Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by klez 2892 days ago
Because they're different approaches. I would expect the "shitty" fork to be able to run Android apps, something that WP wasn't able to do, so developers had to support yet another platform for little gain.

If MS forked Android, made it snappy while keeping it compatible with existing apps, and if they did their marketing correctly I could see this carving a small but profitable (for some value of profitable) niche.
1 comments
fauigerzigerk 2892 days ago
>If MS forked Android, made it snappy while keeping it compatible with existing apps [...]

That's assuming Google has some interest in not making it as snappy as it could be. I don't see what the reason for that might be.

I rather think we're talking about trade-offs here, the prime one being breadth of app selection vs quality of apps.

But any new Android fork would have to prioritise breadth of app selection as that would be the first question buyers would ask. Can I still run all my apps?

link
solarkraft 2892 days ago
... which would realistically mean including the play store, which would mean having to pass google's requirements, which would mean relatively few modifications, no own store (i think), and including google apps. doesn't seem like something ms would really like to do (interesting bit: they once shipped a version of android themed to look like windows mobile).
link
fauigerzigerk 2892 days ago
I think Microsoft is one of very few companies (perhaps even the only one) that could actually replace all the google apps and run its own store.

If they cut the revenue share to, say, 10% (or a fixed fee + 5%), then it wouldn't take long until all Android apps are available on the Windows store as well.

link