Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Operating Systems Android Google IOS Software Apple

Ask Slashdot: Could Android and iOS Become Popular Desktop Operating Systems? 193

dryriver writes: For many older people, you use Windows, macOS, or Linux on the desktop, and Android or iOS on mobile devices. Nobody is screaming for an Android desktop PC or an iOS 17.3-inch laptop computer. But what about younger generations growing up, from a very young age, glued to devices with these two mobile operating systems running on it? Will they want to use Windows, macOS, or Linux just like us old farts when they grow older, or will they want their favorite mobile operating systems running -- in a beefed up and more robust form -- on desktop and laptop computers which they use for school, college, and/or work as well? Since we are on this topic -- could Android or iOS one day become reasonably usable desktop operating systems from an architectural standpoint? And could Google and Apple already be planning for an "Android and iOS on the desktop" computing future, without telling anyone about it publicly?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ask Slashdot: Could Android and iOS Become Popular Desktop Operating Systems?

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    You will use the OS where your apps work best. No matter what that is. The OS really does not matter except for security. The software matters to get shit done.

    • by denisbergeron ( 197036 ) <[DenisBergeron] [at] [yahoo.com]> on Thursday February 14, 2019 @08:30PM (#58124194)

      That why is cool too work with Microsoft word on Samsung Linux/Android DEX

    • Could Android and iOS Become Popular Desktop Operating Systems?

      No.

      Anything else, or was that all?

      • by HornyBastard ( 666805 ) on Friday February 15, 2019 @02:02AM (#58125128)

        Could Android and iOS Become Popular Desktop Operating Systems?

        No.

        Most people are not very smart. It could become a POPULAR desktop operating system.

        The real question is Could Android and iOS become GOOD desktop operating systems?

        The answer to that question is no.

        Reminds me of an old quote: "nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people"

    • by gl4ss ( 559668 )

      if you really want to run the android apps on desktop.. you've been able to do that for a long time.
      as for using it as an os on a desktop computer - well, sure, once you hack in windowed apps (some devices do this).

      it's not gonna be "better" than the windowed ui paradigm we've had for over 20 years though. it just isn't. if it was, I would use it right now.

      it's more like going backwards to some dos era computing. it's fine on small touchscreen computers but not really good for productivity. however some peo

    • And application design is heavilly dependent on form-factor. Smartphone apps are optimised for a small screen with inaccurate pointing and a crappy soft-keyboard that makes the already small screen even smaller. Laptop/desktop apps are optimised for large screens with a proper keyboard and an accurate multi-button pointing device.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Modern app appers know that only apps can app apps, and modern app apperating apps like Appdroid and AppOS let modern app appers app apps while apping other apps!

    Apps!

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Samsung DEX is already moving the software in that direction:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPpa6fgBghU

    • Just replaced my old Android tablet with the Samsung Tab S4 which came with demo versions of Microsoft Word/Excel/PP and has the DEX mode to go to a full desktop ; Samsung is offering a full Ubuntu build (though the older 16.04) as an option running in DEX. I may pop for one of the small USB-C adapters to play with it.
  • Already have / had a version of Android for desktop. Just look at Samsung DEX... It's cool and very usable

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14, 2019 @08:28PM (#58124186)

    Mobile devices are based on the act of consumption, not content creation.

    Yes you can "create" tweets and meme-grade content, but the more complex something is, the more tools you'll need for it. The existence of an operating system that allows you to manage files is a core function required for fluidity between the tools. Without that you're stuck with all-in-one solutions.

    Neither iOS nor Android has that level of user-manageable file integration, by design. If that changes in the future, so be it, but for them to be dominant desktop creation platforms they'll have to change so much that they effectively become new and different systems.

    • You changed my mind (Score:5, Interesting)

      by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Friday February 15, 2019 @01:11AM (#58125048)

      Mobile devices are based on the act of consumption, not content creation.

      I was coming to say the same thing about Betteridge's, but because I know your statement here is utterly false I conclude that in fact it will happen.

      I have switched to mostly editing images from professional cameras on an iPad because I prefer it. I try to do all by banking on mobile apps (here failures of the app makers throw occasional wrenches in that plan). I've worked on long documents and presentations all on mobile devices.

      Sure iOS and android are not replacing desktops today, this year, or next. But you can see it coming, sure as you can see the lights from the large city you are driving towards scores of miles away at night and know what is there.

      • Content creation. From brain to your fingers/limbs/movable body parts to convey to machine. How can using one finger (touching/dragging) more efficient than 10? (touch typing..9 if not left thumb); Also the efficiency of mouse usage is far ahead than sliding fingers? Just because tech allowed a touch-sensitive interface, it's not the efficient one.
        In any case, when you have ten engines to do a job, why use only one or two? I'm sure it also leads to repeated stress injury as the effort is not spread out.
        • How can using one finger (touching/dragging) more efficient than 10?

          First of all, way more people are typing with more than one finger.

          Secondly, for creation of something like images it is not "one finger" - it is one HAND, and have a stylus to help with that using direct interaction, is far superior to a mouse for that case (as any artist who has a tablet knows).

          Thirdly, who says I am not using ten fingers for some of that? As in typing on a keyboard which has been more than possible since day 1. Even be

          • by Anonymous Coward

            Desktops are for men. To do manly shit, like 3D modelling and programming.
            As a man I need root access to my machine. Cause I'm a man, I can do whatever I want.

            Touch devices are for women. To do girly shit like pick image filters their selfies.

            There's zero overlap.

          • by tepples ( 727027 )

            any control device we use to day can be attached to Android or iOS too?

            You can connect the joystick you already own to an Android device. Last I checked, you had to buy a specialized "Made for iPhone" joystick for use with iOS apps or Windows Store apps.

            • Last I checked, you had to buy a specialized "Made for iPhone" joystick for use with iOS apps or Windows Store apps.

              That is a REALLY shortsighted statement in a world where iPads now have USB-C - and the topic at had is if EITHER Android or iOS will every replace desktops for most users, when you've already stated Android takes joysticks directly...

              • by tepples ( 727027 )

                Even if an iPad Pro has a USB C port to act as a USB host, just because you've plugged in a standard HID joystick doesn't mean the operating system has to recognize it. That's why I mentioned Windows Store apps, which can use only XInput joysticks, not standard HID joysticks, despite Windows PCs having full USB host support.

            • Though iOS devices use the MFi joysticks, Windows Store apps use XInput controllers, which in practice means Xbox 360 and Xbox One controllers. The point is still that you need to buy an input device specifically for one operating system.

            • A Bluetooth mouse works just fine with iOS.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Mobile devices are based on the act of consumption, not content creation.

      90% of users are consumers so it shouldn't be a problem.

      Anything that can run a browser, play a movie and maybe some games would be perfect for most users.

    • by mjwx ( 966435 )

      Mobile devices are based on the act of consumption, not content creation.

      Yes you can "create" tweets and meme-grade content, but the more complex something is, the more tools you'll need for it. The existence of an operating system that allows you to manage files is a core function required for fluidity between the tools. Without that you're stuck with all-in-one solutions.

      That is mainly a function of hardware. My old HTC Dream had a fantastic keyboard that you could use to write out several pages, on screen keyboards were a step backwards. If you need to do serious work you need a large screen, decent keyboard and a mouse (or other preferred pointing device like a stylus). There is no reason the ports for this can't be integrated into a phone except for Apple's penchant for eliminating physical connectors. We've already god mini HDMI, USB C that can effectively turn a phone

  • by Anonymous Coward

    No? Ok then, no. Replace autocad for the name of any number of other applications, games, and all associated infrastructure. Good luck replacing all the local network services and infrastructure too. It's the same reason why we never had the year of the linux desktop. A touch oriented interface is also overtly inferior for tasks people would do on a pc form factor.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      https://blogs.autodesk.com/autocad/autodesk-brings-core-desktop-engine-autocad-ipad/

      AutoCAD was featured at Appleâ(TM)s keynote eventâin Brooklyn, New York, where Apple introduced the new iPad Pro and Apple Pencil.

      âoeFor the first time, Autodesk will be bringing the desktop engine of AutoCAD to the iPad. This will allow customers to view and edit files that contain hundreds of thousands of objects that you see here with performance as fast as the fastest PCs.â

  • by Tjp($)pjT ( 266360 ) on Thursday February 14, 2019 @08:34PM (#58124218)
    When Apple moves Xcode to iOS you know they are planning for shifting the paradigm. Until then, desktops and mobile OSes are not destined to merge.
  • Fuschia (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Kryptonut ( 1006779 ) on Thursday February 14, 2019 @08:44PM (#58124238)

    Isn't that sort of what Google is doing with Fuchsia [wikipedia.org]?

    OS X / macOS seems to have gotten progressively more and more iOS like since about Yosemite (10.10).

  • If the answer is no, then forget about it.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    It sucked.

  • The same apps would mostly run everywhere, configuration settings would synchronize smoothly, backups are almost a non-issue ... the only problem is disconnected operation and/or privacy. Lack of privacy, centralizable control, single sign-on -- sounds enterprise-ready too.

  • It's an intriguing question but I don't see the need to bring in new OS's to desktop apps. If there are better UX constructs in iOS & Android, they'll be copied on the existing ones and life will go on.

    The really big people who will answer the question are desktop App developers - can you see Microsoft porting Office to yet another OS that doesn't start with "Win"? What about game developers, will they want to support basically two versions of their games on the same OS, depending on the hardware pl

    • by Anonymous Coward

      What about game developers, will they want to support basically two versions of their games on the same OS, depending on the hardware platform and IO methods?

      Sure, why not? The overwhelming bulk of development cost is in the game itself. In a reasonable engine, the platform specific support is handled through an abstract interface, which is already how we're able to release the same game on some combination of PC, Xbox, Playstation, Switch, iOS, and Android. Different input handlers account for the various physical configurations. This is all very common for the current major engines like Unity and Unreal.

  • Nobody chooses the OS on their phone. Android is a gadget, not an OS.
  • No (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Roger W Moore ( 538166 ) on Thursday February 14, 2019 @09:15PM (#58124324) Journal
    iOS is far, far too restrictive to ever be a desktop replacement in its current form. Any science or engineering degree requires some level of programming which is almost impossible under these OS's so at least some "young people" will get used to desktop OS's. Plus, if you want to develop an app for these OS's you need a desktop OS to do this.

    The only way that iOS or Android will replace macOS or Linux is if they end up becoming a lot more like macOS or Linux.
    • Any science or engineering degree requires some level of programming which is almost impossible under these OS's so at least some "young people" will get used to desktop OS's.

      Those people are dramatically in the minority. Most people will never even do any scripting, let alone programming. Since python is taking over scientific analysis from tools like matlab, it's quite feasible that all dominant desktop operating systems will die, and traditional Linux (mod systemd, unfortunately) will become the desktop OS of scientific computing and hackers — and pretty much nobody else. (Naturally, it will continue to power "The Cloud".)

      On the other hand, Android sucked rocks as a des

  • by Heir Of The Mess ( 939658 ) on Thursday February 14, 2019 @09:16PM (#58124334)
    My primary school age kids use their portable devices for games that can be played with a couple of fingers, but they know that for getting work done they use Windows OS. They have collections of photos they sort into folders, videos they edit, pictures they edit with their fine motor skills via the mouse, copying files to USB to take to school, powerpoint presentations, web pages they are copying and referencing, and this is all at the same time across multiple monitors. I guess if you really wanted an alternative there's MacOS, but then that doesn't run Visual Studio, so it's useless to me, and why would I buy a whole lot of different rigs for my home environment when the Windows OS installations I have all work nicely together? Under what situation would someone run Android as a desktop operating system? It's like Linux but with a whole lot of vulnerabilities thrown on top. Maybe iOS could make it if Apple turf MacOS and give iOS a desktop shell. If you're hoping for some mobile OS to take over the desktop then that's probably your best bet, but then you are stuck in the walled garden on your desktop.
    • A large number of users (vast majority?) just use their computers to load up a web browser. In this case, who really cares about the OS? Attach a keyboard and a mouse to iOS or Android and you're basically already there.

      That's essentially what Chromebooks already are, and certainly where they're going.

  • by xtal ( 49134 ) on Thursday February 14, 2019 @09:18PM (#58124340)

    Desktop computing is the domain of professionals now. The vast majority of people use their phones and tablets as their primary computing devices. I had my eyes opened working on my wife's website for her firm - 95% of the traffic was mobile or tablet.

    iOS won't work for people who use computers in the classical sense - e.g. tell the computers to do things - because you don't have enough fine grained control. An IDE on a tablet would be a genuinely terrible experience. ...but most people interact with a tablet as their primary OS, and that's a good thing.

    • by ShoulderOfOrion ( 646118 ) on Friday February 15, 2019 @01:48AM (#58125102)

      Not sure why you're gettng so much AC hate...you nailed it. No, Android/iOS is not going to become a desktop OS, because we're talking about two VASTLY DIFFERENT userbases. All those kids now using phones and tablets who will grow up to become corporate drones or plumbers won't need desktops because they have their phones and tablets. In the corporate world they're more likely to have thin clients with fullscreen browsers running webapps than some desktop workstation running Android/iOS. Desktops will be used by those who need 2^X cores, watercooled GPUs and 256 lanes of PCIe, and those folks are not going to be installing some eToy operating system.

    • Don't forget gaming.
      Unless you like terrible flash games.
  • Not until these OSes are designed to serve the user more than their vendors.

  • C here, how swiftly like a pyrhon we approach this phone gap, java in hand, when all we wanted was a corona.
  • by Required Snark ( 1702878 ) on Thursday February 14, 2019 @09:38PM (#58124414)
    This question must be considered in terms of the current captive market.

    On the desktop Microsoft is the entrenched monopoly. On smartphones there is a duopoly between Android/Google and IOS/Apple. It is completely feasible for Google or Apple to try to grab some of Microsoft's desktop market share with their respective phone centric OS. Google is already on this path with the Chromebook and Apple with the iPad line.

    The move to challenge Widows with another platform is a business decision on the part of Google or Apple. It's not about an unmet demand on the part of users. It's a case of three massive rivals placing bets on the future. Concepts like "popularity" or "ease of use" are not primary movers. Marketing, market share, and risk/reward are the basic factors, not any desire on the part of the public.

  • This is obvious: you interact with different devices in different ways. As a standard, phones have small screens, touch, and gyroscope, whereas desktops have large screens, keyboard, and mouse. So each ecosystem -- not only the OS, but every application for it -- is designed around that.

    Sure, you can put a system where it was not intended. Buy a Win10 tablet, or run Android-x86 on your PC, and get ready for all the programs that will have clumsy interfaces, or don't work quite right, or don't work at all, b

  • Walled garden (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ZorinLynx ( 31751 ) on Thursday February 14, 2019 @11:12PM (#58124694) Homepage

    I'm willing to tolerate a walled garden for my phone and tablet, because they are appliances. I don't consider them "real computers"; they serve a specific function, which is communicating and accessing the Internet and other systems. Basically they're like fancy terminals.

    But definitely not for my desktop. I want a real computer on my desk, that I fully control and can run whatever code I want. I suppose Android wouldn't be too bad, though even on Android device makers try to take a lot more control than they do with PCs and Macs.

    My iPad is great for sitting in a coffee shop reading something, surfing the web, reading E-mail, or even SSHing to a host or two. But if I have to do any sort of real work, the frustration level spikes quickly. iOS would need a substantial redesign to be a real desktop operating system, including ditching the walled garden. But then what do you have? MacOS. Why not just use the best tool for the job?

    • My iPad is great for sitting in a coffee shop reading something, surfing the web, reading E-mail, or even SSHing to a host or two. But if I have to do any sort of real work, the frustration level spikes quickly. iOS would need a substantial redesign to be a real desktop operating system, including ditching the walled garden. But then what do you have? MacOS. Why not just use the best tool for the job?

      It's funny you bring up MacOS, at least to me, because I was just thinking about it in this context. When it was new, it would only run one program at a time, even though literally all other graphic operating systems would run more. The machine only had enough RAM to run one program at a time, so this was not a serious impediment. But as the average system's capabilities grew (i.e. as the RAM increased) the demand to run multiple applications grew. So Apple introduced first desk accessories, which were limi

  • osx ios based on BSD,
    android based on Linux,
    windows based on shite
    You can connect a monitor/keyboard/mouse to your phone and have an android desktop
    but I want a Linux phone that I can trust

    • OSX and iOS are already the same OS with a slightly different GUI toolkit. Even those are rather similar.
  • I use FreeBSD you insensitive clod!

  • Who doesn't like the Android security model—raise your hand.

    Well, that's just about everyone in the room with any brains remaining at all.

    Motion denied.

    • Who doesn't like the Android security modelâ"raise your hand.

      You mean the model where they actually use the "capabilities" capabilities ;) of the operating system, and apps aren't allowed to write into one another's directories? How terrible!

  • by Anonymous Coward

    I think the real question this is getting at is whether UI preferences are changing and whether the desktop-centric model of UI is gradually being replaced.

    A "beefed up IOS" is essentially MacOS at least under the hood. And the same could be said for any of the other platforms.

    The presentation to the user is something we should recognize as an item that should constantly evolve. If we consider how long the "task bar with a 'start menu'" or even the drop down menu's at the top of the screen have been arou

  • Add a keyboard and a file manager, and you basically come full circle with an OS that acts mostly as program loader/task switcher.
    • Add a keyboard and a file manager, and you basically come full circle with an OS that acts mostly as program loader/task switcher.

      I want useful file management, and then maybe. The OS in the old day's was mostly the interface between the hardware and the application. I mostly use applications, not OS's so who cares.

      • by jythie ( 914043 )
        *nod* that is my general thought. I don't think most users really care about OSes all that much, outside the layout of the settings control, file manager, and how applications are accessed. All the internals, the nitty gritty that actually make OSes different from each other, is hidden from the vast majority of users and thus are pretty interchangeable as long as they function on the machine.
  • Ask Slashdot: Could Android and iOS Become Popular Desktop Operating Systems?

    No. Just...wow...No. Why would anyone with 3 or more brain cells want this?
  • What is missing?
    Need each CPU to be fast. Get that same RTX Nvidia card? Some Radeon VII?
    Make AMD and Nvidia make new cards for this new desktop? Ask Intel to make a GPU
    Lots of ram....
    What is missing?
    Hows that OS and the 3D game engine code going? Vulkan? Molten?
    Write the OS, the game support, the game engine, the GPU support.
    Put that in front of a 4K, 5K display and see what frame rate ARM can do...

    The missing part is the "write" the code part.
    Someone smart with skills has to write a l
  • by sgunhouse ( 1050564 ) on Friday February 15, 2019 @02:43AM (#58125210)
    Google has no plans for Android as a desktop OS - that is what ChromeOS is for. But Samsung or Lenovo - two vendors that have modified versions of Android on their products - might have their own ideas. Lenovo has a version that let's you run apps in windows rather than full-screen, has a task-based, and the Yogabook that I'm running it on comes with 64 gb storage (expandable by adding a micro SD card) and an attached keyboard, trackpad, and pen input. That's as good as a Win 7 laptop I used to have.

    I recall articles here that Google is working on a new OS, so of course they are not planning Android as a desktop OS. But it seems to be happening anyway.
    • Too bad it still has auto-correct. That should be task bar not task-based, and lets instead of let's.
  • Desktop hardware usually last longer than the 0-4 years of updates that mobile OS:es get from their hardware vendors. We wouldn't want to throw away more kg:s of hardware every year just because we want security fixes or support for newer hard- and software.

  • Today's smartphones and tablets are way more powerful than desktops from 15 years ago. The OS is just a tool, regardless of wether you use it with a touchscreen or a mouse and keyboard.

  • Maybe not iOS, but I don't see why Android/ChromeOS/Fuchsia couldn't become a highly popular desktop OS in the not too distant future. As a power user since the 80s I will probably not like it much personally, but I can definitely see it becoming popular, and I can definitely see myself recommending it to non-nerdy friends and relatives.
  • for the demographic you describe the smartphone is already their desktop.
    how they see it, windows/macos/linux is for work.

  • First and foremost, these platforms allow too many things to happen too easily by accident. Second, they make it too easy for apps to post ads, most annoyingly each time I pull it up. And it's very difficult to find which app did it and remove it.

    Next, they just poorly designed for phone use. There are WAY too many steps to make stinking phone call or to start navigation with a map. It's likely caused accidents all the time on the roads.

    Next, Java was a terrible choice for Android. No matter what Java-

  • iOS turns a general-purpose computer into a walled-garden media consumption device, and as for Android, between the OS itself and the applications, the keyboard support is crap. And even Android isn't terribly useful until you root it.

  • iOS and macOS are already the same thing under the hood. The difference is which frameworks are available and which UI is presented. While they may be borrow from each where is makes sense, Apple has been careful to distinguish the marketing and UI/UX of the two, to avoid confusion.

    Microsoft as a counter blurred the lines, trying to push the Windows brand everywhere. The issue is that it didn’t allow developing a mobile solution that was distinct in marketing and this may have hurt how developers appr

  • Firstly, why iOS when there is Mac OS with relatively high market share? Secondly, Google is more focused on Chrome OS as a desktop OS. Chrome OS has Linux and Android app support.
  • by reanjr ( 588767 )

    Apple and Microsoft have both spent huge amounts of money trying to merge the desktop and mobile. Their continued inability to do so points to a fundamental difference between the two types of platforms that won't be transcended.

  • NO! Did we learn nothing from Windows 8? A desktop and mobile are such different contexts, trying to appeal to both means you don't fit either. They must have separate interfaces and designs. If you want to have the same kernel in both, with separate shells, that's fine. But they MUST have bespoke shells.
  • One operating system was programmed, from its inception, to support nine input methods: mouse, single-touch trackpad, multi-touch trackpad, single-touch display, multi-touch display, on-display stylus, off-display stylus, keyboard, and generic joystick/gamepad. And that OS was programmed by a company who had very poor forays into mobile devices.

    The fact that Microsoft could get something so right, while iOS still fails to support mouse devices, is laughable. I love iPad Pro, but until it supports a mouse

  • Android has a half decent file tree in place, a functional file browser, and it allows decent hooks into the OS. iOS on the other hand is waaaay too limited in its current state to be a feasible desktop OS.

The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa.

Working...