More Astoria and Islandwood thoughts
[update]
I CAN'T BELIEVE I DIDN'T THINK OF THIS EARLIER.
The most common comparison for this is when IBM made OS/2 able to run Win16 apps. The key problem with this comparison is that the death blow wasn't allowing Win16 apps to run on OS/2.
That certainly set the stage and allowed many devs to focus on Win16 development to maximize their investments.
But, what ACTUALLY killed OS/2 was that Win32 *successfully* replaced Win16. As long as people continued to write Win16 apps, OS/2 had no problems. Consumers don't care if the app is Win16 or OS/2 native, they only care that it is there.
This is highly important because Win32 subsequently became so pervasive that even Microsoft has not been able to replace it. And they have tried. TWICE. Win64 and Modern Applications.
Anyone who thinks iOS and Android aren't as pervasive as Win32 is crazy. So, anyone who thinks that even if Android and iOS gets the devs that they can just kill off those platforms to stop Microsoft's efforts is also crazy.
[/update]
Read through this article this morning. It goes into things on a more technical level than I did and also brought up a few more interesting points why this isn't as suicidal as the IBM OS/2 or the BlackBerry Android endeavour.
Firstly, the OS/2 approach allowed developers to completely forget about native application development and focus solely on Win16 whereas the store submission step for both approaches and project changes on both also mean you can't just be oblivious and get the benefits for free.
Other differences are the ability to adapt systems and the size of the audience.
I spoke to this first one before as well. But this article added a new dimension. Android has no control over its ecosystem and phones rarely receive OS updates after launch. This means that new APIs tend to have a slow adoption rate and an even slower user adoption rate. In the Android ecosystems users get access to new APIs when they replace their phone. And THAT gives Microsoft a huge window of time to react to OS level changes in Android.
The same topic but for Apple is different. Apple does upgrade devices and it is actually quite successful. There is an infographic part way through this article which shows Android compared to Apple. iOS 8, the latest version, already runs on 78% of devices. The latest Android version is on only 5.4% and you have to combine the last 3 Android releases just to reach that same mark. Even the last 2 Android releases don't yet account for half of the eco system. So, does Microsoft need to be worried about Apple development?
I can't find hard metrics on this one. But I would have to guess that the answer is "more so than Google, but probably still not really". Yes, iOS devices are kept much more up to date, and thus there is much more incentive to adopt newer API's earlier on. But implementing a new API isn't "free" and isn't always relevant to an existing app. You need a use case for it and you need to learn how to use it. I always found new API adoption to be rather slow both among existing apps. And even to a degree on new apps. And, if it isn't a killer feature it won't matter much anyway.
The second difference was audience size. BlackBerry's user base had already shrunk considerably by the time they pushed the button on this one and the move didn't inherently do anything that would help. Microsoft isn't just making a similar move, it also comes a potentially much larger audience. Especially for iOS apps which will just be compiled as regular Windows Store apps and can thus easily target the whole MS ecosystem. BB also didn't have an ecosystem beyond phones (and a virtually non-existent tablet market).
I don't want to be mistaken here though. This is still a gamble. But no where near as big a one as everyone seems to make it out to be. Situation is much different than OS/2 or even BlackBerry. And I would say that BlackBerry pushed the button WAY too late, whereas Microsoft still has enough mind share I think that it is early enough in the game to give them a fighting chance. Holding out on such a move seems like it could easily be more costly in the long run.
I CAN'T BELIEVE I DIDN'T THINK OF THIS EARLIER.
The most common comparison for this is when IBM made OS/2 able to run Win16 apps. The key problem with this comparison is that the death blow wasn't allowing Win16 apps to run on OS/2.
That certainly set the stage and allowed many devs to focus on Win16 development to maximize their investments.
But, what ACTUALLY killed OS/2 was that Win32 *successfully* replaced Win16. As long as people continued to write Win16 apps, OS/2 had no problems. Consumers don't care if the app is Win16 or OS/2 native, they only care that it is there.
This is highly important because Win32 subsequently became so pervasive that even Microsoft has not been able to replace it. And they have tried. TWICE. Win64 and Modern Applications.
Anyone who thinks iOS and Android aren't as pervasive as Win32 is crazy. So, anyone who thinks that even if Android and iOS gets the devs that they can just kill off those platforms to stop Microsoft's efforts is also crazy.
[/update]
Read through this article this morning. It goes into things on a more technical level than I did and also brought up a few more interesting points why this isn't as suicidal as the IBM OS/2 or the BlackBerry Android endeavour.
Firstly, the OS/2 approach allowed developers to completely forget about native application development and focus solely on Win16 whereas the store submission step for both approaches and project changes on both also mean you can't just be oblivious and get the benefits for free.
Other differences are the ability to adapt systems and the size of the audience.
I spoke to this first one before as well. But this article added a new dimension. Android has no control over its ecosystem and phones rarely receive OS updates after launch. This means that new APIs tend to have a slow adoption rate and an even slower user adoption rate. In the Android ecosystems users get access to new APIs when they replace their phone. And THAT gives Microsoft a huge window of time to react to OS level changes in Android.
The same topic but for Apple is different. Apple does upgrade devices and it is actually quite successful. There is an infographic part way through this article which shows Android compared to Apple. iOS 8, the latest version, already runs on 78% of devices. The latest Android version is on only 5.4% and you have to combine the last 3 Android releases just to reach that same mark. Even the last 2 Android releases don't yet account for half of the eco system. So, does Microsoft need to be worried about Apple development?
I can't find hard metrics on this one. But I would have to guess that the answer is "more so than Google, but probably still not really". Yes, iOS devices are kept much more up to date, and thus there is much more incentive to adopt newer API's earlier on. But implementing a new API isn't "free" and isn't always relevant to an existing app. You need a use case for it and you need to learn how to use it. I always found new API adoption to be rather slow both among existing apps. And even to a degree on new apps. And, if it isn't a killer feature it won't matter much anyway.
The second difference was audience size. BlackBerry's user base had already shrunk considerably by the time they pushed the button on this one and the move didn't inherently do anything that would help. Microsoft isn't just making a similar move, it also comes a potentially much larger audience. Especially for iOS apps which will just be compiled as regular Windows Store apps and can thus easily target the whole MS ecosystem. BB also didn't have an ecosystem beyond phones (and a virtually non-existent tablet market).
I don't want to be mistaken here though. This is still a gamble. But no where near as big a one as everyone seems to make it out to be. Situation is much different than OS/2 or even BlackBerry. And I would say that BlackBerry pushed the button WAY too late, whereas Microsoft still has enough mind share I think that it is early enough in the game to give them a fighting chance. Holding out on such a move seems like it could easily be more costly in the long run.
Comments
Post a Comment