 10 is the "UWP" - Universal Windows Platform. With a single development methodology to target Phone, Xbox One, Windows 10 on Tablets and Windows 10 on desktop.

      I think a lot of people are writing off "mobile" on the concepts set forth by Apple & Android without thinking "Universal" where win10 already has a sizeable market share that it seems *absurd* companies aren't trying to monopolize especially considering how easy it is to enter this market. in Windows 10 UWP an app isn't "mobile" its "connected" and it works across a huge and growing platform base.

    5. Re:I agree with Steve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know you like developers and all but you're talking to the wrong people here Steve.

    6. Re:I agree with Steve. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      WINE isn't a panacea for the migration of all those Windows gamers to Linux, why would running android apps on a windows phone be any different?

      It won't. That's the problem with that approach. OS/2 did something kinda similar and it didn't exactly work out for them either.

      The problem is more mindshare. There's just no incentive to go with a Windows phone. Android integrates with windows (kinda), though I don' t think many people do much other than copy pictures, movies or music back and forth. Apple has their own one-click ecosystem. Why should I go with a WinPhone? What does it give me that any other phone doesn't?

      Live tiles!!! A horrible, ugly UI. Why wouldn't you want to buy one?

      Face it, Windows Phone is doomed. They screwed up and missed the boat, so they might as well throw in the towel.

      Blackberry is trying the "make Android apps work on our phone" strategy too; it's not working.

  14. Perhaps. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This reminds me of the efforts of the Wine project. As most of you may know, Wine works poorly for a lot of applications. One of the reasons desktop Linux has suffered is not because it's inferior, but because a lot of people rely on various applications only available on Windows. Security issues aside, imagine if Linux users could run any and everything Windows could, seamlessly.

    Unless Microsoft does it right, they will fail spectacularly. It will be perceived by the public that Windows mobile is buggier than Android for Android apps (and the public won't know why, and won't care). If they do get it right, then Android users will have one less reason to stay.

    Now whether they deserve the market share or not... that's the question. They're in the same place Linux has been for a long time, so maybe it's just karma. :)

    1. Re:Perhaps. by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      The difference here however is that Microsoft would not need to replicate every last API's from scratch, which is what Wine is trying to accomplish. Further more even if some Android library needs modifying to work with Microsoft's shim layer they have access to the full source code for that library which makes life a whole lot simpler.

      So because the amount of services/API's that need replicating are much lower your chances of succeeding are much higher.

      Further more in the interim you could simply cut a deal and target the Amazon App store. While it does not have the depth of the Google Play store in terms of applications it does a lot better than the Windows App store and makes a good starting point.

      Finally Microsoft have resources to throw at the problem that Wine has never had. By resources I mean the ability to put developers on the problem full time.

    2. Re:Perhaps. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Blackberry tried all that. Supposedly Android apps actually work quite well on the latest BB phones. It isn't saving them, their company is dying.

  15. It Wont Work! by darkain · · Score: 1

    "Trust me, it wont work, I know from experience!" - Ballmer

    Obligatory XKCD reference: https://xkcd.com/323/

  16. Microsoft should focus on APP apps! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Android and Windows are LUDDITE operating systems for LUDDITES. Modern app appers use APP apps, not LUDDITE programs!

    Apps!

    1. Re:Microsoft should focus on APP apps! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My favourite APP app is e-toilet paper that lets me photograph my dirty apphole and app it off to all my APP mates.

      App you.

  17. It's Ballmer we're talking about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He wasn't actually a paragon of fantastic ideas. In fact, most of his ideas hurt microsoft more than it helped them.

  18. As always, the real truth is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft devs would never touch Java.

  19. Re:He's going about it the wrong way. by Hognoxious · · Score: 0

    Appers! Appers! Appers!

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  20. Microsoft? Android Apps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Three words: Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.

    1. Re:Microsoft? Android Apps? by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      We can now add a fourth word:

      Embrace, Extend, Extinguish, Escape.

    2. Re:Microsoft? Android Apps? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Not any more. "Extinguish" is what happens when this strategy works.

      Now, it's "EEF": Embrace, Extend, Fail.

  21. It won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, Microsoft could make Android apps run on Windows mobile device.

    But Google wouldn't have to play nice. They control the platform.

    Google's house, Google's poker rules. House always wins.

    Microsoft would have to choose between being a software company or an operating system company. The operating system is why they are gigantic, they didn't become large by making a Mac version of MS Paint.

  22. Admitting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... he suggested that Windows phones should "run Android apps ...

    This is admitting three things: 1) Microsoft can't gain users to make Windows phone dominant (and profitable); 2) Windows phone is an inadequate selling proposition; 3) An adequate selling proposition requires Android (or iOS) compatibility.

    This is about Microsoft refusing to leave a growing market for portable devices. They may even have a plan to increase the appeal of Windows phone at a future time.

  23. Ballbags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Steve Ball-bags is irrelevant. The best thing for Microsoft was getting rid of that failure. Every time he disagrees with what they are doing their stock price should double.

  24. Would that mean Oracle... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... could sue Microsoft too for something nebulous about the Android API?

  25. This is an absolutely CRAZY strategy now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It might have worked five years ago but this is now not feasible.

    For one, they'd have to play catchup making Android developer tools. Android Studio 2 preview looks good but it's not a Microsoft tool, is it? It doesn't fit the pattern.

    For another, Android is now a multiplatform strategy. By taking only the bits that would make the phone better, do they not think they'd also be handing developers an exit strategy for tablets and watches?

    For yet a third, there's a way to benefit from cross-platform strategy without 'write once, run anywhere'. To use a terribly overused word, there are synergies throughout the iOS/OS X model, even though an app written for one will not run for the other.

    Ballmer is as usual wrong; though maybe he's just being a troll for the lulz.

  26. Balmer is right in this one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree that universal apps is dead because nobody is interested in developing universal apps for Windows mobile when it has such a small user base. Porting Android apps makes more sense but even then how many apps will run well with this porting to Windows? Almost every reasonable person believes already that Windows mobile is dead and that Microsoft knows it and just can't bring themselves to the point of killing Windows phones. Its another point of conflict with Microsoft given their investment in the path of Windows OS which focused the last two operating systems on mobile. This has to be a serious disappointment for Microsoft.

  27. maybe this guy blew it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but at least he was there when some decent windows were made

    now theres only turds all around, a turd smartphone, a turd console and a turd operating system

    thanks apu

  28. When shareholders cheer your exit from a company.. by JoeyRox · · Score: 2

    That means they're probably not interested in your unsolicited strategic advice.

  29. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  30. Oh Microsoft ! by nukenerd · · Score: 1

    How the mighty have fallen !

  31. what problem are they trying to solve? by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

    If I'm mostly going to run Android apps, why would I want to do that inside a Windows phone? All I get is extra overhead from emulation and incompatibilities. Before worrying about phones and Android, Microsoft really needs to worry about Windows store, because it looks to me like few of the traditional Windows software vendors are making their software available through the Windows store. I don't know whether that is because Microsoft charges too much money or because the store requirements are too strict, but the end effect for the user is that on Windows, I still have to deal with manual software installation and upgrades, while also having that useless Windows store thing sitting around.

  32. Balmer has the vision of a blind man in the fog... by egarland · · Score: 1

    Android apps start fast and have a low memory footprint because they use shared memory to share code with the software that runs the phone. You can't do that unless the phone uses java for it's internal functionality, which Windows phones would not, so app's startup time and memory footprint would be much worse than on real Android.

    Balmer understands markets, but he doesn't understand tech, or design. His reign at Microsoft showed a complete squandering of technical talent in a series of boondoggles that someone with better knowledge of the underlying technology would have foreseen, and this took Microsoft from a dominant position to near collapse. Satya Nadella has had little to praise or criticise, but so far I feel his steps have been more strategically sound. Balmer needs to remain silent, because all he's accomplishing now is removing all doubt.

    --
    set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
  33. What is the issue with a VM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cant you run Android as a VM?

  34. who cares what Ballmer thinks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank God Ballmer left Microsoft. They can now begin a new decade of success without his bad ideas weighing down the company like an anchor.

  35. CEOs & Group Think by MountainLogic · · Score: 1

    Perhaps this is a very telling lesson in group think. Note that even someone as headstrong as Balmer can become captured in the group think of a large company and as soon as they leave be willing to start challenging the core belief of the company. What does this say about large organizations? How do you turn such a big ship or even see danger ahead?

  36. How'd that work for Blackberry? by mlw4428 · · Score: 1

    Blackberry pursued this model and failed to retain any real resemblance of market share. That's because Android is really more Android Apps + Google Services. If Microsoft were to go down this path it would require making concessions to Google to get access to their Play services. If Microsoft did that, they might as well just become an Android distribution, because no one is going to write apps for Windows Mobile if Android apps work just fine. The problem lies in that there's no compelling reason to switch off of Android for Microsoft. Especially since Microsoft has now released a ton of their apps for Android. I don't see how Microsoft will win the mobile game at this point.

    1. Re:How'd that work for Blackberry? by JMZero · · Score: 1

      I think RIM could have succeeded in becoming a successful Android phone vendor, but they tried it much too late. I mean, it was mostly too late by the time the Playbook came out - and when it didn't have support at launch (which many were expecting it to), that was kind of the end of their chance.

      I don't think "going with Android" would have been a bad strategy for either RIM or MS, but neither of them did it at a time when it made sense; instead, in both cases, it comes off as a desperation play that's way too late.

      That said, I think MS could still have a bit of an out if they REALLY committed to making something like Xamarin work well. If Xamarin was the easiest way to develop iOS and Android apps (which could, as a side effect, also work on desktop Windows and MS phones) MS could tag along and get some applications flowing. MS can actually build good dev tools when they focus on that. But I don't trust their leadership to make reasonable decisions at this point.

      --
      Let's not stir that bag of worms...
  37. My experience w/ Lumia by unixisc · · Score: 1

    I had a Lumia 520. Loved it - it had almost all the things I needed. Maps, calculator, email client, messaging, OneNote, et al (OneNote really made it shine). Sure, it didn't have as fantastic games as the iPhone, but then again, it was very useful as a work phone. Any employer who wants to issue office phones to employees and not have them jack it w/ bizarre apps from the stores would do well to consider Windows Phones just b'cos they don't have all that, but do have the things office users generally need.

    I disagree w/ Ballmer - his suggestion sounds like the one IBM had w/ OS/2 when they were trying to steal the thunder from Windows 3.1. If one remembers, OS/2 ran win16 apps as well, but that didn't encourage PC users to get OS/2 on their computers. Part of the reason was the pricing, and the other part was that if all OS/2 was gonna run was win16 apps, why not just stick to win16? It's a similar case here - if Windows Phones start running Android apps, why would anyone prefer them to either Galaxies, or even other Android phones from Google, Motorola/Lenovo, Sony, LG, HTC, Blu or even Blackberry?

    Since Microsoft is doing what it can to make Windows 10 successful, they need to do what they can to get Windows Phone apps on the Universal Windows platform. Like for instance, one can download FanDango, Yelp! or a whole host of other similar apps on Windows Phone, but those ain't available on Windows 8.1 OR Windows 10. Conversely, there are a lot of Windows 10 apps not there on Windows Phone. I'd love there for Universal apps to appear, so that not only would Windows 10 Mobile get apps developed originally for Windows 7, but also, one could use on a Windows tablet apps like Yelp! or Fandango which don't really need a phone.

    Also, while Microsoft claims that they've had a number of vendors design their apps for their platform, they really need to get serious about that. My Lumia died by accident, and when it did, I switched to a Moto X b'cos I was missing some important apps that I use - like RetailMeNot, Vonage and Lyft. If one is a Uber or Lyft driver, neither Uber Partner nor Lyft run on the platform. In another city that I lived where cellular signals were suppressed due to my living near a government facility, I would use Vonage to make cellular calls outside, something I could do w/ the iPhone but not w/ the Lumia. Microsoft doesn't have to get the greatest games to Windows Phone - Xbox support is good - but it does have to look at the apps that people use for day to day work, and get them supported on the universal app. Only rarely have I seen companies advertize their apps being on iOS, Android or Windows Phone - like Delta Airlines. I'd like to see more of them

  38. Re:Windows Mobile is remind me of OS/2 by unixisc · · Score: 1

    But Windows Phone/Mobile does not currently run Android apps. What remains to be seen is whether on the desktop, we see more of Windows 8/10 apps being developed, which can then be ported to Windows Mobile

  39. Google! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Man up and release Android on desktop PCs. It's time.

  40. Re:Windows Mobile is remind me of OS/2 by lord_mike · · Score: 1

    The current Nadella "universal apps" strategy is working. Microsoft Surface has gained a significant amount of both mindshare and market share. the Xbox one is also in that paradigm, and I expect sales this Christmas to be robust. The phone market is a problem, and mostly a problem with the fact they use ARM processors. Microsoft has a very confusing implementation of their "universal apps"--they aren't universal at all. They must be compiled for each hardware platform. Microsoft used to have a universal app system in .NET, but they ditched it* for this strange RT strategy which is supposed to be universal, but isn't. If Nadella really wants this to be a "universal app" paradigm, where everything runs on anything else, they need to do 2 things on the phone platform: 1. Either bring back something like .NET to mobile or make sure their phones run the new low power Intel processors (the later option is easier and preferable in many ways). 2. Find a way to be able to automatically run desktop compiled apps so that they can run in a metro environment (that may already be happening, I'm not sure.. I'll know more when I get my Windows tablet). I think they are probably already planning on implementing something similar for the future.

    When everything really becomes "universal", they can really capitalize on that by selling the same experience across every platform you use and own. Ballmer's idea may seem good at first, but it really holds no consumer appeal in the long run. The history of OS/2 and Blackberry running Android proves it. The idea that you can run the same thing on your Xbox, Surface, PC, and Phone is something you can really sell and get customers to buy. Capitulating to Google doesn't do very much other than admit defeat.

    *Yes, I know that .NET still exists and is robust on the desktop business environment, but Microsoft ditched it for mobile a few years ago for RT... which they also ditched recently at least on the tablet side.

  41. Re:Windows Mobile is remind me of OS/2 by lord_mike · · Score: 1

    Just to followup with a summary... If they want to compete in mobile, they need to make a Surface phone, not this Current Windows RT phone that can't really run much of anything at the moment. A "Surface" phone has a good chance of selling, since the tablets are popular.

  42. Re:Windows Mobile is remind me of OS/2 by unixisc · · Score: 1

    I actually agree w/ you here. ARM based phones, while otherwise standard, bring nothing to the table as far as Microsoft goes. They should get Intel's lowest power Atoms, and build a Lumia based on that. And then load it up w/ the Universal UI

  43. duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "That won't work," he said. Instead he suggested that Windows phones should "run Android apps." -- Former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer

    Just use Android it's better anyway.

    You can even run a full Linux install on an Android device.

    This is one way.
    https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ru.meefik.linuxdeploy&hl=en