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.

Comments

I agree

[Gumbercules!!]

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.

Re: I agree

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:I agree

[jpkunst]

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.

Re: I agree

[jonwil]

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.

Re: I agree

[91degrees]

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.

Re: I agree

[DarkOx]

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.

Re: I agree

[Grishnakh]

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.

Re:I agree

[Grishnakh]

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.

Re: I agree

[jonwil]

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.

too late Steveo

[deodiaus2]

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.

Re:too late Steveo

[Anonymous Coward]

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

insensitive

[nullchar]

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

Ballmers

[invictusvoyd]

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.

Microsoft-only vs. running Android apps

[Todd Knarr]

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.

Re:Microsoft-only vs. running Android apps

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Microsoft-only vs. running Android apps

[spauldo]

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.

Re:Microsoft-only vs. running Android apps

[bondsbw]

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.

Steve Ballmer's ideas are quite valuable.

[bistromath007]

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.

Re:Steve Ballmer's ideas are quite valuable.

[hcs_$reboot]

Well, for once he may be right, actually.

Re:Steve Ballmer's ideas are quite valuable.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Opinion of a guy who blew it

[nikkipolya]

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.

Re:Opinion of a guy who blew it

[qubex]

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.

Re:Dear Andy Rubin

[MightyMartian]

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

Perhaps.

[Anonymous Coward]

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. :)

When shareholders cheer your exit from a company..

[JoeyRox]

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

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion