[mnc76]

Microsoft insider Mary Jo Foley says MS is considering a "Plan B" for Windows Phone which includes supporting Android apps, much like BB10 has.

Will it support Google Play Services?
Will it support notifications?

http://www.windowscentral.com/micros...still-possible

Posted from my awesome White Z30

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

Before when it was discussed, it sounded more like another Runtime... just like BB10. Some taught that Microsoft would be able to get Google to green-light it... but I'm not so sure Microsoft and their Windows with Bing is something that Google is happy about.

They are going to have to do something as the Platform and Ecosystem are showing themselves to be more important than the Operating System or the Hardware. And Microsoft is doing a lot better than BlackBerry... but that isn't saying too much, as they are spending a lot more money to gain those partial percentage points.

[sentimentGX4]

That would be an incredibly stupid move on the part of Microsoft. I had said it for BB10 and I'll say it for Windows Phone. There is no purpose in having an (end-user) operating system that doesn't support its own application ecosystem. I would not even see the purpose of Windows Phone at that point. Microsoft might as well make an Android launcher and call it a day.

But I think Microsoft has seriously not put enough effort pushing Windows Phone. It should force all its divisions to always prioritize Windows Phone first before iOS and Android. The Windows Phone and the PC Windows OS teams should also coordinate work on the PC Windows interface. Finally, Microsoft should work to have Windows Phone run Windows apps and vice versa. Microsoft is making the cross Windows platform process much more complicated than it needs to be.

[Ment]

How would it even work. They'd have to leave behind the millions of 512MB devices like the Lumia 520 because there is no way to run an emulation layer with that small a memory footprint.

[LuvULongTime]

That would be an incredibly stupid move on the part of Microsoft. I had said it for BB10 and I'll say it for Windows Phone. There is no purpose in having an (end-user) operating system that doesn't support its own application ecosystem. I would not even see the purpose of Windows Phone at that point. Microsoft might as well make an Android launcher and call it a day.

But I think Microsoft has seriously not put enough effort pushing Windows Phone. It should force all its divisions to always prioritize Windows Phone first before iOS and Android. The Windows Phone and the PC Windows OS teams should also coordinate work on the PC Windows interface. Finally, Microsoft should work to have Windows Phone run Windows apps and vice versa. Microsoft is making the cross Windows platform process much more complicated than it needs to be.

I thought they were going in this direction with Windows 10? I agree with your other comments. Microsoft has the money to bide their time and build slowly. BB does not. They need apps ASAP.

[birdman_38]

Windows 10 for Phone is supposed to be their saving grace, with seamless integration across all offerings. But it likely won't come out until a year from now.

[THBW]

The problem with the widows phone is that it tied to a mediocre piece of software. And how many times have we seen the same scenario played out. Vista, Windows 8, car infotainment systems? The list goes on. There needs to be a bit of honesty ; MS just doesn't get mobile computing. What is unique about their phones and why haven't they leveraged their other software assets? What market are they going after and how do they create synergy with their traditional computer assets. They don't seem to have an answer and consequently they look like they are wandering in the wilderness. Case in point is MS's strategy of selling cheap phones for emerging markets yet supporting app development for the developed world. What's up with that.

Posted via CB10

[Troy Tiscareno]

If MS did this, they would instantly lose most or all 3rd-Party phone manufacturers (who are all OHA members), leaving them as the sole producer of WinPhones - taking all the risk on themselves. I'm not sure they are really ready for that.

It also could easily lead Google into locking ALL Play Store apps to Google Services, which means that only those apps that the developers modify and put into alternative app stores would be available on WinPhone (or BB) - Snap would become useless if all apps from the Play Store had to be validated by Google on start-up. And Google has every right to do that - it's their store. BB isn't a threat to Google, so they ignore the current violations of the Play Store TOS, but if Microsoft tried to do this, they'd be big enough that Google would be forced to take notice and act.

[sentimentGX4]

I thought they were going in this direction with Windows 10?

They were going that direction WP7 with .NET programs and then WP8 with the NT kernel. Microsoft's cross platform ambitions are advertised each OS iteration and have a tendency to overpromise and underdeliver. We've already seen slides with mockups of the Metro side of Windows 10 and it still looks nothing like Windows Phone UI.

If MS did this, they would instantly lose most or all 3rd-Party phone manufacturers (who are all OHA members), leaving them as the sole producer of WinPhones - taking all the risk on themselves. I'm not sure they are really ready for that.

You raise an interesting point.

I think that Microsoft may intend to use Windows 10 for the PC Android compatibility as a bargaining chip with Google. So if Microsoft lets Android apps run on Windows 10 for the PC then Google lets Android apps run on Windows Phone as well.

[mnc76]

Windows 10 for Phone is supposed to be their saving grace, with seamless integration across all offerings. But it likely won't come out until a year from now.

That is "Plan A". They would much rather see their "One OS, Multiple hardware platforms" strategy work than have to go the Android route.

However, with their (already small) marketshare decreasing year-over-year, they'd be remiss not to at least consider the Android "Plan B".

They're big enough that they could afford to develop Android capability in-house and scrap it if Plan A works and gets some market traction.

Posted from my awesome White Z30

[birdman_38]

Keep in mind if Microsoft would adopt an Android runtime they would sever ties with any Open Handset Alliance OEMs. Yes they have their own Lumia lineup and a bunch of cheap Chinese brands but would they really want to give consumers less choice with no Samsung and HTC models to choose from?

[AnimalPak200]

I think that Microsoft may intend to use Windows 10 for the PC Android compatibility as a bargaining chip with Google. So if Microsoft lets Android apps run on Windows 10 for the PC then Google lets Android apps run on Windows Phone as well.

Absolutely no way MS would remotely risk the possibility of creating any adoption barriers for a new OS.

They already have a hell of a time getting people to give up their current windows version and "upgrade" (questionable). Can you imagine if there was even a rumor that Android phones don't play nice with Windows 10?

Hahahaha... giving away free Android devices with a copy of Windows 10 is likely higher on their alternative plan list.


Posted via CB10

[LuvULongTime]

If MS did this, they would instantly lose most or all 3rd-Party phone manufacturers (who are all OHA members), leaving them as the sole producer of WinPhones - taking all the risk on themselves. I'm not sure they are really ready for that.

It also could easily lead Google into locking ALL Play Store apps to Google Services, which means that only those apps that the developers modify and put into alternative app stores would be available on WinPhone (or BB) - Snap would become useless if all apps from the Play Store had to be validated by Google on start-up. And Google has every right to do that - it's their store. BB isn't a threat to Google, so they ignore the current violations of the Play Store TOS, but if Microsoft tried to do this, they'd be big enough that Google would be forced to take notice and act.

There is also a remote possibility that Microsoft/BlackBerry/Amazon/Xiamoi could band together and form a third party alliance that utilizes an android fork that does not rely on Google Services. The foundation is already there with the Amazon app store. If the market share of the these non-OHA companies could ever amount to something remotely meaningful then devs may look more seriously at submitting alternate versions of their apps to this consolidated store. Just a wacky idea I thought of. I know it is remote. But as I have said in the past, I am completely against a two horse race. We all lose. Frankly, it isn't even a two horse race now. It's Android with most of the worldwide market share, and iOS with smaller chunk. Just like the desktop days of Windows owning the majority of market share and Mac grabbing the higher end.

[Soulstream]

I think that Microsoft may intend to use Windows 10 for the PC Android compatibility as a bargaining chip with Google. So if Microsoft lets Android apps run on Windows 10 for the PC then Google lets Android apps run on Windows Phone as well.

I was looking through my Android phone and didn't see any app that doesn't already have a website or would otherwise run on my Windows laptop. I don't see any reason for Google to allow Microsoft to use Android apps from their store.

[TheBirdDog]

I was looking through my Android phone and didn't see any app that doesn't already have a website or would otherwise run on my Windows laptop. I don't see any reason for Google to allow Microsoft to use Android apps from their store.

Well, wouldn't it mean more potential profit for Google? How is it any different from them allowing their software on Samsung devices. The way I see it, they make money from people buying apps - even more than they would from people using Android OS. Wouldn't it be win / win for them to allow Google Play on all platforms? I know it would be a decent movie store for BlackBerry to gain back.

Posted via my BlackBerry Passport

[birdman_38]

The way I see it, they make money from people buying apps - even more than they would from people using Android OS. Wouldn't it be win / win for them to allow Google Play on all platforms? I know it would be a decent movie store for BlackBerry to gain back.

I remember seeing an article on iMore once that Apple was considering releasing Apple products cross platform. It would open up an entire new audience to iTunes.

[LuvULongTime]

Well, wouldn't it mean more potential profit for Google? How is it any different from them allowing their software on Samsung devices. The way I see it, they make money from people buying apps - even more than they would from people using Android OS. Wouldn't it be win / win for them to allow Google Play on all platforms? I know it would be a decent movie store for BlackBerry to gain back.

Posted via my BlackBerry Passport

Google only created Android as a means to protect their dominance in search. This is why they are more than happy to spend countless dollars developing and improving an OS that they then give away for free along with access to the play store to their OHA partners. Of course there are conditions attached to be an OHA member that also protect Goggle's interests. The revenue gained from the play store is just icing on the cake. Opening up access to it and then allowing Microsoft to push bing search instead of Google would be counter productive to Google. That and all the data they collect from all Android users via the 'free' Google services are too important for give up.

Posted via CB10

[Troy Tiscareno]

Well, wouldn't it mean more potential profit for Google? How is it any different from them allowing their software on Samsung devices. The way I see it, they make money from people buying apps - even more than they would from people using Android OS. Wouldn't it be win / win for them to allow Google Play on all platforms? I know it would be a decent movie store for BlackBerry to gain back.

It wouldn't make sense in Google's business model if people are giving all of their data to Microsoft instead of to Google, which is what would be the case. It would also damage their agreement with OHA members if non-OHA members had official access to Google Play.

Google tolerates BB for now because BB's marketshare is tiny and only a subset of those users ever access Google Play, but if BB were to ever officially support doing so, Google would be forced to take action to cut off BB (direct) access to Google Play. They'd do the same thing if Microsoft tried to direct users to Play, and BB would get cut off in the process.

Nothing prevents Microsoft from allowing Android apps into their own app store, much as BB did with BB World, but as BB or even Amazon can attest to, if you aren't the primary store (aka Google Play), then developers won't give your version of their app much attention, and many devs won't bother to make a version for your store at all.

[mnc76]

There is also a remote possibility that Microsoft/BlackBerry/Amazon/Xiamoi could band together and form a third party alliance that utilizes an android fork that does not rely on Google Services. The foundation is already there with the Amazon app store. If the market share of the these non-OHA companies could ever amount to something remotely meaningful then devs may look more seriously at submitting alternate versions of their apps to this consolidated store. Just a wacky idea I thought of. I know it is remote. But as I have said in the past, I am completely against a two horse race. We all lose. Frankly, it isn't even a two horse race now. It's Android with most of the worldwide market share, and iOS with smaller chunk. Just like the desktop days of Windows owning the majority of market share and Mac grabbing the higher end.

Personally, I think something like this is inevitable.

1. Many Android phone manufacturers are sick of Google's control (such as Samsung which has developed Tizen as a potential alternative to Google-Android). For example: Google is placing increasingly restrictive rules concerning the way manufacturers can alter the stock Android user interface. This prevents manufacturers from being able to differentiate their phones in the market. Also, Google has rules on the apps that must be pre-installed on all Google-Android OS phones.

2. Companies like MS, Amazon, and BlackBerry simply won't be able to gain any significant marketshare in smartphones without a broader ecosystem.

These companies may realize that they can't go it alone (e.g.: the potential for Tizen phones to be successful is very low). A truly open-source Android fork with API-compatible replacements for Google Services makes an enormous amount of sense.

Also : Google cannot argue that the intellectual property of their API signatures are being violated since they did the *exact same thing* with the Sun/Oracle Java APIs.

If MS, BlackBerry, Samsung, and other manufacturers included runtimes for this Google-Android compatible fork, developers may actually put their apps into this shared app store in a way they never would have for private app stores made by a single company (e.g.: BlackBerry World, Amazon store, etc...).

The alternative for these companies is either to abide by Google's increasingly stringent controls on Google-Android, or (in BlackBerry, MS, and Amazon's case) risk losing ever more marketshare.

Posted from my awesome White Z30

[LuvULongTime]

Personally, I think something like this is inevitable.

1. Many Android phone manufacturers are sick of Google's control (such as Samsung which has developed Tizen as a potential alternative to Google-Android). For example: Google is placing increasingly restrictive rules concerning the way manufacturers can alter the stock Android user interface. This prevents manufacturers from being able to differentiate their phones in the market. Also, Google has rules on the apps that must be pre-installed on all Google-Android OS phones.

2. Companies like MS, Amazon, and BlackBerry simply won't be able to gain any significant marketshare in smartphones without a broader ecosystem.

These companies may realize that they can't go it alone (e.g.: the potential for Tizen phones to be successful is very low). A truly open-source Android fork with API-compatible replacements for Google Services makes an enormous amount of sense.

Also : Google cannot argue that the intellectual property of their API signatures are being violated since they did the *exact same thing* with the Sun/Oracle Java APIs.

If MS, BlackBerry, Samsung, and other manufacturers included runtimes for this Google-Android compatible fork, developers may actually put their apps into this shared app store in a way they never would have for private app stores made by a single company (e.g.: BlackBerry World, Amazon store, etc...).

The alternative for these companies is either to abide by Google's increasingly stringent controls on Google-Android, or (in BlackBerry, MS, and Amazon's case) risk losing ever more marketshare.

Posted from my awesome White Z30

I didn't realize Google was restricting how much OHA members could modify the stock Android UI. I completely get why they are doing it, but I would also be very annoyed if I were an OHA partner like Samsung. It just makes it harder to compete especially with the low cost entrants. So I suppose BlackBerry taking Android and skinning it like BB10 for consumers would be out of the question?

WRT to API compatible replacements for Google services, I completely agree. This needs to be a priority for Amazon and BlackBerry. They need to make it as easy as possible for devs to port over their apps from Google Play.

I doubt we would ever see Samsung or any current OHA member join an alliance like this as they are in too deep with Google-Android. However, a Microsoft/BlackBerry/Amazon/Xiaomi/Lenovo partnership would be doable. The only concern I would have if I were Microsoft and BlackBerry would be that they would be helping to build up a native Android store for Amazon/Xiaomi/Lenovo who would most likely run Android as their base OS. The end game for Microsoft and BlackBerry is not to run Android on top of their current OS's, but to get native apps in their stores. Android would only be a stop gap for them. Unless both companies stipulated that the others must run one of Windows or BB10, and can not go with a fork of Android.

[anon(257429)]

Personally, I think something like this is inevitable.

1. Many Android phone manufacturers are sick of Google's control (such as Samsung which has developed Tizen as a potential alternative to Google-Android). For example: Google is placing increasingly restrictive rules concerning the way manufacturers can alter the stock Android user interface. This prevents manufacturers from being able to differentiate their phones in the market. Also, Google has rules on the apps that must be pre-installed on all Google-Android OS phones.

2. Companies like MS, Amazon, and BlackBerry simply won't be able to gain any significant marketshare in smartphones without a broader ecosystem.

These companies may realize that they can't go it alone (e.g.: the potential for Tizen phones to be successful is very low). A truly open-source Android fork with API-compatible replacements for Google Services makes an enormous amount of sense.

Also : Google cannot argue that the intellectual property of their API signatures are being violated since they did the *exact same thing* with the Sun/Oracle Java APIs.

If MS, BlackBerry, Samsung, and other manufacturers included runtimes for this Google-Android compatible fork, developers may actually put their apps into this shared app store in a way they never would have for private app stores made by a single company (e.g.: BlackBerry World, Amazon store, etc...).

The alternative for these companies is either to abide by Google's increasingly stringent controls on Google-Android, or (in BlackBerry, MS, and Amazon's case) risk losing ever more marketshare.

Posted from my awesome White Z30

Samsung is so sick of Google restrictions that they signed a ten year cross patent and licensing deal. Samsung UI is the most heavily modified version of Android ever.. I dont know what other phone that is so far from being vanilla Android than Samsung Touchwiz. If anything, Google is sick of Samsung mucking up their software. If it wasnt for Samsung, Google wouldnt have went the route they did to restrict Android running wild. You have 100's of software engineers creating an OS for the masses and one company comes around breaks functionality because it wants to be different. Which so happens to be the most popular Android cell phone company. And If their phones get worse and worse, people would blame Google for having crappy software.

Here is a qoute for a Google blog about OHA and just trying to keep things in order.

imagine a hypothetical situation where the platform on each phone sold was just a little bit different. Different enough where Google Maps would run normally on one phone but run terribly slow on another. Let's say, for sake of example, that Android implemented an API that put the phone to sleep for a fraction of a second to conserve battery life when nothing was moving on the screen. The API prototype for such a function might look like SystemClock.sleep(millis) where the parameter "millis" is the number of milliseconds to put the device to sleep for.

If one phone manufacturer implemented SystemClock.sleep() incorrectly, and interpreted the parameter as Seconds instead of Milliseconds, the phone would be put to sleep a thousand times longer than intended! This manufacturer’s phone would have a terrible time running Google Maps. If apps don’t run well across devices due to incompatibilities, consumers would leave the ecosystem, followed by developers. The end of the virtuous cycle.

On the Oracle case, that statement is just not true. Sun Micro was cool with what Google was doing. Then got they got bought out by Oracle and all of sudden, they wanted to sue. Sun and Google shake hands - CNET News

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

At some point... I'm not sure there will be a desktop OS anymore.

As has been talked about for a while... your mobile device will be your computer. You may have a larger monitor, or other input means, and maybe the data is stored in the Cloud. But there will be a device running an OS that you will carry around. And Microsoft knows that they are very close to being total blocked from being that device... Windows 10 needs to be out ( three years ago), and they need many more developers on board to make the Windows Platform - a true platform.

Now with their money... they ought to come up with some kinda department that chooses developers to "invite" to the platform - wine & dine them, pay them, whatever it takes. The open to all developers that BlackBerry did, just lead to a rush of bottom of the barrel apps that were useless and only cost BlackBerry a lot of money and made BlackBerry World a garbage pit of App Books, Apps For and low quality Android Ports. The developers Microsoft needs aren't the ones that will jump through hoops to get a free device. These are companies that produce high quality apps.

The problem is that right now the "piracy" within the Android ecosystem... is also one of it's driving forces. I think if Microsoft did put some pressure on Google and forced them to come down harder on the allowing of APKs to run without regular authentication.... might help Microsoft in the long run.

[mnc76]

Samsung is so sick of Google restrictions that they signed a ten year cross patent and licensing deal. Samsung UI is the most heavily modified version of Android ever.. I dont know what other phone that is so far from being vanilla Android than Samsung Touchwiz. If anything, Google is sick of Samsung mucking up their software. If it wasnt for Samsung, Google wouldnt have went the route they did to restrict Android running wild. You have 100's of software engineers creating an OS for the masses and one company comes around breaks functionality because it wants to be different. Which so happens to be the most popular Android cell phone company. And If their phones get worse and worse, people would blame Google for having crappy software.

Here is a qoute for a Google blog about OHA and just trying to keep things in order.



On the Oracle case, that statement is just not true. Sun Micro was cool with what Google was doing. Then got they got bought out by Oracle and all of sudden, they wanted to sue. Sun and Google shake hands - CNET News

If Samsung is so happy with Google, why are they developing Tizen?

Also, I suggest you look up what happened to Samsung's Magazine UX and how it's disappearance relates to the cross-licensing deal. Note that I'm not saying Samsung's UX changes to Google-Android are a good thing (or even a bad thing) for Android as a whole. The only relevant point is that changing the UI is something that Samsung *wants to do*.

While I heartily agree that we won't see Samsung producing Android-forked phones for the forseeable future, they may be interested in supporting an Android-compatible forked OS (via software contributions) as a way of hedging their bets.

Also, I would be surprised if some of Google's restrictions on OHA members aren't eventually called out as monopolistic at some point. For example: Samsung isn't even allowed to manufacture Amazon Kindle Fire tablets because they use a forked version of Android.

[OHA] members are contractually prohibited from building non-Google approved devices.*That's right, joining the OHA requires a company to sign its life away and promise to not build a device that runs a competing Android fork.

Google�s iron grip on Android: Controlling open source by any means necessary
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/...s-necessary/3/

This is yet another reason Samsung is sick of Google. Being tied to Google means they can't even make autonomous decisions about which device manufacturing contracts they take. What manufacturing company wouldn't dislike that?

---

Finally, Sun and Oracle are only tertiarily relevant to the point I was trying to make. The point is that BlackBerry, Amazon, etc... are legally "safe" to make API-conpatible replacements for Google Play Services since Google did the exact same thing with the Java APIs. The judge in that case ruled for Google stating that the structure of the Java API's was not copywritable. In the end, the fact that "Sun was OK" with anything at any point in time was irrelevant to Google winning the case.

According to the ruling:

"So long as the specific code used to implement a method is different, anyone is free under the Copyright Act to write his or her own code to carry out exactly the same function or specification of any methods used in the Java API. It does not matter that the declaration or method header lines are identical."

This provides a strong precedent for allowing third parties to create a Google Play Services replacement. If Google were to argue against it, they would be arguing against their own positive ruling vs Oracle.


Posted from my awesome White Z30

[LuvULongTime]

If Samsung is so happy with Google, why are they developing Tizen?

Also, I suggest you look up what happened to Samsung's Magazine UX and how it's disappearance relates to the cross-licensing deal. Note that I'm not saying Samsung's UX changes to Google-Android are a good thing (or even a bad thing) for Android as a whole. The only relevant point is that changing the UI is something that Samsung *wants to do*.

While I heartily agree that we won't see Samsung producing Android-forked phones for the forseeable future, they may be interested in supporting an Android-compatible forked OS (via software contributions) as a way of hedging their bets.

Also, I would be surprised if some of Google's restrictions on OHA members aren't eventually called out as monopolistic at some point. For example: Samsung isn't even allowed to manufacture Amazon Kindle Fire tablets because they use a forked version of Android.



Google�s iron grip on Android: Controlling open source by any means necessary
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/...s-necessary/3/

This is yet another reason Samsung is sick of Google. Being tied to Google means they can't even make autonomous decisions about which device manufacturing contracts they take. What manufacturing company wouldn't dislike that?

---

Finally, Sun and Oracle are only tertiarily relevant to the point I was trying to make. The point is that BlackBerry, Amazon, etc... are legally "safe" to make API-conpatible replacements for Google Play Services since Google did the exact same thing with the Java APIs. The judge in that case ruled for Google stating that the structure of the Java API's was not copywritable. In the end, the fact that "Sun was OK" with anything at any point in time was irrelevant to Google winning the case.

According to the ruling:


This provides a strong precedent for allowing third parties to create a Google Play Services replacement. If Google were to argue against it, they would be arguing against their own positive ruling vs Oracle.


Posted from my awesome White Z30

Thank you for the post. I love this forum. I learn something new all the time.

Posted via CB10

[co4nd]

That would be an incredibly stupid move on the part of Microsoft. I had said it for BB10 and I'll say it for Windows Phone. There is no purpose in having an (end-user) operating system that doesn't support its own application ecosystem. I would not even see the purpose of Windows Phone at that point. Microsoft might as well make an Android launcher and call it a day.

But I think Microsoft has seriously not put enough effort pushing Windows Phone. It should force all its divisions to always prioritize Windows Phone first before iOS and Android. The Windows Phone and the PC Windows OS teams should also coordinate work on the PC Windows interface. Finally, Microsoft should work to have Windows Phone run Windows apps and vice versa. Microsoft is making the cross Windows platform process much more complicated than it needs to be.

Is that you Balmer, thats been your strategy for years.