Microsoft Announces Windows 11 Will Be Able To Run Android Apps (windowscentral.com) 92
Microsoft has announced that Windows 11 will support Android apps via the Amazon App Store. From a report: These apps will be locally installed, meaning they will show up in the Taskbar and Start menu and not require your smartphone to function. Microsoft didn't go into much detail, but it's likely that Android apps on Windows 11 are powered by Microsoft's Windows Subsystem for Linux 2. These apps will be discoverable in the Microsoft Store.
I always said (Score:3)
Microsoft can't lose to Linux, because they can just make MS Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
"DirectX drivers that just work". You must be new if you don't remember what an utter clusterf*ck DirectX was when it came out and was forced on the industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Note the comma. At any rate, this is a pretty typical /. comment, taking a position from a reference point 25 years ago.
I know its sacrilege to say around these parts, but DirectX these days is beyond fine and the driver situation is vastly improved on both OSes. Industry and technology maturity will do that.
Re: Now THAT..is a Linux I'd buy! (Score:2)
Fair enough. I was on my phone and did actually miss the comma. I havenâ(TM)t gamed in over 20 years, but seeing DirectX and just working in the same sentence is not something I ever expected to see. Nice to hear that things improved, though.
Re: Now THAT..is a Linux I'd buy! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Be better with BSD. As recent events in Linux world has shown it would be more friendly towards that goal without all the pain of open-source politics.
Re: (Score:2)
It will be interesting to see how much Linux they use to implement this. Android doesn't require a Linux base to run on, and OS can run Android apps if it implements the APIs.
My guess would be that it's pretty much native.
Re: I always said (Score:3)
No, you're wrong. Currently Android only runs on top of the Linux kernel. So this most likely will use WSL.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not reliant on the Linux ABI or APIs though.
Re: (Score:2)
WSL originally started as a development effort to bring Android apps to Windows 10 Phone under the code names Project Astoria or Windows Bridge for Android.
But when that became too difficult they picked up the phone to Canonical and ported command line Ubuntu. Now that they finally have implemented GUI support, it has become feasible to rework their Android support 5 years after they paused it.
pokemon go on windows! (Score:3)
Would it be possible to install Android apps (Score:1)
Without the/any store?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Even on an Android you can "sideload" APK files directly. Though that would only work for free apps.
Translation or Recompilation (Score:2)
Re: Translation or Recompilation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought running Windows on ARM was supposed to be the future or something though?
I think the "or something" option is the one MS took.
Re: (Score:2)
There are already Android emulators for Windows, but they run in a simulated tablet environment, not on the Windows desktop. I doubt it will require recompiling for X86 (If the developer wanted to port to Windows, they would have already done that). I suspect Windows 11 will just hide the rest of the Android emulation environment from the user (like Windows apps in CrossOver on OSX).
Re: (Score:2)
some sort of ARM -> x86 translation from their friends at Intel
"Intel Bridge Technology is a runtime post-compiler"
https://www.intel.com/content/... [intel.com]
Mobile apps on desktop? (Score:5, Funny)
"Wow, this mobile app is a complete ergonomic joy to use - I bet it would be even better in a non-mobile setting!", excitedly exclaimed nobody in the history of mankind, ever.
Re: (Score:2)
Plenty of mobile games I would have loved to run on a PC from time to time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Pay to play"? All good games are pay to play. Buying a game is normal.
"Pay to win" is what you meant to say I think. And looking back on it, those games were kinda pay to win. But they were good games that I played a bunch, and if I could have run them on the computer sometimes that would have been really cool.
Re: (Score:2)
Most games I come across are pay to play. As you can only do a set number of things, but if you pay us money you can do more.
Re: Mobile apps on desktop? (Score:2)
That sounds like a preview version where they let you do a few things to show you that the game is worth buying.
But now it sounds like your âoeyou found games that werenâ(TM)t pay to play?â means âoeyou found games that were completely free?â, and the answer is no, but I donâ(TM)t even look for games that cost nothing. I look for good games, price is not really a consideration normally.
Re: (Score:2)
Phrased without terrible quotes:
'...But now it sounds like your "you found games that weren't pay to play?" means"you found games that were completely free?", and the answer is no, but I don't even look for games that cost nothing. I look for good games, price is not really a consideration normally.'
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on whether you are on a touchscreen laptop or not. Using many Android apps with a mouse and keyboard will naturally be a PITA, but if you can use touch on the screen just as with a phone, that is different.
Re: (Score:2)
Wacom and others make drawing tablets that have touch as well.
It's probably mostly for games (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Wow, this mobile app is a complete ergonomic joy to use - I bet it would be even better in a non-mobile setting!", excitedly exclaimed nobody in the history of mankind, ever.
Windows10 runs great on touchscreen tablets like the SurfacePro. With this move, Windows11 in this form factor will compete favorably with the iPad in terms of what apps it can run - it'll run all the normal apps and games that you expect to run on a tablet like the iPad, but will also run all normal desktop apps. (As for how it will compare to the iPad's battery life? remains to be seen.)
Re: (Score:3)
Funnily enough, Google themselves share the vision and have bundled an Android runtime within Chrome OS.
They even have developer pages dedicated to making Android apps mouse and keyboard friendly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Sometimes web interfaces so f**k the experience with all the adds,
that I appreciate less clutter on a mobile app than the desktop ones that shove the f* adds in my face.
So how do the UXD people at CNN feel that I prefer their mobile app to their desktop app?
Frankly I don't give a damn.
Re: (Score:2)
Decisions like this blatantly have zero to do with what's best for the customer and all about what's a good business decision. Yay MBAs.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a big deal for Windows, and it doesn't seem "panicked" at all. This is legitimately the first thing we've heard about Windows 11 that is seriously noteworthy. This could define how OSes relate throughout the 2020s, given how mobile has been so segregated from desktop.
This is fantastic (Score:2)
This is great!
I don't need to run lots of Android apps on my computer, but some services are not available anywhere else. Things like Kik are not available via the web. And even the Weight Watchers (WW now) app are way better than the website. I'd love to be able to use those where I have a real keyboard.
I like this direction a lot. And if Microsoft/Google can come to an agreement of interoperability, that would be good for all users of either operating system.
Re:This is fantastic (Score:4, Insightful)
And you don't see this as a fundamental problem? The website should be *the* place to do all things. Not an app. Websites are perfect for interoperable communication regardless of device.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except websites are one paradigm trying to pretend to be another. That's why it's the bloated mess it currently is. Appification [forbes.com] is making the task fit the device.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The app can do some things offline, and when a connection becomes available, do the rest.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And you don't see this as a fundamental problem? The website should be *the* place to do all things. Not an app. Websites are perfect for interoperable communication regardless of device.
I think it's YOU who misses the fundamental problem. Yes, the website SHOULD be "the" place to do all things. But it isn't, because the people making these stupid apps don't want it to be. If you want the functionality, you play by their rules. This gives you more choices for how to do that. Ranting at the guy dealing with the world as it exists rather than the way you wish it were is pretty fucking stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for understanding the point of my comment.
If Weight Watchers is the problem by not making a robust website...that is a bummer. But now if I can run their app on my computer- there is less of a problem.
Weight Watchers is still lame, but at least Microsoft is helping me get around their problem.
Re: (Score:1)
Slashdot users used to know this.... *sigh*
If we don't, sooner or later the web will cease to exist. Interoperability will be lost by the road. You'll be locked into your Android or iOS phone because that's what will be supported... Yes, yes, you use the workaround... Emulation is often detected and blocked. You'll have 200
Re: (Score:2)
But can you run a web browser in a browser? You need an app for that!
Re: (Score:2)
The website *should* be the place to do all the things... but it often isn't. Witness Venmo, the horrifically awful "social" payment service foisted upon us by PayPal. There are people who will only take payment by Venmo. And so, once upon a time, I begrudgingly set up a Venmo account, and used the web site to send such people their money.
The Venmo decided it will allow only very limited things via the web site, and any actual transfer of money between people requires their app. So if I'm sitting at a p
Re: This is fantastic (Score:2)
I would not expect banking applications to work there, because I suppose that "emulation" mechanism will pass SafetyNet and other security checks typical in these apps. Also O suppose it will not have Google services baked in, so we'll have to wait and see the compatibility.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that you don't understand the demography of the internet anymore. For many people, their one and only internet device is a smartphone. Sometimes a cheap smartphone. Websites are crushingly slow on old phones, but many apps are native code and run much faster and have better UX.
If I were going to put all my eggs in one basket, that basket would almost certainly be a mobile app—you'll reach more people that way. Those of us that spend a lot of time at a desktop computer for things like We
Re:This is fantastic (Score:4, Insightful)
The irony is that many of these apps are progressive web apps (PWAs), so they're ultimately just exposing the website in a different way. The only reason these apps provide a better experience than the website they're loading from is that they've mostly been purged of the ad disaster that plagues the website and obscures content, which render the website effectively unusable (e.g. almost every news app ever).
So chasing Apple again? (Score:3)
The first thing that came to mind when reading this was Apple's push to get OS X to where it has the ability to run iOS applications inside of it.
Microsoft must have seen that and thought, "We can't have an OS that doesn't run mobile apps too! Let's put Android app compatibility into it!"
Re: (Score:2)
No, they're copying Google.
Edge, WSL and Android apps all have Chrome OS equivalents.
Re: (Score:2)
The first thing that came to mind when reading this was Apple's push to get OS X to where it has the ability to run iOS applications inside of it. Microsoft must have seen that and thought, "We can't have an OS that doesn't run mobile apps too! Let's put Android app compatibility into it!"
Microsoft started on that path much earlier than Apple. It's "Universal Windows Platform" (UWP) was first released in 2016 and provided an identical platform for WindowsPhone and Windows10 apps, so you'd use the exact same source code and indeed exact same binary. It didn't take off because WindowsPhone had a tiny market share.
Now that Microsoft is doing it more usefully, they actually have a huge advantage. Most Windows machines tablets and foldables (and even many laptops) have touchscreens, so they'll ru
re: iOS apps on OS X (Score:2)
FWIW, I understand Apple's strategy is to use their touchpads to simulate touching the screen when running iOS apps in OS X. So not as ideal as having an actual touch-screen, but should be fairly workable.
Re: (Score:2)
The first thing that came to mind when reading this was Apple's push to get OS X to where it has the ability to run iOS applications inside of it.
Don't be so self important, this is more of a direct dig at Chrome OS. Windows has been working on a way to use android apps on the desktop since at least 2017, though back then they supported it via remotely running the app on a phone. It took them a while, but it's quite clear they've been working on this for a long time.
Re: (Score:2)
Self-important? Who do you think I am? A member of Apple upper management?
I'm just saying, first, we have Windows changing versions to 11, right after OS X becomes OS 11 on the Mac side (and despite Microsoft's earlier insistence that the Windows 10 version was here to stay). Now we have this situation.
Microsoft may have been trying to get Windows Phone/Mobile apps going on Windows a long time ago, but that's pretty irrelevant since they couldn't even get their Phone product to catch on as a real contender
Compelling Feature (Score:2)
This is actually a very compelling feature, as there are many devices with Bluetooth connectivity that can only be accessed via a mobile app, as the manufacturers won't release APIs or PC apps. OBD adapters for vehicle diagnosis are a big one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, more expensive but mine uses WiFi instead of Bluetooth. That makes it iPhone compatible.
Re: (Score:2)
Most vehicle manufacturers are providing data through their own APIs these days, at least for connected vehicles, of which diagnostics data is a pretty typical data point. This makes OBD-II interfacing unnecessary for most people. That being said, probably 95% of those BT dongles are all using knock-off ELM327 chips from China, the majority of which don't implement the spec properly or consistently, which creates a lot of variance in the quality, and is why many apps bundle with their own dongle. There's no
With their powers combined.... (Score:2)
Because out of the box Windows didn't have enough ways to become part of a botnet.
Will I have to hold the monitor sideways? (Score:2)
Re:Will I have to hold the monitor sideways? (Score:5, Funny)
You can try, but then it will auto-rotate so it's always sideways.
I'm too old to understand 99% of modern computing (Score:3)
But what use is it to run apps on a computer that doesn't have the sensors of a phone?
Here let me install my level app on my computer ...
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes mobile apps are better designed for smaller screens.
It could be quicker and easier to work with a mobile app and save screen real estate for some activities.
Noodling around some games designed around a single click and drag interface may be better than a computer counterpart too.
Re: (Score:2)
2. Doubtful, unless precision.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I can shrink a Window, but it's not designed to be used at 1/4 screen, while an android app is designed to be used 6 inches diagonally (12 at double the distance).
I can see for example using the gmail app as a strip down the left of my screen being better than shrinking the gmail tab in my web browser (where it loves to eat my emails I'm reading with interface).
Re: (Score:2)
When was this app made? The 80s?
Re: I'm too old to understand 99% of modern comput (Score:2)
And?
I still will use Gmail for my mail, because it's not a big deal. Even if the interface on the website isn't what I wanted.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, most application developers.
I would say in my experience, most devs considered it a fad and ultimately gave up and design either one or the other, or both separately, but not having a ui that is responsive.
For example, here we are, on slashdot, the poster child for not having responsive design.
Re: (Score:2)
I look forward to seeing what this can bring.
Apps on PC are great for visually impaired (Score:3)
1. Keyboards, large monitors, and mice are much friendlier for power users or visually impaired users.
2. The app is ONLY available in mobile form
3. Using an app on a computer looks like work...looking at your phone looks like goofing off. If you're chatting with friends at work, someone would have to be able to read your monitor to see this. If you're doing it on your phone, they can see it from far away.
4. It's easier to multitask
Re: (Score:2)
probably less than one percent of the apps on my phone rely on the gyroscope for functionality
many use touch for input but would function perfectly well with a pointer and button (windows already handles both touch and mouse input methods)
some apps require camera, but those apps typically make more sense to use in a mobile context
in short, your argument appears to be because not all apps will benefit from running on a laptop or desktop, there is no value in it benefiting those that do?
Re: (Score:2)
Does iPad not have sensors?
Okay then, imagine a Surface Pro with sensors.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh that's right. I forgot all phone apps are level, GPS and require sensors. It's not like we ever use messaging apps, or play games, on our our phones.
Open Question (Score:2)
Using a non-Play Store.
I wonder what's behind it - is it because their devices would be bound to install Google's Services?
What about Amazon's store - would there be Amazon's implementation of the Play API on Windows devices?
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably something to do with however much Google wanted to charge Microsoft for using the Play Store APIs. It's orthogonal from the Play Services themselves, as these are linked directly into the Apps, which changing distribution channel doesn't impact.
Sorry (Score:2)
Your Windows is rooted, this app cannot run on rooted devices.
Hallelulia (Score:2)
The year of linux on the desktop is here
Re: (Score:2)
that was 2010 for me, never looked back other than to amuse myself on the mishaps of the win* world
Why? What's the point? (Score:2)
Does Windows not have enough native apps?
Reboot of promised Android apps 4 Windows Phone? (Score:2)
Glad to see some part of that effort has survived
Android PC apps (Score:1)