Why? Because if you can run both Windows Phone app and Android apps at the same time on top-quality Nokia devices, wouldn't you rather get that instead of Android devices?
If you are asking me what phone I would rather have if I had to choose something other than an iPhone it would not be a Nokia. Sorry but I think the Samsung S4 or HTC One are far better phones than any by Nokia. I would also prefer a LG or Sony over a Nokia. I also prefer Android to Windows phone so I would have no interest in buying a Windows phone to begin with. I do not see this as a positive move by Microsoft and will likely lead to even fewer apps for Windows Phone. They do not need 1 million apps like iOS or Android. Most people only have a 100 or less on their phones and use maybe 20 regularly if that. All they need is to have versions of the top 10,000 or so available from competing platforms and tis is the way to do the opposite.
that's just sad. Run Android in a kind of emulator (or virtual machine) is a recipe for disaster.
If they can make a touch UI and desktop UI work together so well, they can add an Android in there too and have a seamless triple pack in Windows 9! The kitchen sink OS!
This would be sheer madness, alienating their traditional developer base, undercutting their devs on prices and their own applications too, letting google in as a Trojan horse, and reducing the quality of software on Windows ( I know people will sneer at that but windows software is still better than Android).
Insane if it's true. I just read a nice history of OS/2 that said one of the main problems was that it was marketed as running Windows apps better than Windows - which meant that nobody bothered writing OS/2 apps anymore since they could just write Windows and let users run it on either. Aaaand... Hey look, OS/2 had very few native apps!
So now they're going to try to kill their Metro (or whatever they're calling it) development? What's the upside? Android devices are cheaper, you get even fewer developers to do native apps... Is this Ballmer's last stake through the heart of the company, or is the new guy going to see if he can kill it even faster?
Microsoft don't have to 'allow' Android apps to run under Windows. It's an open platform, anybody can write an emulator or create a VM environment with no involvement from Microsoft.
Then they decided that they didn't want to have to go through the Windows' malware syndrome again. There are numerous reports about the Android ecosystem being worse, from a security standpoint, then Windows 95, 97, or XP ever were.
Perfect Windows kind of thing to have. Yet another hip technology add-on, probably by abstraction layer, ignoring the native GUI (for that added pile of inconsistency you get from non-native apps), in an environment of vb/java scripting, workarounds, monolithic data structures, abstraction layers, competing APIs, services, plugins, and infinitely unpredictable interaction with other systems.
Reeks of desperation, but it's definitely Windows. Actually, my description above also reeks of Linux distros.
WP running Android apps is a bad idea because devs would stop developing WP apps.
But making it possible to compile an Android app into a WP app package for the WP store could be a great idea. That way as far as the public is concerned its a WP app. The app store grows as apps would be so quick to port that there would be no reason not to.
The net benefit in the could then lead to more apps being built natively for WP if the customer base grows.
I like your style. Unfortunately, this is the opposite situation. Apple didn’t do that for Mac adoption.
While that wasn’t their strategy it has helped with Mac adoption. No matter how many companies try there's nothing built quite like a MBP, and if you remember it was actually voted the best Windows laptop last year.
WP running Android apps is a bad idea because devs would stop developing WP apps.
But making it possible to compile an Android app into a WP app package for the WP store could be a great idea. That way as far as the public is concerned its a WP app. The app store grows as apps would be so quick to port that there would be no reason not to.
The net benefit in the could then lead to more apps being built natively for WP if the customer base grows.
The problem I see is that nobody actually wants to develop for Android in the first place, they do so only with a gun pointed at their head, they would much rather develop for Windows Phone, but nobody wants a Windows Phone, not when Microsoft throws the platform away every year. Google "I hate Android Java" and find 2 million hits, do "I hate iOS OBJC" and you get like 100k. That's a 20 fold difference, which one is more profitable? The one that is easy to develop for. Console developers learned this lesson with the PS1/N64 and PS2, and the Dreamcast. Windows CE was not a selling point for the Dreamcast.
What is far more likely to happen is Microsoft will implement a support library (see WOW64 and WOW32, even win32s on win3.1, it's not like they haven't done this before.) This library will run the Android software (but not the entire operating system) on top of the existing device without the bloatware that comes with it. I mean look at how much 32-bit software we're still using on 64-bit OS's because developers are being a stick in the mud (especially Google.) X86-64 PC's will likely require windows 8.1 and the same hardware requirements of Hyper-V (HAXM has those requirements already.)
The majority of devs don't have employers, so those have chosen freely to develop for Android. It's also much easier than web developing.
The vast majority of professional developers are paid, if they are any good. There is no money to be made on google play ( and not much on average on the App Store). Everybody has their own side project but very few are living off it. Your other statement is incorrect too.
Comments
Originally Posted by MikhailT
Why? Because if you can run both Windows Phone app and Android apps at the same time on top-quality Nokia devices, wouldn't you rather get that instead of Android devices?
If you are asking me what phone I would rather have if I had to choose something other than an iPhone it would not be a Nokia. Sorry but I think the Samsung S4 or HTC One are far better phones than any by Nokia. I would also prefer a LG or Sony over a Nokia. I also prefer Android to Windows phone so I would have no interest in buying a Windows phone to begin with. I do not see this as a positive move by Microsoft and will likely lead to even fewer apps for Windows Phone. They do not need 1 million apps like iOS or Android. Most people only have a 100 or less on their phones and use maybe 20 regularly if that. All they need is to have versions of the top 10,000 or so available from competing platforms and tis is the way to do the opposite.
But folks, - don't forget that the great Bill Gates himself will return to provide guidance for Microsofts future technologies. /s
If they can make a touch UI and desktop UI work together so well, they can add an Android in there too and have a seamless triple pack in Windows 9! The kitchen sink OS!
What an insane race to the bottom that would be.
Insane if it's true. I just read a nice history of OS/2 that said one of the main problems was that it was marketed as running Windows apps better than Windows - which meant that nobody bothered writing OS/2 apps anymore since they could just write Windows and let users run it on either. Aaaand... Hey look, OS/2 had very few native apps!
So now they're going to try to kill their Metro (or whatever they're calling it) development? What's the upside? Android devices are cheaper, you get even fewer developers to do native apps... Is this Ballmer's last stake through the heart of the company, or is the new guy going to see if he can kill it even faster?
It's not open anymore
I'd prefer the return of Baller myself.
Then they decided that they didn't want to have to go through the Windows' malware syndrome again. There are numerous reports about the Android ecosystem being worse, from a security standpoint, then Windows 95, 97, or XP ever were.
Reeks of desperation, but it's definitely Windows. Actually, my description above also reeks of Linux distros.
There can never be anything close to the malware/viruses that plagued XP.
Can you imagine what people would say if Apple ever offered a way to run Windows on their hardware?
But making it possible to compile an Android app into a WP app package for the WP store could be a great idea. That way as far as the public is concerned its a WP app. The app store grows as apps would be so quick to port that there would be no reason not to.
The net benefit in the could then lead to more apps being built natively for WP if the customer base grows.
I like your style. Unfortunately, this is the opposite situation. Apple didn’t do that for Mac adoption.
While that wasn’t their strategy it has helped with Mac adoption. No matter how many companies try there's nothing built quite like a MBP, and if you remember it was actually voted the best Windows laptop last year.
The problem I see is that nobody actually wants to develop for Android in the first place, they do so only with a gun pointed at their head, they would much rather develop for Windows Phone, but nobody wants a Windows Phone, not when Microsoft throws the platform away every year. Google "I hate Android Java" and find 2 million hits, do "I hate iOS OBJC" and you get like 100k. That's a 20 fold difference, which one is more profitable? The one that is easy to develop for. Console developers learned this lesson with the PS1/N64 and PS2, and the Dreamcast. Windows CE was not a selling point for the Dreamcast.
What is far more likely to happen is Microsoft will implement a support library (see WOW64 and WOW32, even win32s on win3.1, it's not like they haven't done this before.) This library will run the Android software (but not the entire operating system) on top of the existing device without the bloatware that comes with it. I mean look at how much 32-bit software we're still using on 64-bit OS's because developers are being a stick in the mud (especially Google.) X86-64 PC's will likely require windows 8.1 and the same hardware requirements of Hyper-V (HAXM has those requirements already.)
What gun is that?
Their employers?
The majority of devs don't have employers, so those have chosen freely to develop for Android. It's also much easier than web developing.
The vast majority of professional developers are paid, if they are any good. There is no money to be made on google play ( and not much on average on the App Store). Everybody has their own side project but very few are living off it. Your other statement is incorrect too.