I’ve long felt that Microsoft should sell its own Android handsets, replacing the Lumia lineup with devices that customers actually want. But there’s one crucial missing piece. And that piece could be revealed as soon as next month, at Build 2017.
Two years ago, right before Microsoft officially surrendered the mobile market to Android and iOS and began its full-scale evacuation from mobile handsets, I openly wondered whether Android was what I then called “Microsoft’s Plan B in mobile.”
Sign up for our new free newsletter to get three time-saving tips each Friday — and get free copies of Paul Thurrott's Windows 11 and Windows 10 Field Guides (normally $9.99) as a special welcome gift!
"*" indicates required fields
At that time, however, Windows phone hadn’t yet been flushed down the toilet. So the focus then, as I saw it, was that Microsoft was releasing a ton of apps on Android and partnering with device makers that licensing its patents in return for bundling those apps.
Also at that time, I knew that Microsoft was working to get Android apps running on Windows phone. That effort was so successful, it was actually deemed too successful, in that it obviated the need for the Windows phone apps platform. Which, at that time, Microsoft was consolidating as UWP across all Windows 10 platforms, including the PC. So that effort was killed.
But I was on to something back then that I think is even more important today, in Microsoft’s post-Windows phone world.
“When Microsoft first started talking up the notion of universal apps that would run across its various platforms—Windows, Windows phone, Xbox One, Internet of Things embedded devices, Surface Hub, and HoloLens—I opined that truly ‘universal’ apps would in fact also run on competing devices as well,” I wrote at the time. “I figured this would mean Android primarily, since that platform is open and Microsoft has already started building support for Android into Visual Studio … Letting universal apps run on Android would open up the market to Windows-focused developers and let them leverage their existing skills and knowledge. It makes sense. And I still expect to see this happen, if not in the current generation of universal apps, then in the future.”
I still expect to see this happen. If not in the current generation of universal apps, then in the future.
Exactly.
This is that final piece. Bringing Android further into the Microsoft developer story/apps platform. But among the many things that have changed since 2015 is that Xamarin is now part of that developer story. And I’m wondering how or if that changes UWP, if at all.
Not that it matters: The real aim here—and the reason Microsoft should announce this at Build 2017—is to let developers leverage their existing skills and experiences. That is, anyone who has focused on UWP for whatever reason will be able to open up their wares to a huge new potential market of billions of Android users. That doesn’t just make up for Windows phone. It’s like Christmas. In May.
And by announcing its own phones, Microsoft could throw a lifeline to Windows phone holdouts too. Such a product line wouldn’t need to be enormously successful to, well, succeed, since Microsoft, like any other Android phone maker, could simply take advantage of the many manufacturers that already serve this market. It could simply design the devices, customize the software to be like Windows, and ship them.
It’s a win-win. Microsoft could get back into the mobile market at little risk. Developers would have a much bigger market to target. And Windows phone fans would have upgrades to consider.
There’s no time like the present. It’s time for Microsoft to end the charade and officially adopt Android in a meaningful way. In doing so, it will provide a way forward for us all.
Micheal
<blockquote><a href="#97429"><em>In reply to wolters:</em></a>I completely agree, been thinking about this for a long time even been brushing up on my Linux skills. Don't get me wrong I love Server 2016, W10 and dare I say W10M but something smells very BAD and its only getting worse update by update. We need the new Bill Gates, Paul Allen to rise up and do to MS what they did to big blue and mark my words its inevitable.</blockquote><p><br></p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#98005">In reply to BluetoothFairy1:</a></em></blockquote><p>I think kids are rather oblivious to what computer platform they're using in school until perhaps the 6th grade. I suspect that most elementary school kids never used excel or any other spreadsheet in school.</p>
jbuccola
<p>Agree. There are a dozen half measures MS has made towards Android that feel so tentative.</p><p><br></p><p>The developer tool sets are a great start, but I'd suggest they go further with an experience that truly feels like an extension of Windows and its cloud services, possibly with a custom image.</p><p><br></p><p>Today that effort is broken into several apps and the experience is far from cohesive.</p><p><br></p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#97512">In reply to davidblouin:</a></em></blockquote><p>Remember that most users introduction to Live Tiles was through the Windows 8 start screen and the broad dislike of that feature by users is pretty well known. It's not so much that I (and I bet other users) hate live tiles, I just don't want them cluttering up the start menu.</p>
Bats
<p>You know what? This blog post resulted in so many excellent responses, comments, and challenges to Paul's theory. I seriously doubt that Paul will respond to any of them. </p><p><br></p><p>I think this post regarding Microsoft hopping into Google's bed (lol), is just a way for Paul to justify his assimilation into Android. Paul is 100% a general all-purpose tech guy. He's not IT, a developer, or even data analyst. Paul just wants the latest tech for him to play with and he certainly can't get that with Windows Phone aka (in his words) the "special phone." Android has it all. The problem is, Paul unabashedly bashes all things Google. Now he's hopping into Google's bed and telling Microsoft fans that it's ok?</p><p><br></p><p>I think this is the new slant in Paul's writing. I think that this is the new narrative that he's going to push. </p><p><br></p><p>And he goes on Windows Weekly to say that he's ashamed of his tech journalist colleagues? From what I see all tech writers are not not journalists. They all pursue fake news like CNN's pursuit of the "Golden Showers" story.</p>
jbuccola
<blockquote><a href="#97607"><em>In reply to Darmok N Jalad:</em></a></blockquote><p>Apple takes very good care of its customers.</p><p>Having a device several years old with a current, updated OS and tons of accessory support is worth the price of admission. When you deduct resale value and years of use, Apple's products are far less "expensive" than they seem.</p>
skane2600
<p>Well, such a move would be consistent with Microsoft's muddled strategy of late. Is Xamarin MS's universal platform or is it UWP? Given that there's no significant demand by customers for UWP apps it's hard to see how a Android phone that runs UWP apps would raise its head over the commodity Android players. There aren't that many UWP developers either that this move would presumably appeal to. The much larger pool of general C# developers could always use Xamarin to utilize their existing skills should they decide to jump into mobile development.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#97523">In reply to Dan:</a></em></blockquote><p>UWP isn't even universal within Windows since not all UWP apps run on all devices. It's a bit like saying C programs are universal because they all use the same standard C library.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#97564">In reply to xxxdevxxx:</a></em></blockquote><p>Not confused at all. The distinction you make is why UWP apps should not be considered "universal". Perhaps the phrase "UWP apps" shouldn't even be used because they are "universal" only in the sense that they access a common API which doesn't necessarily make them portable. From a user perspective the only "universality" that matters is the ability to run an app on any platform. </p><p><br></p><p>By the way, only a subset of Win32 is accessible through UWP.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#97575">In reply to xxxdevxxx:</a></em></blockquote><p>I've already agreed with your distinction and your statement "UWP guarantees certain APIs across all hardware platforms" is equivalent to my statement "they access a common API ". </p><p><br></p><p>But your last statement is incorrect. If Windows 10 on ARM (desktop or notebook) actually has 100% compatibility (which is a big 'if') it will run Win32 applications flawlessly but since UWP can't access the full Win32 API (even selecting the right device family) UWP apps are NOT guaranteed to be able to call any Win32 api.</p><p><br></p><p>Think about it. Sandboxing in UWP won't work if a UWP app could call any arbitrary Win32 API. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#97672">In reply to xxxdevxxx:</a></em></blockquote><p>It's a bit hard to know what steps MS took to get Office to work on RT unless one was involved. Was it just a recompile or did they make other changes to bypass Win32 calls that were missing? Who knows? Thanks for the link.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#97520">In reply to Jeff Jones:</a></em></blockquote><p>With Xamarin you could run it on WP, Android, and iOS, and a special Android phone that allows UWP apps is going to have a much smaller market share than generic Android phones. Perhaps this would offer some appeal to developers strongly committed to UWP, but I don't think it's much of a motivation for those who have considered the UWP market weak.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#97598">In reply to xxxdevxxx:</a></em></blockquote><p>There are very few UWP developers out there to switch to Android or iOS so I don't think that's the strategy. I think the Xamarin strategy was to convince developers who haven't developed for UWP that they can target the viable app markets of Android and iOS and create a UWP app for "free". Of course, it's never that simple. The problem with that strategy is that the main market for iOS and Android are apps that are particularly useful on a phone. As a practical matter, those apps in UWP have no place to live given the tiny number of Windows 10 phones in the hands of users. </p>
jbuccola
<blockquote><a href="#97602"><em>In reply to BoItmanLives:</em></a></blockquote><p>It was just a few months ago that you were hot and heavy on that $29 Lumia 640.</p><p>Life comes at you fast…</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#97769">In reply to brduffy:</a></em></blockquote><p>I don't see any scenario where UWP apps are going to run on just any random Android phone. Whether or not MS sells a branded Android phone, it's going to require a special version of Android which Google is not going to provide. If the idea were to have some kind of UWP emulator app for standard Android phones, that would be a very large app and probably would degrade the performance of UWP apps that run on it. But beyond any technical issue is the fact that there isn't any demand for UWP apps on Android and not that much demand for them even on Windows.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#97992">In reply to BluetoothFairy1:</a></em></blockquote><p>I suspect that the Android bridge was cancelled for technical reasons. It probably either didn't work completely or the result was too slow.</p><p><br></p><p>Creating a UNIX-like OS isn't going to make it easier to create a platform that runs playstore apps. It's not as if Android apps are calling UNIX functions directly. And the fragmentation issue wouldn't go away. But at the end of the day such an OS would be fundamentally an Android clone and would give customers no more reason to buy it than they would to buy an Android phone. </p>