Microsoft's plan to port Android apps to Windows proves too complex

As someone who has spent years building software on top of compiled android binaries, as in, adding features to apps with nothing more than the APK (no source code), I can say that what they are building is not only difficult but quite fragile. I have the benefit of customers who agree to certain OS versions and specific app versions. MS wants it to work universally with every app. It's possible to get it close enough that getting any single app to work is a few tweaks, but very hard to get it to the last mile, where every app "just works".

The Astoria project at Microsoft failed because a breakthrough was needed to overcome the complexity of the software development challenge. Microsoft tried to automate mapping the Android UI into the Windows 10 UI and to map Google services within the app such as maps, payments and notifications into Microsoft equivalents. Automated conversion of a UI from one platform to another has never been successfully demonstrated.

When I first saw Microsoft's Android bridge at Build 15, I thought it was achievable. But project Astoria as it is called is much too complex. Drawing on my architectural knowledge of the underlying Microsoft/Lumia hardware that is very similar to Android phones.I concluded that in the context of partitioning the device or running a VM Microsoft would succeed. But Microsoft tried something much more ambitious. 

A good reason why google play services exists is to stop things like this. Its a complex moving target that gets updated monthly. Sure, you can do this with apps that don't use play services, but a lot do, especially popular ones. MS would have a hard time keeping up with changes. Blackberry tried this and it didn't save the Blackberry product. They pretty much gave up recently and now have an excellent android phone on the market.

The real question is how many competitive app stores can we have at once? We're probably looking at some level of natural duopoly here. It took years for Android to get the attention it did and that's with it being a worldwide leader in sales. The market settled on a product that's perceived as premium (iOS) and the workhorse do-anything, install-anywhere, sell cheap, etc Android. A third app store and the developer time/cost commitments needed might not be feasible. MS should know a thing or two about how hard it is for outsiders to break natural monopolies.

This is very disappointing to me, as a Windows Phone fan in exile (I'm on Android, for the Apps).

I'll now hope they will do something less ambitious, such as creating an Android VM on WP that would run unmodified APK's (and install the Play Store). I'm not sure if they'll strategically want to do this, but they have to do something.

Jolla, Blackberry, and Tizen (did that one ever get shipped?) have Android runtime ports that can run many Android apps really well. Not surprising because the apps are touching the same bits they touch in "real" Android. But that hasn't made a lot of difference to the popularity of those OSs. App users who want Android apps are unlikely to want an OS other than Android. Windows probably had the strongest case for using Android compatibility effectively. I can think of plausible cases where a customer needs to use Windows but wants Android apps.

Here is my prediction for what comes next: Microdroid, an OS that, like Fire OS, is based on AOSP, but uses the Microsoft ecosystem. That will happen because the ecosystem and apps are more important than the OS.

Would it have been cheaper to pay the top 100 Android apps to make a Windows version? Perhaps they do it on a continual basis to keep their marketplace up to date?

On that note, I'd like to try making a windows phone app. Is there anything sorely missing from the platform?

No mention of Islandwood (the iOS bridge), which is probably more important, if less ambitious. The missing apps preventing Windows Phone adoption are not Android-only.

There is another potential approach.

I used to run Ubuntu for ARM on the same development phone/tablet as Android for the sole reason that I can use the Ubuntu/debian tools to debug some Android OS related issue.

It is very easy to setup with chroot.

MS can probably get linux kernel VM running inside WM ARM cpu. With that, one can probably quickly run Ubuntu or Android unmodified on WM.

Pro: probably just work. Google did most of the works already. Android VM runs in x86 Windows/Linux today.

Con: Might need more memory. 2+GB for MVP. Not a low end phone anymore

Not sure why MS doesn't start with this approach and extend from that.

What's weird to me, is everyone's acting like this is a technical issue but... Astoria worked fantastically on all the apps I tested it with.

Would be great to be able to run Android apps on other platforms, even if they don't replicate the native host UX or have access to all the platform APIs.

The only solutions I've seen are

-Myriad Alien Dalvik (which isn't free)

-Google's ARC Welder (which is very fast but only works inside Chrome/Chromium, doesn't work with all apps, only runs one app at a time and quite clunky to use)

And emulators like Bluestacks or Genymotion, which are generally quite slow.

Any other alternatives - especially for Linux?

Wouldn't it have been easier to just fork Android and slap a Windows logo on it?

Like Amazon have done.

Jolla achieved this. My Jolla phone can run most Android apps without problems.

Maybe Microsoft's scope was too big?

I understand Microsoft's business interest in entering this space, but at this point there seems to be quite little incentive for consumers to switch from Apple and Android phones.

The success of this project seemed dubious for several reasons, not the least of which is the dependence of so many apps on specific functionality of the Google Play Services API, which is subject to change. But even if Windows phones could run all Android apps perfectly, this only solves the issue of Android's entrenchment. What feature could a Windows phone offer that competing phones do not? There is the questionable justification of "integration" with Microsoft's desktop offerings, but honestly much of this functionality is already available. If there is some great boon to this that justifies the cost of the switch for users, it isn't obvious.

If I owned Microsoft stock I would question this investment of resources. How much is this costing the organization, and what is the likely return? For return on investment they not only have to pull off a techical feat that nobody else has achieved, but also the availability of 'Windowized' Android apps will have to spur a massive increase in Windows Mobile sales, another unlikely event.

Maybe this project doesn't cost much or maybe Microsoft sees it as eseential for their business' future and worth the risk.

If they pull this off though, it guarantees Windows Mobile survival.