1. final_fantasy781's Avatar
    So, Nintendo has released another gold game last week called Fire Emblem Heroes. Since that was released, I did something that I have said I would never do, and that's download and use BlueStacks. The game is fun, amazing, but I can only wish they will release this and other Nintendo games recently released for mobile onto Windows 10 mobile.

    Now, my real point to this thread is: what's the point of developing an app for Windows 10, when there is a program that already runs Android apps on Windows? Understandably, the app only works in an "Android Environment", but this already works. I've noticed, even in these forums, that most users will wait until x86 programs will run on the Windows 10 mobile, and will install BlueStacks.
    02-06-2017 08:38 AM
  2. xandros9's Avatar
    Could be for a variety of reasons:

    1. Relatively few people will use Bluestacks.
    2. It is a relatively poor user experience trying to get it all up and running. (like, I had orientation issues last time I tried using Bluestacks.)
    3. It doesn't fit in with Windows at all and uses more power and such.
    4. Android mobile apps may or may not be suited for desktop use.
    02-06-2017 08:45 AM
  3. tgp's Avatar
    Now, my real point to this thread is: what's the point of developing an app for Windows 10, when there is a program that already runs Android apps on Windows?
    I don't think that Bluestacks is the reasoning behind not developing for Windows 10. On desktop, it doesn't seem that Store engagement is high yet, which somewhat negates the value of 500 million (potential) users. W10M is just simply too small of a user base to be worth targeting in most cases.

    I am not a developer so I cannot substantiate this, but given all the issues with poorly running apps on W10M makes me wonder if there isn't something inherently wrong with the OS that makes it difficult, or impossible, for apps to run well. Probably more likely is that due to the lower user base numbers, developers do not prioritize their W10M apps, focusing instead on optimizing their iOS and Android software.
    02-06-2017 09:20 AM
  4. Drael646464's Avatar
    I don't think that Bluestacks is the reasoning behind not developing for Windows 10. On desktop, it doesn't seem that Store engagement is high yet, which somewhat negates the value of 500 million (potential) users. W10M is just simply too small of a user base to be worth targeting in most cases.

    I am not a developer so I cannot substantiate this, but given all the issues with poorly running apps on W10M makes me wonder if there isn't something inherently wrong with the OS that makes it difficult, or impossible, for apps to run well. Probably more likely is that due to the lower user base numbers, developers do not prioritize their W10M apps, focusing instead on optimizing their iOS and Android software.
    User engagement is low, its true, but I saw a study showing windows desktop and mobile users were far more likely to spend money on apps, and that developing UWP apps is on average more profitable, outside of runaway AAA app success.

    As for the original question, most people on windows are more interested in "quality" software, which android does not have a lot of. On desktop they are interested in AAA desktop games, creativity software, media applications, full desktop browsers and so on. Which rules out any value in using primarily freemium or ad based low quality android mobile apps, which simply cannot offer a decent desktop or tablet experience.

    On mobile, I think its a similar story. Windows 10m users are more likely to pay for apps. Even lower powered software with less functionality, I think they would rather have quality, and pay for it, or have it free, rather than freemium or ad based. At least moreso than android. And they are more likely IMO, to want higher power software like adobe products, or powerful video editing etc, compared to android users.

    Lastly, bluestacks is not infallible (it crashes, and fails to emulate properly), emulation runs more slowly, and in general no one actually wants to run android apps on desktop. Even the ones they actually do - there are apps already for, and chrome extensions. Take tinder - there is an app and a chrome extension for that. WhatsApp - app on mobile, and several chrome extensions on desktop.

    If you are talking about windows on arm. Well two things, windows on arm may never come to mobile. If it does, its not soon. And when it does, the win32 is emulation itself. Which means you'd be running an emulation of an emulator, emulating something else. Its like emu-caption, it would be terrible also not scale to the screen.

    It honestly confuses me, personally, why anyone would actually want to run android apps on windows. You have all that power, and your going to use what android mobile users use instead? I don't get it.

    UWP is going to grow. Most people just haven't twigged yet that uwp isn't just for mobile, that its the entire future of the whole windows platform. People are creatures of habit, in my informal survey, only about 1/3 of desktop users used UWP apps - and that's people in an enthusiast site. It's a work in progress for MSFT to get people to click on that store app.
    Kevin Rush likes this.
    06-19-2017 08:00 AM
  5. tgp's Avatar
    most people on windows are more interested in "quality" software, which android does not have a lot of.
    Windows 10m users are more likely to pay for apps.
    You might want to check your sources. These two statements are just plain false.

    You're new here aren't you?
    xandros9 likes this.
    06-19-2017 08:07 AM
  6. Drael646464's Avatar
    You might want to check your sources. These two statements are just plain false.

    You're new here aren't you?
    .

    I take it you have an android phone!

    I've used android for years, still do for my job. The quality and power of the software versus windows desktop is miles away, due to the nature of how they are funded, and how much people are prepared to pay (and the interface itself).

    People will pay upwards of a hundred dollars for things like premiere pro, adobe products, AAA games. And they'll happily pay 20-100 dollars for midtier "power" products, like plex etc. The pro version of fruity loops for example costs about 300 usd. The android mobile version costs 10 (and is terrible because of it).

    Android users are extremely reluctant to part with the price of a coffee even for the most amazing app/game in the world. App quality comes from app funding. Whether its high or low margin, they need that cash to justify the effort.

    The only immediate exception being the occasionally AAA top ten game, like minecraft. I think that nets 8 or 9 bucks. But generally, speak to android developers, they'll tell you all the money is top ten in android and even ios, and developing for android, despite its userbase is relatively unprofitable. Part of why more quality apps and games get developed for ios..android has the volume, but ios has the most quality partly for this very reason.

    And I don't think anyone vaguely sane would compare the quality and feature power of desktop software with android software. I mean that's just cray cray, they aren't even in the same region of the galaxy. So perhaps that wasn't your issue.

    Android software quality is low due to the funding models, and the consumer spend. Apple themselves admit there is a similar problem for ios (users generally not willing to spend, thus fund development), although ios users are slightly more willing to pay the bucks, and thus ios software is of a slightly higher quality. developers should confirm. Think about how small the ios userbase is next to android - why then do they get higher grade software in many obvious cases?

    Because they have money and are willing to part with it. Even when it comes to ad funding.

    Either, with low spend, way you end up with low grade, feature poor software funded by ads and in app purchases, designed to cheat unwilling spenders out of money regardless, the sort of strategy that entirely depends on super high volume for profitability. It's a little like the free-to-air TV model, the model google has pioneered.

    Of course as an android user, there's something you can do about that- buy software. Whenever a paid or free option exists, spend the cash and get the quality.


    ..
    As for win10m, I have no reason to question studies with reasonable methodology unless I see otherwise. The study I saw was a simple survey of developer earnings on average, a simple enough prospect scientifically. Not a complicated anything, and as a uni science graduate, I understand it well enough to take it on face value.

    I've heard the same from developers themselves, that android users are often the biggest cheapskates of all mobile users, and developing for win10m can be reasonably profitable despite the lower installed userbase, because of that willingness to spend. Might partly be a lack of options of course that makes them want to spend! But I don't think that's all there is to it.

    Ask some people who develop for both platforms. I'm fairly sure you'll find, on average, I am right, and that small developers can make okay money from win10m, but tend to make peanuts on android, unless they are wild successes.


    I think a lot of devs go into android development having essentially "rock star dreams", and find the reality is far from the fantasy. If they want more realistic bank, ios and win10m are better bets, the later especially for indie developers.
    Last edited by Drael646464; 06-19-2017 at 09:26 AM.
    Kevin Rush likes this.
    06-19-2017 09:02 AM
  7. tgp's Avatar
    I've used android for years, still do for my job. The quality and power of the software versus windows desktop is miles away, due to the nature of how they are funded, and how much people are prepared to pay (and the interface itself).
    I did misunderstand you a bit here, I was thinking more comparing Android app quality to other mobile apps, not comparing it to desktop software. Sorry! But I don't think the quality is as much an issue as raw capability. Comparing quality by comparing capability is apples to oranges.

    Either way, the reason I mention about you evidently being new here is your pie-in-the-sky utopian posts. Yes, your views are logical. They make perfect sense. But we've been saying essentially what you're saying for several years. It's not turning out the way it should, the way that logic would dictate. Hence the skepticism.

    There have been a number of contributors on this forum that have come and gone, making the same kinds of posts. Either they eventually leave, or their views change. That's why I say "We have experience; you don't. Trust us!"

    And that's not to say that what you predict will not come to pass. It might. Shoot at the target blindfolded enough times, and you'll eventually hit it. But it's to the place where we'll need to see to believe.

    I've heard the same from developers themselves, that android users are often the biggest cheapskates of all mobile users, and developing for win10m can be reasonably profitable despite the lower installed userbase, because of that willingness to spend. Might partly be a lack of options of course that makes them want to spend! But I don't think that's all there is to it.
    It's true that Android users are cheapskates. Yet developing for Android can be profitable due to the sheer numbers. The install base for iOS users is a fraction of the size, but they are willing to spend. I don't know where the conclusions about W10M users you state were reached, but Windows phone users are also notoriously stingy. Combine that with the negligible user base, and there is almost no chance of it being profitable.

    Windows desktop users still don't use the Store in any meaningful numbers. However, Windows 10 S might change that. We'll see!
    xandros9 likes this.
    06-19-2017 09:53 AM
  8. Drael646464's Avatar
    Either way, the reason I mention about you evidently being new here is your pie-in-the-sky utopian posts. Yes, your views are logical. They make perfect sense. But we've been saying essentially what you're saying for several years. It's not turning out the way it should, the way that logic would dictate. Hence the skepticism.
    Pie in the sky about what? I don't believe in surface phone, in windows in arm on a phone. I only believe in project Andromeda because I've seen the code. I only believe new features are coming to win10m, because MSFT explicitly said so.

    I only believe UWP will grow because it has, and it has to commercially. I think current phones will be supported, but only up early next years update at most, and mostly because there are no new phones yet (and not in an intensive way, just the enterprise features, the new keyboard, and app based updates as desktop trickledown like timeline and files on demand)

    I'm not really sure what's pie in the sky about my views. To me, they seem very grounded, and similar to historical precedent. I do see a lot of utopian thinking around here, around "ultimate ultramobile" whatever that is.


    And that's not to say that what you predict will not come to pass. It might. Shoot at the target blindfolded enough times, and you'll eventually hit it. But it's to the place where we'll need to see to believe.
    UWP is two years old. Its the biggest change to the windows platform, literally ever. It will take a lot of time, and a lot of effort on MSFTs part, to make it work. But for them, it has to. If it fails, developers will give up on the platform, and move to fushia, or osx or Linux. If their one OS, UWP play doesn't work, and their holographic play doesn't work, they will re-entrench as a cloud company and end up like IBM. For a corporation that kind of defeat cannot be considered an option until its forced on you.

    UWP has to be seen, internally to MSFT as a "last stand", as with the whole one OS vision. Do or die. Bullish.

    It's true that Android users are cheapskates. Yet developing for Android can be profitable due to the sheer numbers.
    Its profitable, due to sheer numbers, if you get the sheer numbers. Which is why its basically top ten get paid, the rest get peanuts. A google, or speaking to developers will show this. Indie android developers that don't get break through success, don't get a liveable income, its pretty low.

    I don't know where the conclusions about W10M users you state were reached, but Windows phone users are also notoriously stingy.
    Well two things. One was talking to developers online who develop for both platforms. They generally (not all but most) seem to think that win10m is surprisingly more profitable for indie developers. Of course those that haven't coded for win10m were doubtful, like you are, but those that coded for both seemed to have a consensus more or less.

    Another was a study into the comparative average monthly earnings of android, ios, and windows app developers, where win10m was slightly higher than the other two. Of course, this reflects "the average developer" and not high earning top tier developers. Those top teir developers earn considerably more, but the average developers, earn less, according to the study. Obviously one doesn't save such links, in preparation for random internet debates, but in the comments there were also developers mostly nodding in agreement.

    I think there's a number of factors here. Win10m users have less app selection. In some cases they have to pay to get what they want. You can see that even more in a place like blackberry world - almost everything is paid because there are no alternatives. Win10m isn't quite that bad, but in some cases, its paid software, or nothing of any worth. Games might be an example. They are some great freemium games. But if you are an intensive gamer, on win10m, you can't really get away with not spending some money on some of those quality titles, like for example, the go series, or leo's fortune, or forza motorsport.

    Also, they tend to be either prosumer windows users (who are used to spending money for apps), or business users (who are also used to spending money for tools). It's generally a slightly less "average" consumer based platform. More prosumer and enterprise. Logically it stands to reason, they would be more likely to pay for software IMO, given the types of people that use the platform, and the types of software available.

    Lastly, in terms of profits for developers, there is less competition. There are loads of developers for android, and ios. It's easier to make money as a "little guy" in an area where their is less stiff competition. Also why TCL and Wharton brooks, coship etc have invested in windows phones. Commerical commonsense.

    All this adds up to more time to spend on consumer wishes, for indie devs. Take the mi band app on win10m. I spoke to the two person team they have writing the apps, and they are continually working on new features, and reassured me what I wanted was on their list. Any time I've emailed an android or ios developer, they basically don't care what I want, and don't seem to have as much interest in adding new features.

    Combine that with the negligible user base, and there is almost no chance of it being profitable.
    ComScore measured last years installed userbase of win10m at 2.7% in the US. It might be slightly smaller now, than in 2016, but it's vastly different from their marketshare that year (the quarterly sales of new phones). People often conflate these two numbers not really understanding the stats - userbase, and marketshare but they are not the same thing at all. Userbase is the total number of people with the OS on their phones. Marketshare is how many new phones sold that quarter (which is tiny compared to the total number of users).

    Neither net stats, nor martketshare accurately measure userbase. Userbase is actually quite a tricky thing to measure. Which is why comScore is really the only reliable game in town. According to them, the userbase is much higher than is generally though my mobile enthusiast, of course partly due to this misunderstanding of market stats.

    2.5% of at least US folk, with a prosumer and enterprise leaning, and a sparser selection of apps, and its not too hard to see why this is ideal for indie developers. That's not a bad userbase, especially for an area fewer developers are fighting for attention. Certainly nowhere near as good profit wise for AAA, top ten, rockstar app writers, compared to either android or ios, but that's not most developers.

    Windows desktop users still don't use the Store in any meaningful numbers. However, Windows 10 S might change that. We'll see!
    Meaningful? IDK, my informal survey on here estimated around 1/3. Admitedly this is a fan site, it was informal, so the number is probably higher, and adoption of the store is low, but I am not positive that its a _meaningless_ level of use. Indeed, I think many app devs convert win32's, or write non-scaling apps, because some desktop users do use store apps, and there are less mobile users. If you look around the store, you'll see quite a few apps that are PC only, including ones that seem to have never been ported from win32, and explicitly written that way.

    So I suspect more windows desktop users use the store, than those who generally don't would like to believe. Some people are slow to adapt, but some are faster. For those used to stores on ios and android, its a pretty familiar concept after all.

    Still adoption is slow, for both devs and users. UWP is the biggest change windows has had, as I said.

    Either way, I think it's windows on arm, on tablets and notebooks that will really push UWP forward. Windows s, helps a little, but its a bit of a niche product.

    In contrast, Windows on arm, will just be sold as windows to consumers.
    They won't know anything about what's running it. It'll just be "windows" with some additional selling points they might like the sound of.
    They'll get lighter tablets that auto on, have LTE, have longer battery life, and they won't think of them as anything but windows devices. However, with its always on LTE capability, thus notifications whilst in sleep, GPS etc, they will want ios type mobility apps, chat programs, gps based programs - stuff that uses that capability, seeing as it can work exactly like a smartphone.

    And win32 will run 70% of full speed at best (often I suspect worse), and not scale as well to smaller forms like 7, 8 or 9 inches. It'll be inferior as an experience versus UWP apps.

    Consumers won't know why, they'll just know - this app doesn't run as well as this other app. This game doesn't run as well as this game. This app isn't touch friendly. It's too small on my tablet. It's not as good. And they'll complain.

    WoA is as much a trick, using basic consumer attitudes, to leverage that against developers, as it is a new tech with consumer benefits. If a consumer finds anything not to their standard, they'll complain, post bad reviews, warn their friends away, go online an make a stink.
    If they find the store to be a better experience on their new device, they'll gravitate towards it.

    It'll be way more common than windows s too, in all likelihood, as I can't really see any good reason why OEMs wouldn't just at the chance to make their devices have instant wake from sleep, longer battery life, built in LTE and smaller sizes for cheaper prices. It's an easy sell. It's only the developers than have to deal with any fall out, that their app isn't in the windows store, or full UWP yet.

    This, and windows s, should drive developers to write more UWP. I mean its obvious, with windows s, we already have Spotify and iTunes. Two big names that don't want to lose the kiddies. Kiddies that may grow up used to windows store. Add to that the fastest growing market in PCs, the notebook, and the fastest growing segment of tablets, the windows tablet, both featuring windows on arm, a platform where UWP is objectively/subjectively a better experience, and you should have some momentum there.

    With things like this I wonder how long MSFT has been planning. Consumers often want things to happen overnight, but MSFT must have known just how hard UWP adoption would be, the uphill battle in phones, how much coding was needed for windows 10 - they must sit in a war room, year after year, for years cooking up ideas like windows on arm, windows s, to try and get the battlefront pushed forward.

    Meanwhile consumers complain because companies won't burn money for them. Capitalism is not our friend, its a game. If capitalism was our friend, they'd spend more money on preventing the acidification of the ocean, and ending fossil feuls, or addressing world hunger, that they do on creating lust for mostly pointless devices, and endless consumerism.
    Last edited by Drael646464; 06-19-2017 at 07:55 PM.
    06-19-2017 07:27 PM

Similar Threads

  1. Best Windows Tablet - Battery Life
    By Miguel Arcilla in forum Windows 10
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-27-2017, 11:01 AM
  2. Music auto stop when I close groove app
    By Faisal Islam2 in forum Windows 10 Mobile
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 02-28-2017, 10:13 PM
  3. How to master Zoom settings in Word 2016 for Windows
    By WindowsCentral.com in forum Windows Central News Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-06-2017, 06:11 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-06-2017, 12:31 AM
  5. names with space minecraft windows 10 edition
    By Windows Central Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-05-2017, 11:20 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD