Android Bridge abandoned for making transition too easy...
This one is an interesting topic to me. I won't argue, I felt Android apps on Windows 10 Mobile would have generally been a good thing. But, I had expected the train to get derailed... just for an entirely different reason.
The supposed reasoning for abandoning the Android bridge was that the project was "too successful" and that it would have made it too easy for developers to make an app run on Windows 10 with little or no effort. The justification being that if it is too easy, no one will focus on UWP apps.
As I've argued before, this is just plain backwards thinking. People won't develop UWP apps because the market size sucks. And yes, a short term effect of these bridges could be a loss of some developers to other eco-systems. But, it is a necessary first step. You need to get the users back and the #1 argument against Windows Phone is STILL the app gap. Frankly, there is no point worrying about UWP apps if the ecosystem itself dries up and dies.
Also, as I've argued before, the loss of developers would only be short term if Microsoft gained a sizable market. Native functionality is important in the app market. Every little bit of competitive edge is important in this particular field. Otherwise no one would build iOS or Android apps either, they would just deliver HTML based applications. These app stores are cutthroat environments and consumers rarely buy anything and don't stay interested in things long. As a result, you hear a lot of complaints about apps not taking advantage of platform functionality.
That being said, the iOS bridge lives on, and it sounds like Astoria resources have been re-allocated. But the real question becomes.... why? From what I understand the leap from iOS to UWP via the iOS bridge isn't all that hard. It does require a bit of work, but, by allocating more resources to it, don't they just run the risk of making that one "too successful" as well? If you can't tell, I think the whole thing is ridiculous.
There is actually a damn good reason why it should take zero effort, or as close to it to port an app. You're not going to entice many developers from "the other side" if they need to learn a new programming language to do so. So, the fundamental premise for making these bridges pretty much falls apart when it isn't mindlessly simple. The only companies that will use these bridges are the super rare medium to large sized companies that have been afraid to assign an entire team to a UWP project. Now they might be able to get away with a single developer or really small team. Not a possible solution for indie developers (which, incidentally, end up making most of the popular games).
Personally, I suspected there were would be a myriad of smaller reasons behind this move. Legal reasons being #1. Oracle still has a shot at suing Google over Dalvik. Microsoft's Android emulation layer would undoubtedly lose as well if Google did.
Next would be using emulators at all. Unless that emulator sat side by side the UWP runtime rather some other layer on top of it or another system there would be a cost. And that cost could hurt some lower spec'd devices.
And lastly would be fragmentation. Microsoft would add to the fragmentation of Android, but the real problem is that they would also be burdening their emulator with handling code that tries to fix fragmentation problems on other devices.
The iOS Bridge compiles to UWP code. Which means everything is native (where it can be cross-compiled). iOS code isn't burdened by the device fragmentation plaguing Android and lastly, Apple has open sourced a lot of their programming languages lately which eases most potential legal concerns. iOS also has a more "revered" App Store. App quality is seen as better, especially where both Android and iOS have the same apps.
So, not sure the Android bridge will truly be missed in the long run. The reasons for killing it, if true, are idiotic. But C'est la vie.
The supposed reasoning for abandoning the Android bridge was that the project was "too successful" and that it would have made it too easy for developers to make an app run on Windows 10 with little or no effort. The justification being that if it is too easy, no one will focus on UWP apps.
As I've argued before, this is just plain backwards thinking. People won't develop UWP apps because the market size sucks. And yes, a short term effect of these bridges could be a loss of some developers to other eco-systems. But, it is a necessary first step. You need to get the users back and the #1 argument against Windows Phone is STILL the app gap. Frankly, there is no point worrying about UWP apps if the ecosystem itself dries up and dies.
Also, as I've argued before, the loss of developers would only be short term if Microsoft gained a sizable market. Native functionality is important in the app market. Every little bit of competitive edge is important in this particular field. Otherwise no one would build iOS or Android apps either, they would just deliver HTML based applications. These app stores are cutthroat environments and consumers rarely buy anything and don't stay interested in things long. As a result, you hear a lot of complaints about apps not taking advantage of platform functionality.
That being said, the iOS bridge lives on, and it sounds like Astoria resources have been re-allocated. But the real question becomes.... why? From what I understand the leap from iOS to UWP via the iOS bridge isn't all that hard. It does require a bit of work, but, by allocating more resources to it, don't they just run the risk of making that one "too successful" as well? If you can't tell, I think the whole thing is ridiculous.
There is actually a damn good reason why it should take zero effort, or as close to it to port an app. You're not going to entice many developers from "the other side" if they need to learn a new programming language to do so. So, the fundamental premise for making these bridges pretty much falls apart when it isn't mindlessly simple. The only companies that will use these bridges are the super rare medium to large sized companies that have been afraid to assign an entire team to a UWP project. Now they might be able to get away with a single developer or really small team. Not a possible solution for indie developers (which, incidentally, end up making most of the popular games).
Personally, I suspected there were would be a myriad of smaller reasons behind this move. Legal reasons being #1. Oracle still has a shot at suing Google over Dalvik. Microsoft's Android emulation layer would undoubtedly lose as well if Google did.
Next would be using emulators at all. Unless that emulator sat side by side the UWP runtime rather some other layer on top of it or another system there would be a cost. And that cost could hurt some lower spec'd devices.
And lastly would be fragmentation. Microsoft would add to the fragmentation of Android, but the real problem is that they would also be burdening their emulator with handling code that tries to fix fragmentation problems on other devices.
The iOS Bridge compiles to UWP code. Which means everything is native (where it can be cross-compiled). iOS code isn't burdened by the device fragmentation plaguing Android and lastly, Apple has open sourced a lot of their programming languages lately which eases most potential legal concerns. iOS also has a more "revered" App Store. App quality is seen as better, especially where both Android and iOS have the same apps.
So, not sure the Android bridge will truly be missed in the long run. The reasons for killing it, if true, are idiotic. But C'est la vie.
Comments
Post a Comment