Firmware Updates Hit Surface Pro 3 and Surface 3
-
@Dashrender said:
that is not what I'm talking about for apps on a phone.
As I've stated several times already, neither am I. I'm talking about apps that run on the phone, without a connection to the Internet. Normal, every day apps.
-
Doing a quick search, here is an app that makes universal apps for all of the phone platforms:
-
Here is a game example that runs on Windows Phone and iOS. Sadly even "universal" support requires that things like screens, inputs, and such be supported. Until devices are all identical, universal only means that it runs, not that it is useful. And any unique APIs mean that it will run but can't access all features.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Please tell me how I take temple running off my Android phone and run it on my Windows phone without an emulator.
Same way you do the opposite. I'm so unclear where the confusion is. Two things....
- So you think that Microsoft is making a new system that they make but magically works on devices that they do not control....
- You think that these other devices that already support this and have for a decade can do this without having built in that technology first?
1 - no, I'm only talking about MS controlled devices - i.e. devices that run windows. Sadly at the moment I can't think of a single example (well because so far MS has failed). All things MS has written, MS has also written for every platform.
But for the sake of it.. let's just talk about OneDrive. MS wrote a OneDrive App. in MS's universal platform (universal meaning can run on any Windows device, not any ANY device) MS would write one application. It would work on both desktop and windows phone. it would NOT work on iOS or OSX or Linux or Android, etc.. only on ALL Windows 10 based devices.
That is what I mean by their ecosystem.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Please tell me how I take temple running off my Android phone and run it on my Windows phone without an emulator.
Same way you do the opposite. I'm so unclear where the confusion is. Two things....
- So you think that Microsoft is making a new system that they make but magically works on devices that they do not control....
- You think that these other devices that already support this and have for a decade can do this without having built in that technology first?
1 - no, I'm only talking about MS controlled devices - i.e. devices that run windows. Sadly at the moment I can't think of a single example (well because so far MS has failed). All things MS has written, MS has also written for every platform.
But you asked who you couldn't take an Android app and run it on the Windows phone. If you were not implying that Windows could do the opposite, what was the purpose of the question?
-
And likewise, I meant that iOS apps run on OSX and vice versa... when written using their universal system.
Although nearly always they will run everywhere, literally.
-
Here are some frameworks used for making universal apps that are then packaged with PhoneGap..
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
MS was the first consumer branded to try to make apps work universally across all devices in their ecosystem.
hell Apple still isn't trying to do that.
What do you mean? Android and iOS have had this since day one. Apple isn't "trying" because they've always had it.
You asked what I meant - I meant that MS was the first to create apps that are universal across their, MS's windows devices.
Now Android wouldn't count because Android doesn't have a partner - they are the one and only.. so anything written to work on Android will presumably work on Android on any device you have Android on (though I don't know if that hold true with apps compiled for ARM trying to run on Android on x86?)
So the only real comparison for what I was staying is Apple. Apple, like Microsoft, has two platforms (had), iOS and OSX. iOS apps couldn't run on OSX and OSX apps couldn't run on iOS.
The same was true for MS, Windows 7 apps couldn't run on Windows Phone 7, and Windows Phone 7 apps couldn't run on Windows 7. But NOW, MS is trying to get an app that you write for Windows 10 to run anywhere windows 10 is.
You bringing Web based applications was a red herring - it has nothing to do with what I was talking about.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
And likewise, I meant that iOS apps run on OSX and vice versa... when written using their universal system.
Although nearly always they will run everywhere, literally.
If that's true, then why did MS need to invest time in what they are calling bridges? Software that allows Android and iOS programs to port their code more easily to Windows Mobile instead of writing it from scratch in a compatible format?
-
@Dashrender said:
You asked what I meant - I meant that MS was the first to create apps that are universal across their, MS's windows devices.
You mean that they make themselves rather than third parties are making?
-
@Dashrender said:
If that's true, then why did MS need to invest time in what they are calling bridges? Software that allows Android and iOS programs to port their code more easily to Windows Mobile instead of writing it from scratch in a compatible format?
Because, as I said earlier, while there have been universal formats, on iOS and Android, just like on Windows, people continue to prefer not to use teh universal platform and make native instead. So just as WIndows universal can't run Word or Skyrim, Android non-universal apps can't run on Windows without being ported or emulated.
So Android remains just as much universal to Windows and Windows does to Windows. Both offer a universal platform, neither forces you to use it and both have the majority of their software in walled gardens that requires porting.
-
@Dashrender said:
Now Android wouldn't count because Android doesn't have a partner - they are the one and only..
I covered earlier that ChomeOS was its native desktop partner. If you didn't agree with this, I did not see you dispute it.
One could argue that any desktop is their partner. Or any desktop running Chrome, at least. And their cross compatibility goes across all running Chrome, so I feel like it stands.
-
@Dashrender said:
so anything written to work on Android will presumably work on Android on any device you have Android on (though I don't know if that hold true with apps compiled for ARM trying to run on Android on x86?)
The term compiled means that it will not cross architecture boundaries.
Android, however does not compile like Windows and iOS does.
However, universal apps, on any platform, are HTML5 which is not compiled so none of that would apply regardless.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Now Android wouldn't count because Android doesn't have a partner - they are the one and only..
I covered earlier that ChomeOS was its native desktop partner. If you didn't agree with this, I did not see you dispute it.
One could argue that any desktop is their partner. Or any desktop running Chrome, at least. And their cross compatibility goes across all running Chrome, so I feel like it stands.
So you're telling me that a Chrome book can run Android APKs without any extra work? If that's true, why is the Google Play store not on there so you can buy Android Apps?
-
@Dashrender said:
So the only real comparison for what I was staying is Apple. Apple, like Microsoft, has two platforms (had), iOS and OSX. iOS apps couldn't run on OSX and OSX apps couldn't run on iOS.
.... unless they are the universal type.
So same as Windows. Windows apps won't run on Windows phones. Only universal ones will. So exactly the same. Both have a universal and a non-universal option. Microsoft just did the universal many years later.
-
@Dashrender said:
So you're telling me that a Chrome book can run Android APKs without any extra work? If that's true, why is the Google Play store not on there so you can buy Android Apps?
You are killing me. APK is NOT the universal format as we've covered. Are you telling me that Windows phones can run any Windows .EXE? If not, why do you bring up the APKs which are equally not related to this conversation?
Why do you keep talking about the APKs knowing that they are not the universal apps that we are discussing?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
If that's true, then why did MS need to invest time in what they are calling bridges? Software that allows Android and iOS programs to port their code more easily to Windows Mobile instead of writing it from scratch in a compatible format?
Because, as I said earlier, while there have been universal formats, on iOS and Android, just like on Windows, people continue to prefer not to use teh universal platform and make native instead. So just as WIndows universal can't run Word or Skyrim, Android non-universal apps can't run on Windows without being ported or emulated.
So Android remains just as much universal to Windows and Windows does to Windows. Both offer a universal platform, neither forces you to use it and both have the majority of their software in walled gardens that requires porting.
OK this was helpful - the term universal isn't even universal - lol
MS is calling apps that work on any WIndows 10 device a universal app, but it does not imply that it will universally run on any device, i.e. linux, Chrome OS, Mac, etc - it only means on Windows 10 - anywhere Windows 10 is.
You also mentioned native apps - these new MS Universal apps are native apps, they are not platform independent universal apps.
MS screwed the pooch as it were calling them universal I guess.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
So you're telling me that a Chrome book can run Android APKs without any extra work? If that's true, why is the Google Play store not on there so you can buy Android Apps?
You are killing me. APK is NOT the universal format as we've covered. Are you telling me that Windows phones can run any Windows .EXE? If not, why do you bring up the APKs which are equally not related to this conversation?
Why do you keep talking about the APKs knowing that they are not the universal apps that we are discussing?
and now we know why we are not communicating well - I'm only talking about native apps.. and you're talking about something else.
-
@Dashrender said:
The same was true for MS, Windows 7 apps couldn't run on Windows Phone 7, and Windows Phone 7 apps couldn't run on Windows 7. But NOW, MS is trying to get an app that you write for Windows 10 to run anywhere windows 10 is.
That's not true. They are trying to make an optional universal format. Not an exclusive one. That's very different. Microsoft is not phasing out native app development any more than iOS or Android did after they offered universal options. Universal is just "an extra option" and one that, thus far, almost no one is taking on any of the platforms.
-
@Dashrender said:
and now we know why we are not communicating well - I'm only talking about native apps.. and you're talking about something else.
But Windows Universal is not native. It's a web app, I stated this at the beginning. It's identical to how the other platforms are doing it.
You are, like I said originally, holding Microsoft to one standard (ignoring their native apps) and everyone else to another (ignoring their universal apps.)
Sure by that standard I could claim that Microsoft doesn't have universal at all because I've conveniently ignored them. but that makes no sense.
In apples to apples, all three offer teh same two choices. Microsoft just offered the second choice last.
