Is having the same OS on desktop and mobile the winning strategy?

[a5cent]

Actually your example Google Music, Outlook Calendar and Mail are quite telling. Your best examples of universal apps are the ones for which there is no gap: These apps are already available.

This is exactly the point. This is why universal apps would have been great back in 2007 when Microsoft needed to migrate core apps to WP. Now what is the point of rewriting existing apps to make them universal?

Clearly the onus is on you to point to an example of area not covered already and well suited for universal apps.

When comparing initial development costs to maintenance costs, the later typically represents a far larger chunk of a software's total cost over its lifetime. If a company already has an application on Windows and a few mobile apps, and they expect their services and products to evolve for at least a few more years, they would be very stupid to not migrate to the UWP and save themselves some serious money. Even if that did entail a complete rewrite, that would still be worth the effort for many companies, but migrating to the UWP necessitates nowhere close to that kind of effort.

Some companies like PLEX have already done that. If it was as ridiculous as you're making it out to be, no companies would be doing it, but some are. That should already make it clear that you're at least somewhat wrong (and yes, PLEX had Windows and mobile apps long before the UWP came along).

 

[msnawe]

I didn't say it was ridiculous, but that many developers won't bother whether they have already an app for each device or not.

In many cases the apps will resort to very mobile specific information and context. But generally speaking, even if several medium / large companies may do so, the majority of app developers who are very small companies or freelancers will prefer spending time on a new app or feature, particularly if they consider their current app stable enough. (Maintenance costs are already low by then).



As soon as there is a BlackBerry 10 dual SIM, I fully quit Android.

 

[a5cent]

But generally speaking, even if several medium / large companies may do so, the majority of app developers who are very small companies or freelancers will prefer spending time on a new app or feature, particularly if they consider their current app stable enough. (Maintenance costs are already low by then).

You are contradicting yourself. All companies, whether large or small, typically try to avoid doing things that achieve nothing but waste time and resources.

IOW, if it is economically feasible and worthwhile for medium sized companies to bring their app(s) to the UWP, then it is equally worthwhile for smaller companies! The number of employees a company has doesn't change the economics of software development for MS' UWP.

IMHO you are too focused on somewhat insignificant details. The one question that really matters is whether or not a large enough group of consumers will participate in the Windows app store and spend money there. IF that becomes popular on desktops and laptops, then the success of the UWP and the abundance of consumer oriented universal apps is guaranteed. Only then comes the question of how much of that trickles down to smartphones.

Anyway, until you can concede that the UWP also has some legitimate uses and benefits (for developers of all sizes), and stop focusing solely on smartphones as the space where UWP's fate will be decided, I'd dispute that your train of thought is worth following. I'm out...

 

[msnawe]

Ok, so what you are suggesting I'd that companies of all sizes are better off making their desktop apps universal in any case and see later if they end up remaining used in the desktop or if eventually they get attention on smartphones.

Indeed, that's not even worth discussing.



As soon as there is a BlackBerry 10 dual SIM, I fully quit Android.

 

[a5cent]

Ok, so what you are suggesting I'd that companies of all sizes are better off making their desktop apps universal in any case and see later if they end up remaining used in the desktop or if eventually they get attention on smartphones.

Indeed, that's not even worth discussing.

No, that's not what I'm saying and I agree that is not worth discussing :eck:

 

[Jeddic]

As to the entire question regarding BB, that's completely invalid and not worth discussing. If MS had developed both the BB OS and the WP OS, then decided to drop one, that would be an interesting conversation. But asking why MS didn't adopt BB10 is like asking why Apple didn't adopt Android. WP was MS' creation, it's not perfect but it's their product.
Also, MS needs desktop apps just as much as they need mobile apps. Their Windows OS is competing with Android and iOS devices for consumer attention, so they need an ecosystem that will draw consumers to that OS.
As to universal apps on mobile/desktop, I'm just going to run down a list of apps I use, and I'll put a hyphen in front of one that would not be helpful to have on both phone and PC. Instagram, Facebook, Calendar, Mail, Messaging (SMS), Skype, Foursquare, - Maps (only really need that on phone), Browser, Snapchat, Games, Whatsapp, YouTube, Pinterest, Photoroom or other light photo editing, Pictures, Document Editor, Onenote, and Onedrive. I'm sure there are other apps I would or do use, but those are the ones I can think of off-hand. There was only one app which I would not use at all on desktop at this point, Maps. I would not use that now, because it's not as well integrated as maps in a browser, but if the app worked better than the website, then I would use it. I think the fact that all the most common apps could find some use on both mobile and desktop/laptop/tablet, along with the fact that there is no added cost for UWP, makes it a good decision to have the UWP model in place.

 

[fatclue_98]

It has hurt my eyes to read this thread. The title of this topic can only be answered one way: it's never been done so we just don't know. We can discuss this 'til the cows come home to no avail, we have to wait and see what the market will bear.

 

[tgp]

We can discuss this 'til the cows come home to no avail, we have to wait and see what the market will bear.

The is probably the most, if not the ONLY, accurate answer given in this thread.

 

[a5cent]

The is probably the most, if not the ONLY, accurate answer given in this thread.

Apparently you didn't read my posts

 

[920Walker]

20 of the same question asked slightly differently from the Devil's advocate. Plenty of well thought, thorough, speculative answers. A crystal ball would be of little help.

 

[msnawe]

Obviously Android wasn't for sale. The question of why MS didn't adopt bb10 is the same as considering other options like meego or others.

There are instances of dropping its own products for a better one. Example google video dropped for YouTube. Msn dropped for Skype.

But it has nothing to do with the topic of universal app.

The case for universal app is whether it is essential and whether it is going to be convincing enough.

I agree that only time will tell, and that we probably give more weight to different criteria. my point is that developers will also have this variations in how they balance these criteria. It will take into account the different use cases.

On the list provided earlier, there are infos missing.

1. Are the apps already fairly stable or update?
2. Do they exist for all devices or some are missing?
3. Is there already a common code base the developer is happy with (example java for PC vs Android)
4. Exemple of YouTube is weird knowing most PC users are using a browser...




As soon as there is a BlackBerry 10 dual SIM, I fully quit Android.

 

[tgp]

Apparently you didn't read my posts ��

I apologize for not giving you credit where due! I did read the whole thread, but not recently. I do no recall what all the previous posts were.

Let me rephrase it:

The (This) is probably the most, if not the ONLY, accurate answer given in this thread, along with a5cent's.

 

[msnawe]

Lol

As soon as there is a BlackBerry 10 dual SIM, I fully quit Android.

 

[Ben Wolgus]

So you wouldn't want to use your banking app on all of your devices? You wouldn't want to use a chatting app on all of your devices? You don't want Yelp on all of your devices? Why wouldn't you want to do basic video editing on a video you just took on your phone and then continue with the more heavy stuff on your PC? I want to have the option to use any app I want on any device I want. nothing wrong with options.

 

[msnawe]

I can already do that

 

[msnawe]

To be more accurate, it's already possible to manipulate video content on smartphones and sync to Cloud. Android and bb10 have been offering this out of the box several years ago already.Probably the same for WP.

Equally, my banking app work from the beginning on bb10 and in most countries where bb is popular they have banking native apps.

On PC the best place for banking is the browser. This is a web service that is better served that way. Nothing cached locally add much as possible.

 

[etc6849]

I think having universal apps is MS's only shot, and it's a great platform if you've used Visual Studio 2015 (been playing with the free version). I think it's working based on the demand for Windows 10, but without some real wearables no one younger is going to want to use a WP. My Moto 360 is just too handy to give up.

 

[msnawe]

WP is losing on closed proprietary stores. They have 2 options:

- reposition their engineers to write quality apps for the Windows store. They would have improved the situation faster than spending all this time making Windows converge between desktop and PC. Now they should themselves publish loads of UWP apps.

- make android and ios stores less attractive by creating developing open cross platform stores. This would make the OS choice less relevant to having loads of app and people can switch OS and keep their apps. Then WP and bb10 wins on UX against android and IOS.

 

[CygnusOrion]

Universal apps are when the developer has a different GUI for tablet/phone/IOT(think wearable), but shares the same business logic layer(assembly). This makes eminent sense for consumer-facing apps. However, there is as huge up-front cost to developing the first version of a universal app which is why we're not seeing them.

 

[msnawe]

So it makes sense for Microsoft to eat their own food and start writing apps. That sort of commitment can bring users to WP which in turn may get more developers to see a potential return on this initial upfront cost.

Initially the main apps that attracted users to Android were the google apps in addition to price.