Windows 10 apps are terrible why not just port ipad apps

Avatar
49

The windows 10 built in apps are terrible and not progressing at all compared to their counterparts on ios and Android. At this point why not just port the ipad apps to Windows and use them as the built in apps? It would save on development, bring higher quality apps to Windows and improve the ios bridge technology. It may even encourage other developers to port to Windows 10. I’m terms of look and feel I’d actually convert the ipad apps to a windows 10 fluent design like the one found on edge for ios.

Speaking of which has a single app ever been converter from ios to Windows 10?

Comments (49)

49 responses to “Windows 10 apps are terrible why not just port ipad apps”

  1. Avatar

    hrlngrv

    There are some UWP apps which are fine as-is. The Weather app being a fine example of something simple enough and SHOULD REMAIN simple that very little change/improvement is warranted. Ditto Alarms & Clock and Sticky Notes.

    OTOH, gimme Google News or Yahoo! Finance rather than the bundled News and Money apps. iOS alternative may be better, but this is one area for which I prefer browser-based alternatives.

    That said, for me Paint 3D is one of the most useless apps any Windows version has ever foisted on users. I accept that it has neat 3D drawing features, and if that mattered to even 10% of Windows users, that'd be one thing. However, I figure most Windows users use the old Paint (which, THANK GOODNESS, is still bundled with Windows 10) for cropping an lightly annotating screen prints and other existing images. Some (perhaps lots) of that involves working with multiple image files at the same time, something Paint 3D doesn't currently provide. I don't use/have never used an iPhone, so I have no idea what alternatives it may have, but I suspect for light cropping and annotation, Paint [non-3D] and desktop alternatives, e.g., Paint.NET now in the MSFT Store, may work better for most PC users than any iOS app.

    As for other stuff like Calendar, Mail, OneNote Mobile/UWP, I figure MSFT wants to provide some incentive for PC users to pay for Office 365 and thereby get desktop Outlook and OneNote. Better iOS alternatives might undermine MSFT's actual goals.

    • Avatar

      MutualCore

      In reply to hrlngrv:

      iOS devices come pre-installed with all kinds of Apple apps that 'nobody asked for' either, but I don't see people complaining about that. Only on Windows. Only Microsoft should be criticized for playing by the same rules.

      • Avatar

        skane2600

        In reply to MutualCore:

        Given that the WP is essentially dead, I don't think comparisons between iOS and UWP on full Windows are very informative. Native apps don't really enjoy much advantage over browser apps that do the same thing in an environment where a large display makes browsing comfortable.

      • Avatar

        hrlngrv

        In reply to MutualCore:

        First, excellent non sequitur. Where in my comment above did I complain about apps being bundled with Windows?

        Anything that can be UNINSTALLED and REMAIN uninstalled is NBD. Fortunately on my real Windows 10 PC, now with 1709, no Candy Crush, March of Empires, Minecraft or Paint 3D. Sadly, my VM running Windows 10 Insider builds still keeps on reinstalling the cruft. Does Apple keep reinstalling, say, Garage Band after users uninstall it? If so, then were can talk about everyone being SOBs and their rules being rigged in their favor. If not, then perhaps MSFT deserves to be singled out for some criticisms.

        • Avatar

          MutualCore

          In reply to hrlngrv:

          Sorry, but Insider Builds are a complete reinstallation of the OS compared to just upgrade. If you go into macOS Recovery mode and reinstall, it will put back all the original applications I believe.

          • Avatar

            hrlngrv

            In reply to MutualCore:

            Nope, not complete reinstallations. Previously installed 3rd party software remains installed. Many user setting but not all remain unchanged (e.g., if one changes This PC, Network and Recycle Bin desktop icons, the first two survive new build install, bit the last doesn't). For that matter, I've removed all the 3D apps, and 3D Builder never comes back, but Paint 3D does. I also removed Sound Recorder via powershell (because I use Insider builds in a VM without a mic, so it'll NEVER be recording audio, so no point to wasting the disk storage), and it doesn't reappear. OTOH, Candy Crush etc keep reappearing on every login.

  2. Avatar

    Jules Wombat

    Because those Windows 10 Apps were developed in UWP, which quite frankly is a complete dissaster for modern software development.

    • Avatar

      jimchamplin

      In reply to Jules_Wombat:

      Oh come on man!


      It's incredibly flexible when it comes to layout, far ahead of any of Android's shitty methodology. You can honestly design a UWP app once and it scales modestly well. If you design for a large window first, and then design it to scale down then it's fucking fantastic.


      One eye-popping example is "The Wall!" on the Store. Another is "Appy Text" also on the Store. Both of these are fantastic, modern designs which are not only functional but also incredibly attractive.


      Warning, The Wall! has an issue where the back button crashes on the FCU, everything else is fine. Appy Text has no issues on FCU.


      All of the whining, bitching, and complaining I hear about UWP is nothing more. It's just a bunch of whining.

      • Avatar

        skane2600

        In reply to jimchamplin:

        " If you design for a large window first, and then design it to scale down then it's fucking fantastic."


        You have to do just the opposite. You have to consider the smaller screen from the beginning or it won't work in the general case. Scaling can't solve all of these problems because small items designed for a large screen become unusable on a small screen even if the scaling is perfect. In addition sometimes the optimum choice for an on-screen object is different for a large and small screen.


        That's not to say that with careful planning you can't create an application that works well on large and small screens, but it won't always work and you don't usually get that flexibility for free.

    • Avatar

      MutualCore

      In reply to Jules_Wombat:

      I keep hearing that claim w/o hard evidence. What is specifically *bad* about UWP? Limited UI toolkit? Limited APIs for data services? What exactly is the issue? Or are you lying?

      • Avatar

        SherlockHolmes

        In reply to MutualCore:

        Take the mail app as an example. You cant even import or export your contacts. So why bother with UWP apps anyways? Because they are safer? Until this day, nobody has proven that to me in any way.

        • Avatar

          hrlngrv

          In reply to SherlockHolmes:

          What could be safer than software very few people use?

        • Avatar

          MutualCore

          In reply to SherlockHolmes:

          So the Mail app is feature deficient right now, what does that have to do with UWP?

          • Avatar

            hrlngrv

            In reply to MutualCore:

            With the exceptions of OneNote and Edge, none of the other bundled UWP apps I've tried can run multiple instances. NBD for News, Money or Weather. Maybe Solitaire Games can, but I remove it up front. The only other bundled UWP app which works with files, Paint 3D, also can't run in multiple instances, and neither does it have a recent files list, so switching back and forth between image files is a royal PITA. I have a handful of other UWP apps installed just to see what they're like, and none of them can run multiple instances, but most can have multiple files open at the same time.

            From this I infer that while it may be possible to allow for multiple instances, it's either quite difficult, MSFT provides no guidance for enabling it, or UWP developers are lazier than most other developers. FWIW, I also have a few Centennial-packaged desktop Store apps, and they can run multiple instances, so this should be possible for properly implemented UWP apps. I suspect single instance only makes perfect sense for phones, but as Windows phones are now effectively dead, this is the dead hand of what might have been choking off sensible design choices for PC software.

            Perhaps you could offer a few examples of 3rd party UWP apps which can run in multiple instances.

        • Avatar

          jimchamplin

          In reply to SherlockHolmes:

          1) Asynchronous installation

          2) Sandboxed execution

          3) Modern layout engine


          I'm drunk and don't feel like enumerating more. Use your powers of dog damned deduction and figure out why Win32 sucks in 2017 when you compare it to everything else.


          UWP at least is from this fucking decade, and surfaces technologies and capabilities that are expected on very other platform.


          And I'M SO DAMNED SORRY if you think that shitty ass Win32 garbage can be as high quality. It can't. It's constrained by the graphics layer, and forever consigned to look like 1995. 2007 at the newest.

  3. Avatar

    skane2600

    I don't see much benefit in porting iOS or Android apps to Windows. Perhaps a specific example of a superior iOS or Android app would make your point clearer. Keep in mind that it's iOS or Android vs ALL Windows programs, not just UWP apps. Had WP been successful, UWP would have been important on it's own, but it didn't turn out that way.



  4. Avatar

    rameshthanikodi

    The official Facebook app and Instagram apps are straight up iOS conversions for Windows 10. They are terrible.

  5. Avatar

    Lauren Glenn

    Candy Crush? Only one I could think of. The current UWP apps look ugly. They really do, for the most part. They're very boxy and not very modern looking despite the name of it. You see a Win32 app and it looks decent most of the time. You pick up a UWP or Win8/10 app and it looks horrid. I can see why no one would design for it.


    Windows Phone 10 made the Metro look seem a bit more decent but even then, the buttons are still boxy and plain. You can't seem to style them with CSS or something..... even if they took the Zune interface which was fairly decent and functional.


    I still think they come up with a great UI for something and then try to build on it and make it much worse. Look at Zune HD player interface. Beautiful interface. Absolutely. Then comes Windows Phone 7 and you wonder what happened... you think, OK, it's not that bad.... but it never gets any better with subsequent versions enough to make you happy you bought it.


    • Avatar

      longhorn

      In reply to alissa914g:


      I think Microsoft wanted to design a UI that scales well. The easiest way to do this is to make everything flat and square. As a justification for this horrible design MS came up with the word "Metro" and later "Modern". It was supposed to be cool and some people liked it, but there was probably no other thought behind it than "scale well". MS developed the Metro/Modern shell under time-constraints so "make the easiest possible design" was probably the motto.


      There are many ways to go about scaling. No doubt Windows is difficult because it's used on lots of different hardware. I still feel Windows should have been a desktop/laptop OS only. I think Apple took the right path here, because designing for keyboard/mouse or touch is very different. Anyway, I think we'll see improvements and more beautiful UIs that also scale well now that HiDPI is the norm.


      I have to say I miss pre-2010 Microsoft a lot. Before the Windows 8 touch-based mess. The decision to create this hybrid beast was taken in the summer of 2010 because the Courier tablet had been canned. Windows Mobile 6 had lots of business users and an app eco-system which MS killed with Windows Phone 7. (MS killed the eco-system, not the business users:))

      • Avatar

        hrlngrv

        In reply to longhorn:

        . . . Microsoft wanted to design a UI that scales well . . .

        How many UWP apps are as often used on 4" and 50" screens and all screen sizes in between? How well has MSFT actually pulled off this goal?

        I don't disagree with you. I just want to emphasize that if this were MSFT's goal, it was a foolish goal to have set in the first place.

        • Avatar

          skane2600

          In reply to hrlngrv:

          I agree. As I've claimed on numerous occasions the whole "write once run anywhere" goal is a fool's errand.

          • Avatar

            hrlngrv

            In reply to skane2600:

            Depends what one means by write once run anywhere. If it means use nearly all the same source code for many different processor architectures and OSes BUT just for machines with physical keyboards and, say, 10" or larger screens, it's a reality already. Where it breaks down irremediably is across small vs large screen sizes and touch vs nontouch.

            • Avatar

              skane2600

              In reply to hrlngrv:

              It depends on the sophistication of the application and how much platform-specific code exists in the code base. Console applications are of course the low-hanging fruit. Also one has been able to use #ifdefs and similar approaches for a long time but that's just coupling multiple platform code segments into a single code base.


              The final dilemma is usually the question of whether an application's UI should look and perform identically on each platform or conform to the look and behavior of the specific platform it is running on. Often it doesn't fully achieve either of those goals.

              • Avatar

                hrlngrv

                In reply to skane2600:

                I'm thinking more along the lines of LibreOffice, Firefox, Opera, Chrome, RStudio, VLC. Would you like me to list more? Personally, I'd prefer Firefox,. Opera and Chrome to look the same on all OSes. Sadly with respect to Firefox, it's about to get a UI makeover to leave it looking like Edge on all OSes.

                Should each of these use the OS's own File Open and File Save dialogs rather than roll-their-own abominations like WordPerfect Office from 15 years ago? Absolutely. OTOH, would I want, say, RStudio to look anything like the UWP Calculator? HELL NO!

                • Avatar

                  skane2600

                  In reply to hrlngrv:

                  I didn't argue that companies never make products that are available for different platforms. That doesn't necessarily qualify them as WORA.

                • Avatar

                  hrlngrv

                  In reply to skane2600:

                  True. There's certain to be some OS-specific code. OTOH, once in memory, would there be OS-specific versions of, say, the formula parser for LibreOffice Calc or the survival analysis package for GNU R? If one's using Qt or some other similarly capable multiple OS infrastructure, would OS-specific code amount to 5% of lines of code, 2%, less?

                  From my perspective, applications are far more important than OSes as long as OSes provide security, multitasking and basic GUIs. Interoperability across OSes is important, so the more XYZ looks and works the same under Windows, macOS and Linux, the less I care whether it adheres to any single OS's design philosophy.

                • Avatar

                  skane2600

                  In reply to hrlngrv:

                  The reason I'm so picky about this issue is both because of the hype surrounding WORA or "Universal" that I believe is misleading, but also the implicit technical argument that a single code base for multiple platforms (however convoluted) is always better.


                  As with everything else it's a matter of judgement, context, and trade-offs. If OS-specific code is included (whether through run-time checks or conditional compilation) the complexity of the code is increased. One has to weigh that complexity against the advantages a single code base can provide.


                  In many cases (IMO) creating a library of "business logic" functions that don't depend on the OS or the UI and then creating OS-specific builds each with it's own UI code can be no more work than trying to integrate everything into a single build.


                  As I said, it's a matter of judgement.

    • Avatar

      skane2600

      In reply to alissa914g:

      Using XAML you can create very sophisticated styling and behavior. In fact, I would argue that the MS's focus on sophisticated scenarios to the determent of simple ones is a weakness of UWP relative to what came before.


      I just don't think most developers put the effort in to make their UWP apps attractive and given the limited profit their apps can generate I don't blame them.

  6. Avatar

    Lauren Glenn

    Probably the only really good interface for a UWP/Metro app to me that I've used was Hulu. I really liked what they did there.

  7. Avatar

    Martin Pelletier

    Lately we are seeing a lot more updates apps from the store. It's still not as fast as Android in my case, but I think Microsoft ramped up development of the UWP apps.


    But there is still a lot to do.

  8. Avatar

    Tony Barrett

    Most design aspects of UWP were a trade-off in order to fit in with Microsoft's 'Universal' app plans. Even now, the API isn't nearly as feature-rich as Win32. It's never attracted consumers so the developers never followed.

    Not that MS will ever admit it, but UWP has been quite disastrous so far. The game plan was for the complete tear-down of Win32, with all apps becoming UWP (even though the 'universal' aspect never quite worked), with MS taking a nice cut from every store app sale in the process, thus having their own app store revenue stream. Once mobile died though, that house of cards just collapsed.

    • Avatar

      jimchamplin

      In reply to ghostrider:

      Add to it that so many of the "movers and shakers" of the tech world were anti-Windows-8 whinebags.


      Jesus, I feel so fucking alone in that I'm ACTUALLY EXCITED ABOUT NEW TECHNOLOGY.


      It seems like so many of my peers are like "O NOOOOO THEY CHANGE THA APE EE EYE!!! WE LUV TEH CRAPTASTIC JUNK FROM 1998 OH EM GEE NO NO NO MOM DONT USE TEH WINDAS ATE!! IT HATES TEH EXPEE!!"


      It's so much piddly shit.


      I'd burn Windows 7 to the ground right now if it meant I didn't have to use any fucking Win32 garbage ever again.

Leave a Reply