The main reason why I think this is actually going to attract lots of iOS developers is that the same binary will also run on Xbox and HoloLens, assuming that Microsoft enables support for those devices. Windows 10 automatically optimises the UI depending on the target device on which the binary is running, so there is zero (or very little) extra work required.
I mean, which iOS developer wouldn't want their apps available on Xbox or HoloLens? I bet most would love to have their apps available on HoloLens!
How in the world else are they going to get developers interested in selling apps outside of the Apple ecosystem? They're toast at this point.
I'm not even sure what this means? Almost all popular apps are already available outside of the "Apple ecosystem" - or in other words, been ported to Android. This just gives developers another option - to port their apps to windows, using the same language with only minimal changes. If all is as advertised this should be an easier port than going to Android. And if MS meets their goal of 1B windows 10 devices in 3 years, that will be a very large market to expand to.
Will Obj-C truly be a first class citizen on Windows? Meaning, will you be able to do everything you can with native Windows APIs (now and in the future), will an app developed in Obj-C look and behave like a native Windows app, etc.
Uh huh. That's almost the last thing they think about. Google Glass is the last thing they think about.
There is absolutely no comparison between Google Glass and HoloLens. The HoloLens is leagues ahead in terms of capability. Besides, the two devices are aimed at totally different markets.
Hopefully, this will help their app store. I recently bought a Dell Venue 8 tablet that runs full Windows. There is not one decent ePub eReader app in their app store. And no basic reading PDF app. There is Foxit Reader.
What I have been reading is that Windows 10 users are running Android apps in Windows (there are several ways to do this). I'm sure MS wants people to keep that quiet.
Anyway, MS SHOULD have kept their RT software for tablets and phones. Full Windows tablets feel a bit Frankenstein and you often have to bounce into full windows mode to make changes or use apps. And with a small tablet, that's not easy.
With that said, Windows 8.1 is very fluid and nice and a nice break from iOS and OS X. MS did an excellent job with it. They just need a better app store.
Well, Objective-C and NeXTSTEP used to run on Windows NT. Also, Microsoft had previously sold Visual Studio for Mac OS, before OS X. This was all a long time ago, however. Just a footnote in history. Most people didn't know Microsoft had sold a version of Unix, before OS/2 was a thing.
NextStep was an OS (same mach Microkernel under BSD that eventually became OS X) it was not run under NT.
You are most likely thinking of one of the things; YellowBox, was an API available under NT that would aid/allow to port/compile NextStep apps in NT. Additionally NextStep was available for generic winter hardware (but was not run under NT, though you could set it up in a dual boot configuration (similar to boot camp))
NextStep was an OS (same mach Microkernel under BSD that eventually became OS X) it was not run under NT.
You are most likely thinking of one of the things; YellowBox, was an API available under NT that would aid/allow to port/compile NextStep apps in NT. Additionally <span style="line-height:1.4em;">NextStep was available for generic winter hardware (but was not run under NT, though you could set it up in a dual boot configuration (similar to boot camp))</span>
I guess I should've been more precise. The thing that NeXT sold that included Objective-C and the NeXT object libraries (Foundation Kit, Application Kit) which ran on Windows NT was called OpenStep. Search for it on Wikipedia. It did not include the OS kernel from NeXTSTEP.
Third the libraries will continue to be the same, it's the whole point of Swift that it's interoperable with ObjC and that they share the same object models and API. Apple isn't going down the road of two similar yet distinct APIs with subtly different bugs and semantics; if they start doing that it's time to sell Apple stock...
Well, if you decide to sell Apple stock, let me know and I'll buy it from you!
Isn't this basically like making Blackberry run Android Apps? Look how that's turned out. It's done nothing. and Blackberry is still going downhill.
To me it doesn't seem good to be running Apps form another platform. Why not just run that platform instead. In this case, why not just go get a Android phone and cut out the middle man, which in this case is BlackBerry. I just don't see this helping much for Windows. When you have limited Resources and time, you're going to spent your effort on a platform with a whole lot of users that will in the end, pay you money. More money then what it cost to make that app in the first place. At least you hope so. Even being easy to convert and stick in MS App store. it still takes a little effort.
I guess it doesn't hurt to try, but there's really no where to go after this if Windows Phone still doesn't go anywhere.
Isn't this basically like making Blackberry run Android Apps? Look how that's turned out. It's done nothing. and Blackberry is still going downhill.
To me it doesn't seem good to be running Apps form another platform. Why not just run that platform instead. In this case, why not just go get a Android phone and cut out the middle man, which in this case is BlackBerry. I just don't see this helping much for Windows. When you have limited Resources and time, you're going to spent your effort on a platform with a whole lot of users that will in the end, pay you money. More money then what it cost to make that app in the first place. At least you hope so. Even being easy to convert and stick in MS App store. it still takes a little effort.
I guess it doesn't hurt to try, but there's really no where to go after this if Windows Phone still doesn't go anywhere.
I think BB was behind the BB running android apps. These Android on Windows are via a 3rd party solution.
Apple deprecates Objective-C. In other news, Microsoft adopts Objective-C.
1. Objective-C isn't deprecated.
2. Despite the hype around Swift, there's currently orders of magnitude more Objective-C code out there than Swift code.
3. Swift is not ready for prime time yet. There are still a lot of C-based APIs that are impossible to use without putting an Objective-C shim in the middle, it still takes forever to compile, and the syntax hasn't stabilized yet. Swift is not yet suitable large, serious projects, however fun it may be to hobbyists.
4. Even if Swift were ready yet, Apple hasn't released the source. The only way for Microsoft (or anyone else) to implement Swift on another platform right now would be to reverse engineer it, which would probably run into all sorts of legal issues.
If you guys want to make fun of MS for something, why not put up an article about their new "Edge" browser, which seeks to distance itself from the horrible reputation of IE by changing the name, but then undermines that making the icon so similar to the old IE icon that you barely notice the difference?
How in the world else are they going to get developers interested in selling apps outside of the Apple ecosystem? They're toast at this point.
They couldn't even get buyers to buy, or developers to port Windows apps over to Windows RT (the badly-named ARM version of Windows). The unsold inventory of Surface RTs, not to mention Microsoft partners' reluctance to build ARM Windows tablets, shows how out of touch Ballmer was. I think at one point, Microsoft was paying developers to port apps over. Just like how Microsoft would give away FloRida concert tickets for people to show up at a Microsoft Store grand opening.
They couldn't even get buyers to buy, or developers to port Windows apps over to Windows RT (the badly-named ARM version of Windows). The unsold inventory of Surface RTs, not to mention Microsoft partners' reluctance to build ARM Windows tablets, shows how out of touch Ballmer was.
They should make a version of Windows 10 that installs on the iPhone. Just like they did with the desktop, forget about hardware and focus on software which they're reasonably good at. I would certainly try out Windows on my iPad, provided there was a way to reinstall iOS afterwards if needed.
The main reason why I think this is actually going to attract lots of iOS developers is that the same binary will also run on Xbox and HoloLens, assuming that Microsoft enables support for those devices. Windows 10 automatically optimises the UI depending on the target device on which the binary is running, so there is zero (or very little) extra work required.
Unless you want your app to look good of course!
If this lackadaisical kind of thinking is common among Windows developers, it's really no mystery how come your average Mac app is miles ahead of your average Windows app in terms of quality.
Experience tells us that their latest attempt at luring Android/iOS apps over Windows Phone will fail, just like it did for RIM when they tried something similar.
It'll be mostly ignored by developers, not just because 3% of the market using 100$ phones isn't exactly a very desired market.
But also because Microsofts method of porting apps may in principle be quick and easy, but it doesn't translate the Google/Apple frameworks and tools like GameCenter or iCloud which the vast majority of apps use, and which aren't easily replaced.
I mean, which iOS developer wouldn't want their apps available on Xbox or HoloLens? I bet most would love to have their apps available on HoloLens!
Ehm, anyone smart enough to realize that a great smartphone app, doesn't necessarily translate to a great experience on a game console.
As for Hololens, anyone who's really interested in VR already have an alternative that isn't vapor ware (so far, at least...) in Oculus Rift. While Hololens hardware isn't even ready for early developers, Oculus Rift is not only available. It doesn't even require a major investment in new hardware, if you already have a Samsung Galaxy.
Will Obj-C truly be a first class citizen on Windows? Meaning, will you be able to do everything you can with native Windows APIs (now and in the future), will an app developed in Obj-C look and behave like a native Windows app, etc.
Microsoft the monopolist playing dirty to extinguish the competition is long dead and gone. It's been replaced with Microsoft the has-been, begging developers to not completely disregard them, and trying to convince the industry that there is room for a third ecosystem on mobile.
There is absolutely no comparison between Google Glass and HoloLens. The HoloLens is leagues ahead in terms of capability. Besides, the two devices are aimed at totally different markets.
Also: While neither has been released and they're both possibly years away from wide availability, Glass actually has developers. Hololens is mere vapor ware at this point.
Isn't this basically like making Blackberry run Android Apps? Look how that's turned out. It's done nothing. and Blackberry is still going downhill.
To me it doesn't seem good to be running Apps form another platform. Why not just run that platform instead. In this case, why not just go get a Android phone and cut out the middle man, which in this case is BlackBerry. I just don't see this helping much for Windows.
You're right: It IS like BB10, and just like with RIM's Android runtime it won't do much for the platform.
If Microsofts answer to "the app gap" is "It runs Android apps!" The obvious follow up question is: So why not just get an Android phone then? Especially since Microsoft makes all their services and apps available on Android.
The lack of apps is not the only reason why consumers and the market have rejected Windows Phone.
Porting apps is fairly straightforward these days, since many of them are
made in multi platform toolsets anyways. It's not the difficulty involved that has kept developers from porting their work to Windows Phone. It's the fact that it's a tiny market where the average selling price pr. device is right around 100$.
Comments
This marks the beginning of the end for Microsoft as an OS vendor.
The main reason why I think this is actually going to attract lots of iOS developers is that the same binary will also run on Xbox and HoloLens, assuming that Microsoft enables support for those devices. Windows 10 automatically optimises the UI depending on the target device on which the binary is running, so there is zero (or very little) extra work required.
I mean, which iOS developer wouldn't want their apps available on Xbox or HoloLens? I bet most would love to have their apps available on HoloLens!
How in the world else are they going to get developers interested in selling apps outside of the Apple ecosystem? They're toast at this point.
I'm not even sure what this means? Almost all popular apps are already available outside of the "Apple ecosystem" - or in other words, been ported to Android. This just gives developers another option - to port their apps to windows, using the same language with only minimal changes. If all is as advertised this should be an easier port than going to Android. And if MS meets their goal of 1B windows 10 devices in 3 years, that will be a very large market to expand to.
Objective-C is here for the long haul as it slowly helps transform Swift into less like C .
A couple of concerns based on past experience:
Also, curious to know if they based their work off of the Cocotron project?
Uh huh. That's almost the last thing they think about. Google Glass is the last thing they think about.
Uh huh. That's almost the last thing they think about. Google Glass is the last thing they think about.
There is absolutely no comparison between Google Glass and HoloLens. The HoloLens is leagues ahead in terms of capability. Besides, the two devices are aimed at totally different markets.
Hopefully, this will help their app store. I recently bought a Dell Venue 8 tablet that runs full Windows. There is not one decent ePub eReader app in their app store. And no basic reading PDF app. There is Foxit Reader.
What I have been reading is that Windows 10 users are running Android apps in Windows (there are several ways to do this). I'm sure MS wants people to keep that quiet.
Anyway, MS SHOULD have kept their RT software for tablets and phones. Full Windows tablets feel a bit Frankenstein and you often have to bounce into full windows mode to make changes or use apps. And with a small tablet, that's not easy.
With that said, Windows 8.1 is very fluid and nice and a nice break from iOS and OS X. MS did an excellent job with it. They just need a better app store.
Well, Objective-C and NeXTSTEP used to run on Windows NT. Also, Microsoft had previously sold Visual Studio for Mac OS, before OS X. This was all a long time ago, however. Just a footnote in history. Most people didn't know Microsoft had sold a version of Unix, before OS/2 was a thing.
NextStep was an OS (same mach Microkernel under BSD that eventually became OS X) it was not run under NT.
You are most likely thinking of one of the things; YellowBox, was an API available under NT that would aid/allow to port/compile NextStep apps in NT. Additionally NextStep was available for generic winter hardware (but was not run under NT, though you could set it up in a dual boot configuration (similar to boot camp))
I guess I should've been more precise. The thing that NeXT sold that included Objective-C and the NeXT object libraries (Foundation Kit, Application Kit) which ran on Windows NT was called OpenStep. Search for it on Wikipedia. It did not include the OS kernel from NeXTSTEP.
Well, if you decide to sell Apple stock, let me know and I'll buy it from you!
Isn't this basically like making Blackberry run Android Apps? Look how that's turned out. It's done nothing. and Blackberry is still going downhill.
To me it doesn't seem good to be running Apps form another platform. Why not just run that platform instead. In this case, why not just go get a Android phone and cut out the middle man, which in this case is BlackBerry. I just don't see this helping much for Windows. When you have limited Resources and time, you're going to spent your effort on a platform with a whole lot of users that will in the end, pay you money. More money then what it cost to make that app in the first place. At least you hope so. Even being easy to convert and stick in MS App store. it still takes a little effort.
I guess it doesn't hurt to try, but there's really no where to go after this if Windows Phone still doesn't go anywhere.
Apple should make a Mac tablet.
Isn't this basically like making Blackberry run Android Apps? Look how that's turned out. It's done nothing. and Blackberry is still going downhill.
To me it doesn't seem good to be running Apps form another platform. Why not just run that platform instead. In this case, why not just go get a Android phone and cut out the middle man, which in this case is BlackBerry. I just don't see this helping much for Windows. When you have limited Resources and time, you're going to spent your effort on a platform with a whole lot of users that will in the end, pay you money. More money then what it cost to make that app in the first place. At least you hope so. Even being easy to convert and stick in MS App store. it still takes a little effort.
I guess it doesn't hurt to try, but there's really no where to go after this if Windows Phone still doesn't go anywhere.
I think BB was behind the BB running android apps. These Android on Windows are via a 3rd party solution.
2. Despite the hype around Swift, there's currently orders of magnitude more Objective-C code out there than Swift code.
3. Swift is not ready for prime time yet. There are still a lot of C-based APIs that are impossible to use without putting an Objective-C shim in the middle, it still takes forever to compile, and the syntax hasn't stabilized yet. Swift is not yet suitable large, serious projects, however fun it may be to hobbyists.
4. Even if Swift were ready yet, Apple hasn't released the source. The only way for Microsoft (or anyone else) to implement Swift on another platform right now would be to reverse engineer it, which would probably run into all sorts of legal issues.
If you guys want to make fun of MS for something, why not put up an article about their new "Edge" browser, which seeks to distance itself from the horrible reputation of IE by changing the name, but then undermines that making the icon so similar to the old IE icon that you barely notice the difference?
More like pouring gasoline on a burning people.
They couldn't even get buyers to buy, or developers to port Windows apps over to Windows RT (the badly-named ARM version of Windows). The unsold inventory of Surface RTs, not to mention Microsoft partners' reluctance to build ARM Windows tablets, shows how out of touch Ballmer was. I think at one point, Microsoft was paying developers to port apps over. Just like how Microsoft would give away FloRida concert tickets for people to show up at a Microsoft Store grand opening.
They couldn't even get buyers to buy, or developers to port Windows apps over to Windows RT (the badly-named ARM version of Windows). The unsold inventory of Surface RTs, not to mention Microsoft partners' reluctance to build ARM Windows tablets, shows how out of touch Ballmer was.
They should make a version of Windows 10 that installs on the iPhone. Just like they did with the desktop, forget about hardware and focus on software which they're reasonably good at. I would certainly try out Windows on my iPad, provided there was a way to reinstall iOS afterwards if needed.
Unless you want your app to look good of course!
If this lackadaisical kind of thinking is common among Windows developers, it's really no mystery how come your average Mac app is miles ahead of your average Windows app in terms of quality.
Experience tells us that their latest attempt at luring Android/iOS apps over Windows Phone will fail, just like it did for RIM when they tried something similar.
It'll be mostly ignored by developers, not just because 3% of the market using 100$ phones isn't exactly a very desired market.
But also because Microsofts method of porting apps may in principle be quick and easy, but it doesn't translate the Google/Apple frameworks and tools like GameCenter or iCloud which the vast majority of apps use, and which aren't easily replaced.
Ehm, anyone smart enough to realize that a great smartphone app, doesn't necessarily translate to a great experience on a game console.
As for Hololens, anyone who's really interested in VR already have an alternative that isn't vapor ware (so far, at least...) in Oculus Rift. While Hololens hardware isn't even ready for early developers, Oculus Rift is not only available. It doesn't even require a major investment in new hardware, if you already have a Samsung Galaxy.
Microsoft is in no position to do that.
Microsoft the monopolist playing dirty to extinguish the competition is long dead and gone. It's been replaced with Microsoft the has-been, begging developers to not completely disregard them, and trying to convince the industry that there is room for a third ecosystem on mobile.
Also: While neither has been released and they're both possibly years away from wide availability, Glass actually has developers. Hololens is mere vapor ware at this point.
You're right: It IS like BB10, and just like with RIM's Android runtime it won't do much for the platform.
If Microsofts answer to "the app gap" is "It runs Android apps!" The obvious follow up question is: So why not just get an Android phone then? Especially since Microsoft makes all their services and apps available on Android.
The lack of apps is not the only reason why consumers and the market have rejected Windows Phone.
Porting apps is fairly straightforward these days, since many of them are
made in multi platform toolsets anyways. It's not the difficulty involved that has kept developers from porting their work to Windows Phone. It's the fact that it's a tiny market where the average selling price pr. device is right around 100$.
They did. You may even have heard the name: iPad?