Lots of talk and debate about the Andromeda device lately, particularly about the dual screen aspect of the device, but I don’t think having 2 screens is all that important at all. Sure, it’s cool and new and it opens some new possibilities, but that’s not why I’m so eager for the device. Here’s why I badly want to see Andromeda announced: the chips in the newest high-end smartphones are so fast/powerful that it’s a shame and a waste that they are confined to a smartphone. The vast majority of iPhone users do not need an A11 for what they are doing. The right thing for customers would be to allow them to use their super powerful and expensive smartphones to power tablets and laptops/desktop monitors, which would save them a significant amount of money (and other advantages). Obviously Apple will never do this, and I can’t see Google doing this with Android/Chrome OS (because how on earth would that work? A Chrome OS powered phone? Would it dual-boot? They just wouldn’t do this). Having a phone that runs ACTUAL Windows, capable of running win32 programs when plugged into a display, that is not a niche device, that has mass appeal. That actually could be disruptive. Soon, Windows 10 will run well on ARM, and later next year ARM Windows devices could run even better than Intel powered devices because of TSMC’s process lead. This is a huge opportunity and only Microsoft is capable of shipping a device like this right now, and I think Microsoft is the only company that wants to do this (Apple REALLY does not want to do this). Give us Andromeda with a Snapdragon 845 and leave Apple looking boring and old fashioned!
PeterC
<p>Honestly, I think its all quite difficult. There's loads of ex win mob users who dearly would like a windows mobile "ish" device and not android/ios. Market share is small but its still quite a big number of users. Andromeda chit chat gets them (inc me) quite excited. But…. the reasons Win Mob "failed" in Microsofts eyes havnt really changed and now they've effectively walked away from mobile (smartphones) I personally think the situations worse for them. There's no way back for phones.</p><p><br></p><p>I could use an andromeda device tomorrow – I have a bookshelf dedicated to my moleskin notebooks – I use loads in my work and I carry around a phone/surface/notebook/reading glasses – its quite a stack.</p><p><br></p><p>Selling a Microsoft device to committed microsoft users/fans is the market I think your talking about. I rarely find an IOS/Android user who expresses much interest in considering Windows. For all the R&D and manufacturing costs etc I just don't see it is viable to the men with the spreadsheets unless they can make it far more consumer accessible, a big big seller- and thats going to take apps and developers who are currently elsewhere. </p><p><br></p><p>I think andromeda is fab – but its a dead duck. I so wish it wasn't.</p><p><br></p><p>If Microsoft want back into mobile I'd get someone else to build an OS, don't use windows, don't call it windows, ensure app platform cross-compatability out of the box, make sure its developed by some young bright sparks well away from Redmond. Encourage a custom ROM forum development etc and do some exciting fun stuff away from corporate eyes.</p><p><br></p><p>Personally I suspect an Android ROM fork with MS apps and neatly integrated to windows desktop would be great. Go checkout Sailfish OS – its not what ive described but you pay $49 for the software which is developed for Sony Xperia mobile. You buy the phone and buy the ROM and install. Some developer somewhere could earn themselves a neat earning being the Cyanogen/lineage variety for ex Win mob users…….. seriously youd probably find yourself offered some decent future jobs too.</p><p><br></p><p>p.s typed without my reading glasses on…. so god knows what the typos are like</p><p><br></p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#288841"><em>In reply to Jules_Wombat:</em></a></blockquote><p>You had me until you mentioned a Android fork. With Android there's fundamentally just two choices: run it fairly stock (with perhaps some GUI tweaks) and join the commodity Android market or fork it significantly and lose most compatibility with existing apps. I don't see either of those options a good business choice for Microsoft.</p>
PeterC
<blockquote><a href="#289194"><em>In reply to skane2600:</em></a></blockquote><p>I agree, but Microsoft have an uncomfortable reality to face here. If they want back into mobile it’s either android/android fork or a new os that’s not windows. The people they need to attract, to win over, to invest in the microsoft way, don’t believe in windows and a fair few don’t believe in Microsoft. People can rail at that statement and point to desktop usage etc. But IMO microsoft will need to “create” the new windows to kick start a new business chapter. Unfortunately google has already done it and it’s called android, IMO.</p><p><br></p><p>Edit>> simply take whats there, android, and challenge google for it, make it better than what google are doing with it. Deal with the privacy/data issues and parental controls in a better manner. Amazon took android and created a business offering from it. Huawei and Samsung have business models built on it – all those companies "use" android but to varying degrees don't "trust" google and each has their own backup plan, Samsung and Huawei have their own OS's in dev behind the scenes, i'd def keep an eye on Huawei OS dev. </p><p><br></p><p>Or don't do any of that and walk away from mobile and in some long off future re-enter the mobile space when everyones fed up with google/android and IOS and maybe wants to give windows another go. But thats along long way off, IMO.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#289203"><em>In reply to PeterC:</em></a></blockquote><p>What's the point of "getting back into mobile" if there's no profit in it? Remember buying Nokia was all about trying to succeed in mobile at any cost. $7B into the dumpster. </p><p><br></p><p>Back in the early days of the iPhone had Microsoft introduced a legacy-free non-Windows mobile OS things might have turned out differently, but now iOS and Android are too entrenched for that gambit to work. </p>
PeterC
<blockquote><a href="#289242"><em>In reply to skane2600:</em></a></blockquote><p>I don’t think there’s any point getting back into mobile financially speaking (although I’d prefer a windows mobile personally) but what Microsoft thinks is another matter. But, whether there’s a favourable future for MS without mobile is a harder question. I don’t think there is as we’d prob like , and its going to impact in so many unforseeable ways which will prob cost MS in corporate/product acquisitions. Developing apps for iOS and Android is all there is unless they fancy disrupting Google’s version of android.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#289244"><em>In reply to PeterC:</em></a></blockquote><p>Perhaps someday iOS and Android will "evolve" to be full featured OS's, but at the end of the day there'd still be no compelling reasons to port productivity programs to those platforms or for users to change which programs they want to use to make the switch. The legacy weight of Windows falls not only on Microsoft, but it's competitors as well.</p><p> </p><p>iOS and Android have succeeded because they are operating in a new domain. In that domain they satisfy the needs of users quite well, but in other domains quite poorly. There's really no need to try to address all needs in one device or one OS.</p>
PeterC
<blockquote><a href="#289316"><em>In reply to skane2600:</em></a></blockquote><p>>><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: transparent;"> There's really no need to try to address all needs in one device or one OS.</span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: transparent;">Agreed. Good point.</span></p>
Bats
<p>First of all, you're wrong. Andromeda is not the only kid in town. Samsung has a product that does the same thing, running Android. I believe it's called Note X.</p><p><br></p><p>Also, we need to accept the failure of Continuum and the fact that very very few people on this earth wants to run a mobile device that operate on full Windows. We have heard this before and we have seen the plans executed,….and we have seen it fail. I think it's time to just accept reality. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#289206"><em>In reply to Bob2000:</em></a></blockquote><p>I doubt there were many developers sitting around thinking "If only there were tools to compile Win32 for ARM, I'd be all over it." The problem isn't the tools, it's the lack of a viable market (as it was for the WP).</p><p><br></p><p>Perhaps if Microsoft flooded the market with Windows on ARM laptops for some unsustainable price like $100 and sold a few tens of millions of them, developers would recognize a profit opportunity and jump in. This assumes, of course, that the ARM version of Win32 is 100% compatible with the Intel version.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#289016"><em>In reply to Chris_Kez:</em></a></blockquote><p>It's not always about a lack of imagination. Sometimes rejection of a new idea is based on careful critical analysis and sometimes the market proves that analysis correct.</p><p><br></p><p>Sure, it makes a lot of sense for companies to study and experiment with new ideas, but that research should stay within the company. I don't know if the rumors about unannounced products are deliberate leaks by Microsoft or whether their employees are violating their NDAs, but these leaks are often harmful and steps should be taken to stop them.</p><p><br></p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#289662"><em>In reply to Chris_Kez:</em></a></blockquote><p>It works both ways: I don't see any analysis in this thread by you indicating why you think the product would be successful. Both your accusation of a lack of imagination or a lack of good communication skills seem to be ad hominem arguments.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#289693"><em>In reply to Chris_Kez:</em></a></blockquote><p>Fair enough.</p>
skane2600
<p>A device that needs to be plugged into a display to run Win32 apps is like a mobile phone that has to be plugged into a phone jack to make calls. The mobile value comes from the ability to do work away from a desktop or any other tethered environment. The need for emulation just compounds the inappropriateness. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#289070"><em>In reply to TheJoeFin:</em></a></blockquote><p>"If users want to use this portable Windows device for their only device .."</p><p><br></p><p>People who find that a smartphone is sufficient for the kind of computing they want to do already have their "only device". The question is whether those who want to use more sophisticated productivity programs are willing to compromise the experience in order to have only one device. And of course, once you have to connect that device to a docking station or monitor to run those applications, you've left the realm of the "single device". </p>
PeterC
<blockquote><a href="#289192"><em>In reply to ecumenical:</em></a></blockquote><p>I think, although not 100% sure, the reason they canned Astoria was due to the financial hit MS would take on their lucrative android patent revenue stream. I read about it ages ago in some financial journalism and would post a link to the article but cannot for the life of me remember where it was. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#289270"><em>In reply to wright_is:</em></a></blockquote><p>In the very unlikely event that Microsoft could get Win32 on ARM with a price/performance ratio that was as least as good as Intel's but with better battery life there might be a point. </p><p><br></p><p>"Safety" might be important to tech people but it's a low priority elsewhere. Of course, the degree to which Win32 is unsafe is often exaggerated.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#289619"><em>In reply to wright_is:</em></a></blockquote><p>When I said "Win32 on ARM" I'm talking about 100% compatibility which would mean that applications would not need to be modified, just recompiled or very efficiently emulated. Do I think this is possible? No, which is way I characterized it as a "very unlikely event".</p>