Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Could Android and iOS Become Popular Desktop Operating Systems?
dryriver writes: For many older people, you use Windows, macOS, or Linux on the desktop, and Android or iOS on mobile devices. Nobody is screaming for an Android desktop PC or an iOS 17.3-inch laptop computer. But what about younger generations growing up, from a very young age, glued to devices with these two mobile operating systems running on it? Will they want to use Windows, macOS, or Linux just like us old farts when they grow older, or will they want their favorite mobile operating systems running -- in a beefed up and more robust form -- on desktop and laptop computers which they use for school, college, and/or work as well? Since we are on this topic -- could Android or iOS one day become reasonably usable desktop operating systems from an architectural standpoint? And could Google and Apple already be planning for an "Android and iOS on the desktop" computing future, without telling anyone about it publicly?
You will use the OS where your apps work best. No matter what that is. The OS really does not matter except for security. The software matters to get shit done.
Modern app appers know that only apps can app apps, and modern app apperating apps like Appdroid and AppOS let modern app appers app apps while apping other apps!
Apps!
Samsung DEX is already moving the software in that direction:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPpa6fgBghU
Already have / had a version of Android for desktop. Just look at Samsung DEX... It's cool and very usable
Ceci n'est pas une Signature !
Mobile devices are based on the act of consumption, not content creation.
Yes you can "create" tweets and meme-grade content, but the more complex something is, the more tools you'll need for it. The existence of an operating system that allows you to manage files is a core function required for fluidity between the tools. Without that you're stuck with all-in-one solutions.
Neither iOS nor Android has that level of user-manageable file integration, by design. If that changes in the future, so be it, but for them to be dominant desktop creation platforms they'll have to change so much that they effectively become new and different systems.
More likely ChromeOS+ Android apps
Yes, I would fully expect android to become a desktop OS in the long run, since Googleâ(TM)s spying ambitions know no bounds. Surveillance capitalism FTW!
No? Ok then, no. Replace autocad for the name of any number of other applications, games, and all associated infrastructure. Good luck replacing all the local network services and infrastructure too. It's the same reason why we never had the year of the linux desktop. A touch oriented interface is also overtly inferior for tasks people would do on a pc form factor.
...but 'Hell NO'.
Mobile OSes are designed for small sizes, touchscreens, and battery life. These are not factors on the desktop - in fact, many of them conflict with what decades of experience have shown is best for the desktop.
Keep that iOS and Android shit away from my desktop, you freaks.
Linux and macOS are already a thing.
When Apple moves Xcode to iOS you know they are planning for shifting the paradigm. Until then, desktops and mobile OSes are not destined to merge.
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
iOS is just MacOS X with a different UI, you can even use this UI in OS X.
Android is rubbish, and a "Android PC" will never happen. We have already seen what happens when the Android Platform is used on tablets and smartTV's, it's awful, if not completely unusable.
If you want desktop Linux, just get Linux and avoid this Android crap in the first place.
Isn't that sort of what Google is doing with Fuchsia?
OS X / macOS seems to have gotten progressively more and more iOS like since about Yosemite (10.10).
The future OS is purple.
If the answer is no, then forget about it.
It sucked.
The same apps would mostly run everywhere, configuration settings would synchronize smoothly, backups are almost a non-issue ... the only problem is disconnected operation and/or privacy. Lack of privacy, centralizable control, single sign-on -- sounds enterprise-ready too.
It's an intriguing question but I don't see the need to bring in new OS's to desktop apps. If there are better UX constructs in iOS & Android, they'll be copied on the existing ones and life will go on.
The really big people who will answer the question are desktop App developers - can you see Microsoft porting Office to yet another OS that doesn't start with "Win"? What about game developers, will they want to support basically two versions of their games on the same OS, depending on the hardware platform and IO methods?
I wouldn't be surprised if Android & iOS appeared on some desktop hardware, I'd be very impressed if they carved out anything more than a niche.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
Nobody chooses the OS on their phone. Android is a gadget, not an OS.
I already play games and can use Termux with Android.
Keyboard, Mouse and background tasks work well. Quite practical and productive.
iOS is far, far too restrictive to ever be a desktop replacement in its current form. Any science or engineering degree requires some level of programming which is almost impossible under these OS's so at least some "young people" will get used to desktop OS's. Plus, if you want to develop an app for these OS's you need a desktop OS to do this.
The only way that iOS or Android will replace macOS or Linux is if they end up becoming a lot more like macOS or Linux.
if i told you i'd have to kill you.
My primary school age kids use their portable devices for games that can be played with a couple of fingers, but they know that for getting work done they use Windows OS. They have collections of photos they sort into folders, videos they edit, pictures they edit with their fine motor skills via the mouse, copying files to USB to take to school, powerpoint presentations, web pages they are copying and referencing, and this is all at the same time across multiple monitors. I guess if you really wanted an alternative there's MacOS, but then that doesn't run Visual Studio, so it's useless to me, and why would I buy a whole lot of different rigs for my home environment when the Windows OS installations I have all work nicely together? Under what situation would someone run Android as a desktop operating system? It's like Linux but with a whole lot of vulnerabilities thrown on top. Maybe iOS could make it if Apple turf MacOS and give iOS a desktop shell. If you're hoping for some mobile OS to take over the desktop then that's probably your best bet, but then you are stuck in the walled garden on your desktop.
Australian running a company that does C# / C++ / Java / SQL / Python / Mathematica
Desktop computing is the domain of professionals now. The vast majority of people use their phones and tablets as their primary computing devices. I had my eyes opened working on my wife's website for her firm - 95% of the traffic was mobile or tablet.
iOS won't work for people who use computers in the classical sense - e.g. tell the computers to do things - because you don't have enough fine grained control. An IDE on a tablet would be a genuinely terrible experience. ...but most people interact with a tablet as their primary OS, and that's a good thing.
..don't panic
IMHO, Android & iOS are incomparably more secure than Windows, macOS, or Linux!
IMHO, Windows & macOS & Linux desperately need total redesign to work similar way to Android & iOS (which run all apps using a VM that constantly checks for security violations)!
(In Windows & macOS & Linux, on the other hand, any violations seems to enable root access/privilege for malware/hackers!)
& if total redesign is not possible, then only option maybe to use Android & iOS on desktop computers, also!
They simplify the experience by removing anything that has any sort of a learning curve - and that includes a great deal of powerful tools.
Not until these OSes are designed to serve the user more than their vendors.
C here, how swiftly like a pyrhon we approach this phone gap, java in hand, when all we wanted was a corona.
On the desktop Microsoft is the entrenched monopoly. On smartphones there is a duopoly between Android/Google and IOS/Apple. It is completely feasible for Google or Apple to try to grab some of Microsoft's desktop market share with their respective phone centric OS. Google is already on this path with the Chromebook and Apple with the iPad line.
The move to challenge Widows with another platform is a business decision on the part of Google or Apple. It's not about an unmet demand on the part of users. It's a case of three massive rivals placing bets on the future. Concepts like "popularity" or "ease of use" are not primary movers. Marketing, market share, and risk/reward are the basic factors, not any desire on the part of the public.
Why is Snark Required?
Android is Linux. The VM used in Android only runs the Java code, and provides little if any extra security. Instead the security comes from running each app as a different Linux user, as well as using SELinux (Security Enhanced Linux) for some of the permissions.
GNU/Linux doesn't typically do that, but it could probably be made to without any changes to the Linux kernel at all.
Could it? Sure, they definitely could. Should they? No, they definitely shouldn't.
This is obvious: you interact with different devices in different ways. As a standard, phones have small screens, touch, and gyroscope, whereas desktops have large screens, keyboard, and mouse. So each ecosystem -- not only the OS, but every application for it -- is designed around that.
Sure, you can put a system where it was not intended. Buy a Win10 tablet, or run Android-x86 on your PC, and get ready for all the programs that will have clumsy interfaces, or don't work quite right, or don't work at all, because they were designed for a different way to interact.
Circumcision is child abuse.
That is all.
Root access or nothing.
What about game developers, will they want to support basically two versions of their games on the same OS, depending on the hardware platform and IO methods?
Sure, why not? The overwhelming bulk of development cost is in the game itself. In a reasonable engine, the platform specific support is handled through an abstract interface, which is already how we're able to release the same game on some combination of PC, Xbox, Playstation, Switch, iOS, and Android. Different input handlers account for the various physical configurations. This is all very common for the current major engines like Unity and Unreal.
I'm willing to tolerate a walled garden for my phone and tablet, because they are appliances. I don't consider them "real computers"; they serve a specific function, which is communicating and accessing the Internet and other systems. Basically they're like fancy terminals.
But definitely not for my desktop. I want a real computer on my desk, that I fully control and can run whatever code I want. I suppose Android wouldn't be too bad, though even on Android device makers try to take a lot more control than they do with PCs and Macs.
My iPad is great for sitting in a coffee shop reading something, surfing the web, reading E-mail, or even SSHing to a host or two. But if I have to do any sort of real work, the frustration level spikes quickly. iOS would need a substantial redesign to be a real desktop operating system, including ditching the walled garden. But then what do you have? MacOS. Why not just use the best tool for the job?
in a very real sense they already are. People do less/ self aggrandize as a state of being. What does the desktop of the twitter fiend, or fascist troll need?
osx ios based on BSD,
android based on Linux,
windows based on shite
You can connect a monitor/keyboard/mouse to your phone and have an android desktop
but I want a Linux phone that I can trust
Go well
IMHO, Android & iOS are incomparably more secure than Windows, macOS, or Linux!
Seriously?
captcha: dreamers
I use FreeBSD you insensitive clod!
Doesn't anyone remember the old Xandros based Asus eeePC with the tabs and small number of icons?
Of course with a small edit to the boot config you could boot it into a proper window manager, so it wasn't an issue, but for young children it'd be fine.
Who doesn't like the Android security model—raise your hand.
Well, that's just about everyone in the room with any brains remaining at all.
Motion denied.
I think the real question this is getting at is whether UI preferences are changing and whether the desktop-centric model of UI is gradually being replaced.
A "beefed up IOS" is essentially MacOS at least under the hood. And the same could be said for any of the other platforms.
The presentation to the user is something we should recognize as an item that should constantly evolve. If we consider how long the "task bar with a 'start menu'" or even the drop down menu's at the top of the screen have been around, then consider how quickly the much earlier interfaces changed (and by how much), we'd likely be very shocked at how many "eons" we've used the same UI already. And likely discover our own not wanting to change has been holding back what perhaps should have changed/evolved already.
Add a keyboard and a file manager, and you basically come full circle with an OS that acts mostly as program loader/task switcher.
...or uploading a pic of the burger you just ordered hardly qualifies as content creation.
Tell me and let's see if you comply with your final threat.
the tech is here for hooking up phones to monitors and traditional input devices to make a 'desktop'..
the only thing holding it back is nobody has done it (well enough to catch on) because phone processors suck (raw performance), storage is slow (emmc/memory card performance) and limited, ram is lacking for a 'real' application, 'apps' are made for touch not kb/mouse, the walled gardens are too restrictive compared to a 'regular' desktop (can't install and run whatever applications you want), and handset makers and carriers really don't want it.. it would discourage or slow down the upgrade train that they both rely upon for massive profits.
("app" = piece of shit, and usually one-trick-pony, phone 'app', "application" = a real fucking computer program)
Ask Slashdot: Could Android and iOS Become Popular Desktop Operating Systems?
No. Just...wow...No. Why would anyone with 3 or more brain cells want this?
Mobile devices are based on the act of consumption, not content creation.
I was coming to say the same thing about Betteridge's, but because I know your statement here is utterly false I conclude that in fact it will happen.
I have switched to mostly editing images from professional cameras on an iPad because I prefer it. I try to do all by banking on mobile apps (here failures of the app makers throw occasional wrenches in that plan). I've worked on long documents and presentations all on mobile devices.
Sure iOS and android are not replacing desktops today, this year, or next. But you can see it coming, sure as you can see the lights from the large city you are driving towards scores of miles away at night and know what is there.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
What is missing?
Need each CPU to be fast. Get that same RTX Nvidia card? Some Radeon VII?
Make AMD and Nvidia make new cards for this new desktop? Ask Intel to make a GPU
Lots of ram....
What is missing?
Hows that OS and the 3D game engine code going? Vulkan? Molten?
Write the OS, the game support, the game engine, the GPU support.
Put that in front of a 4K, 5K display and see what frame rate ARM can do...
The missing part is the "write" the code part.
Someone smart with skills has to write a lot of really good new 3D code and keep it updated.
A fun big project for someone who can code.
Take the same time, money and effort and see what Windows 10, Nvidia and Intel have ready now.
Want to get a project started on Windows 10 with full support?
Use an engine and get a story and content ready in months.
Want to learn to code on ARM and attempt to understand the CPU, GPU, OS limits?
Get that real I/O? DDR4 memory? PCI-Express? At a low price with a real fast new desktop ready CPU?
Want to try a server or a mobile CPU on that desktop?
Windows 10 has all that ready with Nvidia, Intel, and AMD.
Just bring your game idea.
Get to work making the game on Windows 10, not the computer.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Google has no plans for Android as a desktop OS - that is what ChromeOS is for. But Samsung or Lenovo - two vendors that have modified versions of Android on their products - might have their own ideas. Lenovo has a version that let's you run apps in windows rather than full-screen, has a task-based, and the Yogabook that I'm running it on comes with 64 gb storage (expandable by adding a micro SD card) and an attached keyboard, trackpad, and pen input. That's as good as a Win 7 laptop I used to have.
I recall articles here that Google is working on a new OS, so of course they are not planning Android as a desktop OS. But it seems to be happening anyway.
Desktop hardware usually last longer than the 0-4 years of updates that mobile OS:es get from their hardware vendors. We wouldn't want to throw away more kg:s of hardware every year just because we want security fixes or support for newer hard- and software.
Whatever operating system is best at running games will dominate the future of the "desktop" in the home. For all it's faults, right now that is Windows, but that can change.
For the sufficiently clueless, even trivial applications of common sense are indistinguishable from wisdom
Proprietary © hardware has bad chips! We must all renew our hardway every 14 ellipses. If we dont, we fall behind.
Today's smartphones and tablets are way more powerful than desktops from 15 years ago. The OS is just a tool, regardless of wether you use it with a touchscreen or a mouse and keyboard.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Maybe not iOS, but I don't see why Android/ChromeOS/Fuchsia couldn't become a highly popular desktop OS in the not too distant future. As a power user since the 80s I will probably not like it much personally, but I can definitely see it becoming popular, and I can definitely see myself recommending it to non-nerdy friends and relatives.
My other account has a 3-digit UID.
Android for desktop has existed for some time, and works quite well. As an experiment, I used it for days, and the experience was surprisingly complete.
Now tell me.. why would these new generations suddenly switch from mobile to desktop machine, when they get older?
All of Apple's OSs are derivative of macOS - kernel and foundation libraries are all the same. The UI libraries are virtually identical as well, but are tailored to the input paradigm/use cases of each class of devices.
I used to develop a "cross-platform" application that worked on iPads and Macs. The only difference between them was some UI code and most of the UI code was shared thanks to some preprocessor magic.
Same as when I used to develop video games - the game code was the same regardless of the platform (Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo) because it made use of the same foundation library and engine. The engine was just like the kernel in presenting a uniform interface to hardware. The biggest differences in the game code were the platform manufacturer-specific user interface requirements for controllers, networking and save games.
for the demographic you describe the smartphone is already their desktop.
how they see it, windows/macos/linux is for work.
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
First and foremost, these platforms allow too many things to happen too easily by accident. Second, they make it too easy for apps to post ads, most annoyingly each time I pull it up. And it's very difficult to find which app did it and remove it.
Next, they just poorly designed for phone use. There are WAY too many steps to make stinking phone call or to start navigation with a map. It's likely caused accidents all the time on the roads.
Next, Java was a terrible choice for Android. No matter what Java-lovers tell you, it is inherently slower by design because it enforces a high granularity of object-orientation. Classical object-orientation consumes a lot of extra memory and CPU-time, in addition to adding a lot of code to one's software. Why? Because it requires a good deal of code to provide that functionality -- code you don't write but is added for you, and because it has to allocate new memory for every instantiation (each property and method), and because these each of these CPU-intensive task an operating system has to perform -- defragmenting memory. Also, the automatic garbage collection makes for sudden uncontrollable pauses at random times.
iOS's Objective-C is much better in those terms. OO can be accomplished in a smarter way, such as how JavaScript does it. However, iOS is extremely proprietary. Apple has not been an advocate of freedom.
that'll do
iOS turns a general-purpose computer into a walled-garden media consumption device, and as for Android, between the OS itself and the applications, the keyboard support is crap. And even Android isn't terribly useful until you root it.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
iOS has a high likelihood of becoming a desktop OS, but I do not think Android will. Google is likely to kill the legacy and already inferior Android platform and replace it with Fuchsia.
One kernel to rule them all
...the 65% of jobs that haven't been invented yet turn out to be sexting, taking selfies, taking photos of your food & cats, & pursuading your friends not to talk to Jenni because reasons!
NO no NO Please no for the love of god no. Please don't let this happen.
deliver us from this evil. Amen.
iOS and macOS are already the same thing under the hood. The difference is which frameworks are available and which UI is presented. While they may be borrow from each where is makes sense, Apple has been careful to distinguish the marketing and UI/UX of the two, to avoid confusion.
Microsoft as a counter blurred the lines, trying to push the Windows brand everywhere. The issue is that it didn’t allow developing a mobile solution that was distinct in marketing and this may have hurt how developers approached it? This issue had already been experiencing when Microsoft did Windows Mobile (renamed to Windows CE), years earlier.
One experiment that I am curious whether could be revisited is when Ubuntu had two OSs in one device. On the move it was the mobile personality that was used and when docked it was the desktop personality that took over. This is not the same as Windows, since they were essentially two different modes of operation, where Windows tried to make the two the same, but with an extra UI (metro).
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
More and more students, and even business professionals, are using alternatives like Chrome OS rather than a traditional OS's like Windows or Mac. The reality is that the majority of computer users are not nerds. They simply want to browse the internet, create basic documents/spreadsheets, and ingest digital media.... all of which is possible with a "mobile" or "light" OS. From the end-user's perspective, these OS's are easy to use and require very little interaction/troubleshooting. From the manufacturer and developer's perspective, these OS's run smoothly on low-end hardware and would be able to utilize the enormous mobile application selection.
Firstly, why iOS when there is Mac OS with relatively high market share? Secondly, Google is more focused on Chrome OS as a desktop OS. Chrome OS has Linux and Android app support.
Of course Apple would not develop anything under the covers of darkness. I love my PowerPC chips and they will always be better and faster than Intel chips. Right Apple!
Any os can be used on the desktop. The comments here are addressing the user environment which is built on top of the os.
The primary function of the os is to handle physical io operations by translating calls with parameters into detailed instructions which it exexutes. Since these capabilities are already built into the mobile phone os there is no reason why they can't be used on the desktop -- providing that they are modified to permit user programming.
> Could Android and iOS Become Popular Desktop Operating Systems?
Sure, if you modify them enough so they're no longer recognizable as what they are today. The problem is making them usable in one environment at the expense of the one they were made for.
Have we already forgotten Windows 8? That was Microsoft wanting to turn a desktop OS into a tablet OS. They turned that screw once too many, and Windows 10 was them turning it back half a turn. Too late, it's already cracked, and Apple and Google--I think--and hope--have been quietly observing and learning that lesson from afar.
I have been working with windowed environments since Windows 95, and I've almost always switched between full screen apps - except small ones like a calculator, etc.
The trouble with phone-derived tablet operating systems is that for several years, even "small ones like a calculator" ended up running in the full screen on a 9-10" tablet.
Mine is 1280x1024.
If you're reading a document and taking notes, you could split it between 960x1024 for the document you're reading and 320x1024 (roughly two phones top-to-bottom) for the notes you're taking. That way, you retain both in your visuospatial context. Or you can put two 80-column windows side-by-side, one showing a source code editor and the other a terminal for its output.
Apple and Microsoft have both spent huge amounts of money trying to merge the desktop and mobile. Their continued inability to do so points to a fundamental difference between the two types of platforms that won't be transcended.
Isn't that Linux based ? Then why do I still have to reboot my phone every other day or it starts to choke on itself?
Keep that crap away from decent devices please.
How not? Any PC operating system with an MTP client can manage files on Android 4 and later. On Xubuntu, once I ran sudo apt install mtp-tools mtpfs (per this answer), GVFS detected my phone, and "Android/Internal storage" and "Android/SD card" appeared in the file manager.
professional stuff on a tablet is a joke
If you ever used Affinity Photo on an iPad Pro you would not say that. It's more professional than most desktop users have, simply because you can work with a stylus - like professionals do on desktops, via accessories.
I use three 27" screens plus one (and sometimes two) Virtual Reality Handsets.
And you really see no future where those cannot all be connected to a tablet with an eGPU? Interesting.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Though iOS devices use the MFi joysticks, Windows Store apps use XInput controllers, which in practice means Xbox 360 and Xbox One controllers. The point is still that you need to buy an input device specifically for one operating system.
I still think OSX will be depreciated and replaced with IOS
I'll believe that when an iPad user can make an App Store-worthy app within Swift Playgrounds alone without having to round-trip it through Xcode.
Remember when tiny devices first came along? I'm talking about Palm Pilots, PDAs, and eventually smartphones.
To make effective use of the limited screen real-estate, all the software had to be re-done. It wasn't enough to just make existing screens and systems tiny, the actual UI, application flow, and all the rest had to be altered. Keyboards, mice, even pens all disappeared (yes, I know a few still exist. Let's not get sidetracked).
We've already seen what happens when you try to make a smartphone the basis for a desktop system. The reverse happens, and the apps make really poor, absolutely terrible use of the suddenly abundant screen real estate. It feels like a kindergarten computer because the interface looks like it was designed for a 3-5 year old.
But given enough time, and abundant resources, those mobile OSes, and all their applications could all be reprogrammed and adjusted to do this. The question is why should we? Do we lack for desktop OSes? Is there enough value in device consolidation, to justify this move?
My guess is No. There isn't enough business value to invest the resources required. At least not as a discrete project with this as the goal. It could still happen though, as an incidental side-effect of ever more powerful mobile devices. What I have in mind is a multi-decade transition, where the only goal was to deliver more functionality to mobile devices. It could turn out that in the fullness of time, and partly by accident, that mobile devices gain the power and flexibility to drive a desktop device without becoming a joke.
what the fuck does the word "good" mean?
NO! Did we learn nothing from Windows 8? A desktop and mobile are such different contexts, trying to appeal to both means you don't fit either. They must have separate interfaces and designs. If you want to have the same kernel in both, with separate shells, that's fine. But they MUST have bespoke shells.
GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
One operating system was programmed, from its inception, to support nine input methods: mouse, single-touch trackpad, multi-touch trackpad, single-touch display, multi-touch display, on-display stylus, off-display stylus, keyboard, and generic joystick/gamepad. And that OS was programmed by a company who had very poor forays into mobile devices.
The fact that Microsoft could get something so right, while iOS still fails to support mouse devices, is laughable. I love iPad Pro, but until it supports a mouse natively, I wouldn't ever consider using it for anything professionally.
Android has a half decent file tree in place, a functional file browser, and it allows decent hooks into the OS. iOS on the other hand is waaaay too limited in its current state to be a feasible desktop OS.
That would be a small change for iOS if were made into a desktop system.
However I feel the biggest issue is that we don't need a desktop/laptop Personal Computer. But for those who need to do real work, will need a Workstation/Portable Workstation. While the hardware is the same, the OS and software should be rewritten for the focus of productivity over general attractiveness and no longer targeting grandma. A Workstation OS, will need to be able to handle multiple apps running, and be viable and usable
Mobile systems such as iOS and Android are meant for single use app, or perhaps a couple. Even Windows 10/8 split screen has massive limitations.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
... already has old PC and new Tablet. Use cases (games!!!) not met.
Insists on Windows PC. Apple laptop out of the question because "real gamers use Windows" "Do they even have games on the Mac?" (ROFLMAO)
The consoles lasted until about age 6, and the iPad until about 8 or 9. After that the iPad is just a streaming Netflix/YouTube/Discord TV-client thing. All the real action is on the Windows PC.
And he doesn't want a phone.
Gen Z is different.
Android can natively access NFS and CIFS shares and it can execute files between applications. If you create a shell to house phones then IT depts could get some good use out of converting normal cell phones into on the go laptops with 4G and remote management using services like Knox. I personally could see getting a lot of use out of this with truck drivers that have recipients sign digital paperwork on their phones. It would also be useful for some of the semi tracking systems we use since the local phones communicate data over bluetooth to the DOT approved GPS management system.
Android could potentially pick up some consumer users who want to have a cheap way to use their phone as a laptop. Possibly college kids could use this if the office suites are good.
IOS is too walled off. You can't execute files between applications and you don't have native file system support for file shares in business environments. You would be stuck buying apple specific software and hardware which will cost inifinitely more than any android solution. Unless the C level's at a business have to have iPhones then I don't see Apple getting far with this. Keep in mind that Apple has tried over the years to enter the business market and outside of marketing employees or the occasional school you'll never find apple products in the majority of business environments. I expect IOS will be the same.
I once thought "Laptops are a horrible desktop replacement. Nobody will seriously get rid of their desktop!" -- yet millions flocked to laptops, with the promise of "work anywhere", and because they didn't know how to deal well w/ the problem of synchronizing data between two devices, they ditched their desktop and put up with a not-so-good machine at home.
Then I thought "Cell phones and tablets are great toys, and handy when you need something in a pinch, but you can't really do serious work on them!" And yet millions of people are living on their phones, and not buying desktops. The mobile device now serves as the desktop, and thus Android/IOS has become the desktop OS.
Has it made those people more productive overall? I think not, in many cases. On their phones, people do a horrible job of managing email and a lot of other things that they used to do better on their desktop, but they don't seem to care. Like cell phones of yesterday made bad phone connections the norm, those of today are making bad lots-o-stuff the norm. In some cases, I believe it will lead to better ways of doing things, but in a lot of areas, I think it won't, because people won't care so much as long as they're feeding their Facebook app addiction.
Now, some have decided that they do want bigger screens, so tablets (and phablets) are more popular. They run the same OSes as the phones. I can easily see the desktop starting to make a come-back, not as a full-power personal computer, but as a larger version of the same dumbed-down consumption-oriented devices that people are then used to.
One day, 40 years from now, someone will come out with a "revolutionary" new concept that lets you use additional input devices (such as a keyboard?) and do really powerful things that you can't do on normal devices. Additionally, there will be privacy-enhancing aspects that people discover. As the new generation gets excited about them, a few greybeards will smile and say "Yup, I've seen something like that before! Back in the day, we used to call them PCs." and people will look at them funny.
Weird. You say the software should be re-written to focus on productivity?
Why re-write iOS/Android when you already have MacOS/Windows.
Mobile App compatibility on desktop OS has been a thing for a long time, so why work so hard?
Weird.