Firmware Updates Hit Surface Pro 3 and Surface 3
-
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.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@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.
OK so I have to admit that the marketing lead me to believe that the native exclusive to a single platform development on Windows was being killed off by Microsoft.
-
Windows has: Native apps (C++ and .NET) and HTML5 (Universal)
Android has: APK and HTML5 (Universal)
iOS has: Obj-c/Swift and HTML5 (Universal)All three have the same two options... native and universal.
Why do you see Windows has unique of the three?
-
@Dashrender said:
OK so I have to admit that the marketing lead me to believe that the native exclusive to a single platform development on Windows was being killed off by Microsoft.
They can't reasonably do that because things like SQL Server and video games are nowhere near ready to run in a web browser.
-
Think about how Windows 98 apps are still needing support from Windows NT today. It's crazy how much Windows has to support things that are decades old. That change would be nothing compared to going to pure HTML5. And going to HTML5 means.... the death of Windows. Once all apps are universal, why would anyone buy WIndows when you could run all Windows app for free anywhere?
-
In ten or twenty years will the HTML and Javascript world be ready to run nearly everything a desktop needs? Maybe. Will enough apps have been ported to allow the others to fail when the platform cuts them off? Maybe. But support for that is going to have to be a decade ot at a minimum and more, I would guess. I can't fathom MS getting solid enough modern browser adoption rates high enough even by that point.
