One more reason on Android on Windows wouldn't kill UWP dev.
A common argument has been that allowing Android apps to run on Windows (or Windows Phone) would ruin incentive to write native apps for Microsoft's platform. And a lot of them reference how OS/2 killed itself in much the same fashion.
I've already argued a number of other reasons why the scenario isn't the same, and thus why there is really no precedent to follow here. But, there are yet other reasons.
Reading about AmiDuOS and Microsoft's own efforts with their Android Bridge (Project Astoria) what you end up with is something that is actually sorely lacking in the Android ecosystem. A consistent target. Yes, we've all heard the Android fragmentation argument a million times over. And you keep hearing it because it truly exists. And these virtualization layers actually end up representing a more stable target than standard Android (whatever that may be).
In other words, there is a chance that if these virtualization/emulation layers get reasonable adoption that developers might actually favor targeting these over certain real Android device. Of course, if a developer is writing for Android first, they will probably make sure it works on Nexus devices and big sellers like Samsung's flagship phones. But, for others, it might mean that Android apps actually run better on Windows devices than on their Android phones.
That could (slowly, and over time) lead to an increase in market share for Windows 10 mobile.
If the consumers start migrating to a new ecosystem, developers will either follow or at least start paying attention. The reason is simple. Even if an Android app runs on Windows, it won't be able to make the most of the platform. So, either a competing app will displace you, or you'll need to target Windows 10 directly to stay competitive.
The problem with the theory is in the wording; if Android apps run on Windows then there is no reason to write Windows apps. The statement, if read as a figure of speech or a broad statement is fairly accurate. But, taken literally and at face value, is completely wrong.
Native apps will always have an edge in several areas over a non-native app. Today, with most consumers owning Android phones, the ROI simply isn't there to make taking advantage of those native features worthwhile.
If a Microsoft sanctioned means or other popular means of running Android apps on Windows Phones became popular, the short term effect would most likely be a loss of ecosystem developers. But, the loss could certainly be short-lived. As stated, their emulation/virtualization layer would be an appealing target for Android developers. For consumers, it would mean that a Windows Phone could run both Android and UWP apps, but an Android phone could just run Android apps.
Beyond the apps, both platforms have very different operating systems which might entice different users for different reasons. If the app gap could be closed, I think the Windows Phone user base could definitely grow enough to re-invigorate native app development.
I've already argued a number of other reasons why the scenario isn't the same, and thus why there is really no precedent to follow here. But, there are yet other reasons.
Reading about AmiDuOS and Microsoft's own efforts with their Android Bridge (Project Astoria) what you end up with is something that is actually sorely lacking in the Android ecosystem. A consistent target. Yes, we've all heard the Android fragmentation argument a million times over. And you keep hearing it because it truly exists. And these virtualization layers actually end up representing a more stable target than standard Android (whatever that may be).
In other words, there is a chance that if these virtualization/emulation layers get reasonable adoption that developers might actually favor targeting these over certain real Android device. Of course, if a developer is writing for Android first, they will probably make sure it works on Nexus devices and big sellers like Samsung's flagship phones. But, for others, it might mean that Android apps actually run better on Windows devices than on their Android phones.
That could (slowly, and over time) lead to an increase in market share for Windows 10 mobile.
If the consumers start migrating to a new ecosystem, developers will either follow or at least start paying attention. The reason is simple. Even if an Android app runs on Windows, it won't be able to make the most of the platform. So, either a competing app will displace you, or you'll need to target Windows 10 directly to stay competitive.
The problem with the theory is in the wording; if Android apps run on Windows then there is no reason to write Windows apps. The statement, if read as a figure of speech or a broad statement is fairly accurate. But, taken literally and at face value, is completely wrong.
Native apps will always have an edge in several areas over a non-native app. Today, with most consumers owning Android phones, the ROI simply isn't there to make taking advantage of those native features worthwhile.
If a Microsoft sanctioned means or other popular means of running Android apps on Windows Phones became popular, the short term effect would most likely be a loss of ecosystem developers. But, the loss could certainly be short-lived. As stated, their emulation/virtualization layer would be an appealing target for Android developers. For consumers, it would mean that a Windows Phone could run both Android and UWP apps, but an Android phone could just run Android apps.
Beyond the apps, both platforms have very different operating systems which might entice different users for different reasons. If the app gap could be closed, I think the Windows Phone user base could definitely grow enough to re-invigorate native app development.
Comments
Post a Comment