in dramatic fashion Microsoft announced a variety of rather amazing looking devices today but the larger vision seems somewhat blurred.
Both Nadella talked about future trends and have previously talked about ‘the next bend in the curve’ i.e the next big thing. but they may just have given all that ground to google. Today they announced three key future leaning devices
1 – Surface Pro X – a slimline ARM (snapdragon 8cx) based surface pro likely running windows 10 on ARM
2 – Surface Neo – a intel Lakefield based dual screen journal like tablet that runs windows 10 X
3 – surface Duo – a snapdragon 855 based dual screen phone that runs android.
You can probably see the problem here, in Microsoft future vision there isn’t a consistent hardware platform bet, intel or ARM, there isn’t a consistent app platform bet, win32 app, UWP, android apps. And to add to all that there isn’t a consistent operating system bet now with windows 10, 10x and ANDROID?
So what’s the message here, ‘we don’t really care a creating a cohesive system, as long a we have some Microsoft logos on sh*t who cares’
Don’t get me wrong as usual the hardware is gorgeous, I even buy into the dual screens thing.
But this whole ‘achieve more do more’ thing is bullcrap
The NEO will likely run photoshop faster than the pro x (because of native x86 vs emulation). Nor will the neo run Android apps (seemingly) which are key to a small form factor.
The DUO will never run full fat photoshop, why would you want to run full fat photoshop on a mobile device, I DON’T I want to be able to dock it into a monitor and run a full windows desktop not some neutered android desktop environment.
The pro X will never truly be a ‘pro’ device because any pro\ desktop apps on windows will take 25% performance hit due to emulation.
Then comes the plea for developers, please develop dual screen apps for Microsoft, well hell no, why should we build brand new apps for you if you’re using android and android manufactures will build their own dual screen devices, well just update our existing android apps thanks, windows be damned
Microsoft SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT BACK ANDROID APPS ON WINDOWS! The duo and the neo for that matter, should have been windows 10 X based devices that ran android in some sort of emulated/containerised fashion. Then Microsoft could say the android apps are fall backs to fill any gaps for mobile scenarios (banking apps, social media etc) for PRODCUTIVTY SCENARIOS we have win32 and UWP etc. Dual screens apps should target win32 and UWP NOT android. Why not android ( I don’t have any inherent hatred for android I use a Huawei p20 pro), because it kills the rest of the windows ecosystem!!!!!!! It will make hololens worse, it will make windows 10 x worse, it will make any future consumer-oriented products worse because all developers will run towards the DUO why because developing for duo is also developing for the galaxy fold the huawei mate x.
The only thing I can think of that can fix this is if Microsoft figure out a way (maybe through Xamarin) to merge UWP and android apps such that any hybrid app can run NATIVELY on both android and windows and has all the features of UWP namely it can adapt to any form factor. At the end of the day, the modern apps that windows desperately need’s to stay relevant will NOT be coming less Microsoft forces it by using android apps on windows. I’ll probably still get a duo depending on the price but this is very disheartening that Microsoft has essentially given up.
“The operating system is no longer the most important layer for us,” he says. “What is most important for us is the app model and the experience. How people are going to write apps for Duo and Neo will have a lot more to do with each other than just writing a Windows app or an Android app, because it’s going to be about the Microsoft graph.” Satya Nadella
<p>I still wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft cancels one or more of these devices before 20H2.</p>
<blockquote><em><a href="#474395">In reply to anderb:</a></em></blockquote><p>I was thinking the same thing, when I read that part of the announcements. I’ll be semi-shocked if the foldable devices actually see the light of day.</p>
<p>There is an article on the Verge which literally says that Google won (the article also accounts for the browser). That said, I don't see what other options they (msft) have.</p>
<p>Android was the clear choice for a phone. Full stop. End of discussion.</p><p><br></p><p>Android apps on windows is a bad idea. Android apps are garbage on anything except a phone screen. Android apps at a tablet/laptop size are almost exclusively terrible, and i say that as someone who owns and uses two android tablets every single day. Android is a bad experience on that size of device.</p><p><br></p><p>But on the phone, yes, it was the correct decision. Android has 80% of the worldwide market. Trying to do anything else would have resulted in another failure like Windows Phone 7, 8, and Windows Mobile 10.</p>
<blockquote><em><a href="#474593">In reply to wunderbar:</a></em></blockquote><p>'Android apps are garbage on anything except a phone screen' precisely so why is Microsoft asking developers to improve android apps to be better on what ostensibly a tablet class device.</p><p><br></p><p>Microsoft should have added android apps to windows for the duo and said categorically if you want a first class dual screen experience develop on UWP etc because we are all in on dual screens and we have dozens of partners lined up to make dual screen WINDOWS device not android.</p><p><br></p><p>what incentive is there for both oems and developers to adopt the neo form factor and put windows on it? the surface neo will have no 3rd party dual screen apps. both oems and developers will move to android. oems can just add a skin to Android and have a library of android apps that are inevitably going to support dual screen. and developers are obviously going to stick with extending their existing apps on android to be more productive rather than create a brand new app for windows. </p><p><br></p><p>Android apps on windows as a stopgap solution was the clear choice NOT Android OS</p>
<blockquote><em><a href="#475074">In reply to Attiq:</a></em></blockquote><p>It's not a tablet class device. 5.6" screens, even if there are two of them are actually small by today's standards.</p>
<blockquote><em><a href="#475074">In reply to Attiq:</a></em></blockquote><p><em>'Android apps are garbage on anything except a phone screen' precisely so why is Microsoft asking developers to improve android apps to be better on what ostensibly a tablet class device.</em></p><p><br></p><p>Hmmm…well, the Duo isn't really a "tablet class device" though. IF it was a foldable display device instead of a dual screen advice; then I'd be more on board with your reasoning. </p><p><br></p><p>But I see it as a phone with two screens instead of a phone that "folds out into a tablet". So I think it would be most often used with multiple smaller apps running, instead of one big one that spans screens (which would look odd anyway with the hinge separating the displays).</p>
<blockquote><em><a href="#474593">In reply to wunderbar:</a></em></blockquote><p>But the great thing about windows in Windows is.. they don't have to fill the entire screen. Android apps would look fine in smaller phone shaped windows. And with the way the Your Phone app is going, you can use all your phone apps on your desktop / laptop / whatever anyway, without having to get your actual phone out if you don't want to. Including voice calls.</p>
<p>It is a strange new world we live in. As a UWP dev I can say today's announcement made me excited about how my app will work on the Surface Neo. But I don't think it would work on the Duo. I have other app ideas and when I think about how I'd make them it would be .Net common app logic core with different shells for Web, Windows, Android, and iOS. Cross platform tech like Xamarin, React Native, Cordova, PWA or whatever are never as good of a user experience. Not as responsive, not as natural, not as reliable etc. </p><p><br></p><p>So it seems to me Microsoft took stock of the current dev options and accepted that they cannot just sit around and wait for .Net 5 and some new XAML everywhere vapor ware. They shouldn't rush something incomplete. They need to compete. </p><p><br></p><p>I there are probably a lot of confused cautious conversations happening at Google about how this affects their tech strategy. Now Android and Chromium improvements help Microsoft. </p><p><br></p><p>Microsoft is making a bet that paying customers care more about making progress, being productive, and the tools they work with than the underlying OS or tech stack used to bring them their tools. We'll see how it plays out. </p>
<blockquote><em><a href="#474615">In reply to TheJoeFin:</a></em></blockquote><p>You think Google is concerned about this at all? I find that hard to believe. Google makes the most used OS in the world. Microsoft is coming out with a device that uses it. Google is concerned? Google is laughing…</p>
<blockquote><em><a href="#476935">In reply to Hypnotoad:</a></em></blockquote><p>"<span style="background-color: rgb(245, 245, 245);">confused cautious conversations"</span></p><p><br></p><p>I don't think Google is concerned. I just think we are in strange times and Google is probably talking about how their plan might be affected by Microsoft building so heavily upon their tech. How might the roadmaps change for Chromium and Android now that Microsoft will sell Google's investments under their own brand. Consumers don't understand operating systems, but they do understand visual branding.</p>
<p>Looks like "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" strategy. Microsoft does not know what would gain traction. </p>
<p>I don't understand the two screen push companies are trying to sell consumers on. It's more like a fad that 3-d TV's were. How many Joe six packs or soccer mom's are going to use this? Most people just want Microsoft to license Android, put it on a single screen and be able to use Microsoft's own services. A audience and base which appears to be in serious decline, anyway. Hope they kill the two screen Neo or offer it as a single screen option. </p><p><br></p><p>The only common hardware is going to be 5g, fiber and wireless backed by Azure to experience Microsoft in the future. Where's my sub to Microsoft+ so I can access them on Android, Apple, and everywhere else? Isn't that the whole point to Azure and cloud computing? I'm really not understanding why Microsoft does not offer a single, simple compelling subscription that encompasses consumers and businesses. A service that follows me to any device or OS I'm on. Short term gain says nickle and dime the customer for each piece, I guess, which is why they always miss the next big thing. </p>
<p>Who says an Android layer on Windows won't happen? This is clearly the first step in a Microsoft/Google partnership. </p><p><br></p><p>It really looks like Microsoft was given some pretty wide leeway with Android, and it's not really that certain that anyone else will get the same treatment. If Google is willing to open up Android to Microsoft that much. If they're that open to interoperability, they may be willing to license the Android runtime as a Windows component.</p><p><br></p><p>Okay so let's start with some caveats. I don't expect Google will let Microsoft simply allow every Windows user to run Android apps. There's a good chance of it, but I don't count on it. The runtime is important to Google. Not just in the present, but because the Android runtime is part of Project Fuchsia.</p><p><br></p><p>If Surface-branded devices can exclusively run Android software and have a "Play Store for Windows" I wouldn't be surprised. It would be a great differentiation for Surface, and also let Google say that they're open to the DoJ without having to give away the farm.</p><p><br></p><p>I mean, what a bonus! Run Android apps on your Surface Pro X? Surface Laptop? Surface Neo? They behave like native apps on the Neo, and interact natively with the Surface Duo. Pop up a little Spotify window on your Surface Studio and control some music while you push yourself deep into some art or coding? Hell yeah!</p><p><br></p><p>I'm totally not saying any of this will happen. Just… there's a lot of possibility for synergy that would help both sides of this partnership. A partnership that reeeeeaaaallly seems pretty deep just at the start.</p>
<blockquote><em><a href="#474970">In reply to jimchamplin:</a></em></blockquote><p>Microsoft has almost built this already. Project Astoria was designed to allow developers to bring Android apps to the Windows platform. It was cancelled in favour of the UWP/Metro platform.</p><p>Google doesn’t entirely own the Android platform as it’s open source. They do have control over the eco-system to some extent since they do own the Play Store though Microsoft could offer Android apps through the Microsoft Store. </p><p>I would have liked to see Windows running on Duo.</p>
<blockquote><em><a href="#474970">In reply to jimchamplin:</a></em></blockquote><p>they explicitly said through the google play store, this isn't a Microsoft owned fork of android its android with a new skin. this is something that any OEM can easily replicate before the DUO even comes out.</p><p><br></p><p>even if they support android apps on windows the fact that they explicitly asked devs to develop productivity apps on android makes the windows store deader than it was two days ago.</p><p><br></p><p>this may not seem like a big deal but the long term play was supposed to be 'we are the guys that help you get stuff done, if you want productivity, you want Microsoft' all the surface devices and even the hololens are productivity oriented, heck even the new earbuds. but none of that is worth a damn if there aren't any 3rd party apps on windows 10x</p><p><br></p><p>think about the new surface pro X, its an arm based device, so it will run arm based apps a lot better than x86, what specialized Arm native apps are there for windows? </p><p><br></p><p>so any new arm based device based on core OS will have no native apps , this includes the Hololens, any future arm surface go, and future surface Neo built on arm instead of intel lakefield</p><p><br></p><p>I agree with Satya that to the consumer the OS layer is largely meaningless, the app layer is where it is at,i was hoping they would do the following:</p><p><br></p><ul><li>Allow android apps to run on windows through a subsystem for Android, </li><li>Add Android apps to the Microsoft store on a reduced 10% commission</li><li>merge Win32, UWP and even Android (they've already done the first two) into one development framework, uwp is largely irrelevant now, but they need to replace uwp with Android apps on their OWN OS</li></ul><p><br></p><p><br></p>
<blockquote><em><a href="#474970">In reply to jimchamplin:</a></em></blockquote><p>I've been wondering how much there is to this talk about a Google/Microsoft partnership. After all, they've been arch-enemies since Steve Ballmer was throwing chairs in his office, and are clearly competing for the same markets. On the other hand, there's significant collaboration on the software engineering side, and just like Microsoft has adopted Chromium, so has Google has adopted Typescript. But I think it's significant that no Google representative was on the stage yesterday, and I can only recall Panos mentioning the company once.</p>
<p>I think the developer strategy is Blazor. It runs on everything with a browser that supports Web Assembly. Client-side Blazor is expected to go GA around May 2020, which would be around the time of Build. Also with .Net 5 expected around September/October 2020. I suspect they will want to push Blazor/.Net 5 as the future app platform.</p><p>What doesn’t make sense to me is Microsoft want to get developers on board. Though are they going to wait 6-7 months now for Build to explain their plan to developers?</p>
<blockquote><em><a href="#475057">In reply to bigbux:</a></em></blockquote><p>I agree that the developer strategy is going to be something cross-platform, and Blazor certainly has a lot going for it. Generally speaking, browser based apps (even if packaged as PWA/Ionic/Cordova) aren't a very good fit for mobile due to inferior performance and more battery drain compared to native apps. If Microsoft can get Blazor to compile to WebAssembly, rather than having IL code interpreted at runtime, that may just tilt the balance enough to make Blazor a viable option for mobile.</p>
<blockquote><em><a href="#475057">In reply to bigbux:</a></em></blockquote><p>Blazor is just the web HTML front end of .NET. The future will be common logic core with a native front end</p>
<blockquote><em><a href="#475270">In reply to TheJoeFin:</a></em></blockquote><p>There appears to be two schools of thought about this. Some argue that apps should look and feel native to the platform, while others prefer a branded experience that is virtually identical across all platforms. The former group will stick to Kotlin/Swift, React Native or Xamarin while the latter is better served by Flutter and various HTML based solutions.</p>
<blockquote><em><a href="#475270">In reply to TheJoeFin:</a></em></blockquote><p>Blazor is presently a .net SPA framework. Though that’s not the long term goal of the project, they are thinking about what Daniel Roth labelled as Blazor Native which would be the rendering of non-Html UI.</p><p>Take a look at Daniel Roths video from .NetConf 2019 called “The Future of Blazor on the Client” on the Microsoft Visual Studio Youtube channel. You can get an idea of where they are going with Blazor at 13:46 you can see a graph that shows the various stages Blazor will go through. </p><p>What I expect to see from the Client-Side Blazor in May will take you up to the Blazor PWA stage. With Hybrid and Native maybe appearing late next year. The end goal is to create an app platform to write once, run everywhere. Currently with the common logic core solution still requires you to write 2-3 different UI for IOS, Android and Windows. Why do that if you can write both the UI and the core logic just once. </p>
<blockquote><em><a href="#475345">In reply to bigbux:</a></em></blockquote><p>If you look at Roth's graph, then consider that Duo is an Android device, you have to ask yourself with Flutter at the bottom, why would one bother with Blazor at all when one could jump straight in with Kotlin, Flutter & Dart? </p><p><br></p><p>Of course Blazor WebAssembly is 7 months away and .NET 5 13 months away. So when MS are talking about getting devs on board, they have to be talking about Google devs, right? </p><p><br></p><p>Kinda says something about the future for Windows devs.</p>
<blockquote><em><a href="#475774">In reply to rmac:</a></em></blockquote><p><em>why would one bother with Blazor at al</em>l </p><p><br></p><p>I would expect the .Net teams answer to be "because you can use the C# you already know and love". Of course for all the developers out there who either do not know or do not love C# there is no reason to bother.</p>
<blockquote><em><a href="#475774">In reply to rmac:</a></em></blockquote><p>I agree alternatives exist that are available right now. Though as maethorechannen points out if you are familiar with the c#/.net stack, you have a direct path for producing an app with the tool chain you are already familiar. </p><p>I would also consider the other advantage of the Blazor route. If you already have line of business applications written in c#/.net. You can save a lot of development time with code reuse instead of rewriting your entire application in JS or any other language for that matter.</p><p>As to your last question, Microsoft needs developers to develop on their app platform. That is because if you develop using Microsoft’s app platform for Android. It should also work out of the box in Windows. Building apps with Flutter, for example, would exclude the Windows platform as it’s aimed for Android and IOS development. I hope we hear more about their strategy in the coming months. It would be daft to put a call to arms out for developers then make them wait seven months for Build.</p><p><br></p>
<blockquote><em><a href="#477098">In reply to bigbux:</a></em></blockquote><p>FWIW, the plan is to have Flutter target virtually all platforms eventually: iOS, Android and Fuchsia are all in production, web is in preview, and desktop targeting (macOS, Linux and Windows) is at a prototype stage. Someone at Microsoft is actually working to make Flutter target UWP, but I'm not sure if it's sanctioned or not.</p>
<p>Microsoft are doing what they normally do – throwing enough stuff against the wall to see what sticks. They've got little right up to this point, so their strategy is, basically, 'we'll just see what sells'. If none of it does, then it's back to the drawing board.</p><p>While they made lots of noise in this presentation, there was little to really get excited about. Everything about trying to run Windows on ARM has fallen flat so far – will this be any different? Their 'foldable' device is basically just two independent screens in a clamshell – all been done before, and won't even be available for over a year! The only winner with the new Surface devices is AMD, who get a look in now, which is good, and a kick in the teeth for Intel.</p><p>I'm not really sure this is a strategy as such, just a hit-and-hope!</p><p><br></p>
<p>From an interview Panos Panay did with The Verge</p><p><br></p><p><a href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/3/20895268/microsoft-surface-duo-foldable-phone-dual-screen-android-hands-on-features-price-photos-video" target="_blank">https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/3/20895268/microsoft-surface-duo-foldable-phone-dual-screen-android-hands-on-features-price-photos-video</a></p><p><br></p><p>———————-</p><p><br></p><p>Panay admits that’s precisely why the Surface Duo runs Android. “Well, because those are the apps you want,” says Panay. “Because there’s hundreds of thousands of apps, and you want them. And [Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella] and I talked about it, and it’s about meeting our customers where they are, where they’re going to be. I don’t think the mobile application platform’s going anywhere anytime soon.”</p><p class="ql-align-center"><br></p><p>“It’s pretty simple. Like, literally, you need the apps.”</p><p><br></p><p>——————————–</p><p><br></p><p><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: rgb(66, 66, 66);">“You want to give customers what they want in the form factor that they’re using. We’ve learned this — let’s put the right operating system on the wrong product or the other way around. But what’s the right operating system for the form factor? And in this case, on mobile devices, Android’s the obvious choice, But anything [bigger than] that, Windows is everything.”</span></p>
<p>Same argument for Edge. They can just work on the user experience and make it work better. </p><p><br></p>
<p>Perhaps they were naive to think that Windows could be adapted to every device known to man and have that be successful?</p><p>I remember the pocket "smart" phones with portable Windows 6.x with a little stylus. It had a Windows desktop and a tiny start menu. I also remember Windows RT.</p><p><br></p><p>Maybe Android was a smart decision.</p>
<p>It would've been naive of Microsoft to release a phone running anything <em>other</em> than Android. I can tell you that, even as a solidly-Windows household (my wife actively dislikes iOS, MacOS, and desktop Linux of basically any flavor) we would not be purchasing a Windows Phone that didn't run Android apps no matter how great the hardware was. </p><p>What they did was the best possible decision in my opinion.</p>
<blockquote><em><a href="#475505">In reply to Daekar:</a></em></blockquote><p>Exactly.</p>
<p>The problem really is Windows app developers. </p>
<blockquote><em><a href="#476419">In reply to codymesh:</a></em></blockquote><p>Isn’t it more accurate to say the problem is the way windows treated app developers? Nearly each new win phone required rebuilt apps. App developers constantly had to rebuild established apps and eventually gave up.</p>
<blockquote><em><a href="#476536">In reply to Greg Green:</a></em></blockquote><p>Windows 10 =/= Windows Phone. If you developed for Windows 10 (or 7/8), there's a good chance that your development investment remains intact, and developers can absolutely take their app forward. Users expect better, but many of these geezers who are Windows "developers" still insist their app still needs to be something from the Windows 9x era.</p>
<blockquote><em><a href="#476419">In reply to codymesh:</a></em></blockquote><p>Playing devil's advocate, you could also say the problem is Windows users, who are wrapped up in their phones (and to a lesser extent, their iPads) and don't engage with their PCs in the same way. </p><p>But like you, I also put a lot of this at the feet of developers (and Microsoft). Coming out of WWDC there is all kinds of excitement and chatter among developers about the new things they're going to do– and sure enough when the updated OS comes out a few months later there are hundreds of apps taking advantage of whatever those new features are. Meanwhile, year after year Microsoft would show off new stuff at Build and it would go nowhere. I just concluded that Windows lacks a critical mass of engaged, forward-looking developers. But many developers will fairly point out that Microsoft made it hard by changing their tools and requiring too much re-work. </p>
<blockquote><em><a href="#476817">In reply to Chris_Kez:</a></em></blockquote><p>It also costs a lot to build an app.</p><p><br></p><p>If a company is paying for it, there is a *very* small chance that they would go Windows-first. (Or Mac-first for that matter.) The only times that makes sense would be for fairly specific vertical market applications (or some other similar driving factor).</p><p><br></p><p>Most companies will employ a web-first approach. *IF* they then decide to do native apps (for whatever reason), they will target iOS / Android. *IF* they then decide they want a "native-ish" experience for desktops, they will try to get away with whatever they can to use a web-first framework such as PWAs (yes, I know), Electron, etc. *IF*, for some reason those technologies won't work for them, then they may entertain a native Windows / Mac / Linux application. </p><p><br></p><p>It is *very* unlikely for nearly any company to desire to pay for a native Windows / Mac / Linux app to be built nowdays.</p><p><br></p><p>If an individual is doing it as a "labor of love" (because it's quite difficult to actually make much money in the current app culture), then that changes the bets a little bit. A developer will probably use the toolchain they prefer (or want to learn, or whatever).</p><p><br></p><p>This is where Microsoft has repeatedly shot itself in the foot, leg, groin, and chest. They change developer tools around way too much without a whole lot of gain. A lot of the loyal developer community have reduced confidence in bringing a tool to Windows. (And I really can't think of many applications an individual or small group would want to make that make sense as Windows-only, or even as Windows-native.)</p><p><br></p><p>(Apple is having this problem with the Mac, which is why you're seeing a huge push to be able to easily port iOS applications within reasonable parameters to "Mac apps".)</p>
<blockquote><em><a href="#476971">In reply to curtisspendlove:</a></em></blockquote><p>Too true, even when that company is Microsoft itself. Just recently their LinkedIn Windows app transformed into a crude "Click this link to open the website button". Seems they can't justify supporting their own platform, even as a PWA!</p>
<blockquote><em><a href="#476817">In reply to Chris_Kez:</a></em></blockquote><p>Windows users are far more engaged than Windows developers give them credit for. People do want apps to make interesting uses for things like their multi-monitor setups and touchscreens/stylus. But this call has gone unheard. The hardware is already here, the software platform is already here, so what's left?</p><p><br></p><p>And yes, Apple developers take advantage of new features. Windows developers? You can't even get them to update their apps to look right on High DPI screens.</p><p><br></p><p>The problem is developers. Windows has absolutely moved and evolved, but Windows apps are frozen in time.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.thurrott.com/forums/microsoft/hardware/thread/was-microsft-naive-to-adopt-android-for-the-surface-duo#476419" target="_blank"><em>In reply to codymesh:</em></a></p><p>Silly app developers, wanting to make money!</p><p>If there's more money to be made developing Android apps than Windows software, either Win32 or UWP, then it shouldn't be surprising developers aren't concentrating on Windows.</p>
<blockquote><em><a href="#476419">In reply to codymesh:</a></em></blockquote><p>lol ah boy.</p><p><br></p><p>Please explain. :)</p>
<p><em>"very disheartening that Microsoft has essentially given up"</em></p><p><br></p><p>I guess when they said "<span style="color: rgb(89, 89, 89); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">for Microsoft with Windows and for our platform it [mobile] is the wrong place for us to lead</span>" you thought they meant something else?</p>
<p>Re processors, there's simply too much existing Win32 software targeted at Intel/AMD processors for MSFT to just give up on Intel/AMD and embrace ARM exclusively. It may not be suicide, but it'd be substantial self-mutilation.</p><p>OTOH, ARM may be the next HUGE thing, so smart to have a presence in that hardware.</p><p>As for phones, it seems MSFT has accepted that there's Android, iOS, and very small fry, with NO MONEY to be made from small fry. Since Apple won't license iOS, that leaves Android as the ONLY available OS for commercially viable phones not made by Apple. IOW, MSFT has no choice but to use Android on phones sold under MSFT brands.</p><p>As for UWP apps able to adapt to any form factor, IOW, one-size-fits-all software, wouldn't it be fair to say there's squat all market for such apps on PCs? The concept of a single app market spanning phones to PCs with tablets, game consoles, IoT and exotica like HoloLens in between has proven to be mirage rather than reality. There could be some overlap for games across Xbox and PCs, but most people use phones and PCs for different things.</p><p>Finally, the sad but inescapable fact that Windows and Office generate well more than half their respective revenues for MSFT's enterprise customers who simply don't give a rat's ass what consumers want. As long as Windows remains essentially one OS for enterprise, SMBs, home office and home leisure/noncommercial use, the design will continue to be what MSFT's enterprise customers demand and all other Windows PC users have to adapt to that. Maybe that means <em>relevance</em> with home leisure/noncommercial users wanes over time, but there may be no way around that other than to return to the pre-XP approach of different Windows OSes for work and outside work. Doesn't seem MSFT has any interest in that.</p>
<p>Nokia during Stephen Elop launched a Nokia android device. Nokia X that was a forked version with Windows apps.</p><p>I think it would be a smart move to continue with that instead of Windows 10 Mobile. Then maybe Microsoft still would be in the mobile business in some way. Now they doing a similar thing again but maybe some years to late.</p><p>Anyway we will see how it goes.</p>
<blockquote><em><a href="#477594">In reply to johnh3:</a></em></blockquote><p>And how did those Nokia phones do? Surely they sold millions of units and carved out a significant mark…..</p><p><br></p><p>Oh right, they flopped. Because they were terrible.</p>
<blockquote><em><a href="#477597">In reply to wunderbar:</a></em></blockquote><blockquote><br></blockquote><blockquote><em>During the short period they was not so terrible with sales in markets like India. The app program Nokia did worked and it was easy to port android app to the Nokia X. As I understand it was many developers who adapt it. It was Nadella that made them flop when ha canceled the program when Microsoft bought Nokia.</em></blockquote><blockquote><br></blockquote><p><br></p>
<blockquote><em><a href="#477597">In reply to wunderbar:</a></em></blockquote><p>Nokia's Windows Phones flopped, too. Was it because they were terrible? </p><p><br></p><p>I guess that's open to debate. But Nokia X failed for a lot of reasons, key among them that they were a last ditch effort to stay in business at a time when the Windows Phone business was failing and Microsoft didn't want to bail them out. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.thurrott.com/forums/microsoft/hardware/thread/was-microsft-naive-to-adopt-android-for-the-surface-duo#477594" target="_blank"><em>In reply to johnh3:</em></a></p><p>Accept it or not, there's no MONEY for MSFT to make in phones except at the very high end and only from the most avid of MSFT fans. Margins are simply too thin for mass market phones other than iPhones and Galaxies. There simply aren't enough potential users of Windows phones or Android phones using quasi-Windows apps (i.e., not Google Play) to attract developers.</p><p>So MSFT's place in mobile is very high-end hardware like the Duo, and applications like Office. MSFT has no interest in LOSING the money necessary to secure 10% of phone hardware market share, and it's the ONLY potential phone hardware maker who'd use a MSFT OS or Android with a MSFT app store.</p>
<blockquote><em><a href="#477745">In reply to hrlngrv:</a></em></blockquote><p>And Samsung is the only one of the pair to make a mass market phone. Apple only make high end phones, even their XR is high mid-range. Samsung, Hauwei are very successful with low end phones and Xaiomi, Oppo, Nokia and a few others, like Wicko, fight for the scraps of the mass market.</p><p>Samsung and Hauwei are also fairly successful in the high end market with thei Galaxy S, Note and Pn and Mate series of phones. But the majority of their sales come from the low end devices.</p>
<blockquote><em><a href="#478076">In reply to wright_is:</a></em></blockquote><p>I bet that the majority of their profits come from flagships, not low-end handsets. </p>
Stay up to date with the latest tech news from Thurrott.com!
"*" indicates required fields