Android Apps on Windows 11 | Hacker News Reader

Android Apps on Windows 11

blogs.windows.com

137 pointsMikusR185 comments

Open articleView on HN

"Mobile games: Play some of the most popular mobile games like Lords Mobile, June’s Journey, Coin Master, and more."

I'm reasonably certain those are not the most popular mobile games right now.

They are some of the worst games for sure. Pay to win and the "whales" spend tens of thousands to make sure they do.

Coin Master appears to be the #4 highest grossing game on the Play Store and Lords' whatever is #8, so.

Mobile games are meant for use with hands and gestures.

Not sure how a mouse would be fun with that.

Windows is not macOS - it supports touchscreens and most Windows notebooks have touchscreens!

Personally I don't know a lot of people who would like to touch their Laptop screen. Its just not convenient.

I am saying that as someone who got excited by the thought and actually bought a Dell touchscreen laptop.

In laptop mode, its just not worth it.

My wife and kids touch their screens all the time. I often reach over my wife's shoulder and tap a button or something on the screen rather than reaching for the trackpad.

It may not be that useful for your particular use case but that doesn't mean it's not useful for others.

I do agree that the quality of the experience also matters.

Dell touchscreen was complete shit. Especially when I was used to iPads.

I agree! I yet have to see a touchpad as good as Apple's, for example!

This is one of those things that once you use it you wonder why it's not more common. Especially for scrolling having touch on a laptop is very convenient and you get used to it quickly it becomes muscle memory to the point that you start touching non touch enabled laptops. Had a lenovo yoga with touchscreen and replaced it with a thinkpad, until I switched I hadn't realised how much I was using the touchscreen before.

I used a pixelbook with Android apps as a daily driver for a couple years. I wouldn't use the touchscreen unless I absolutely had to.

It gunks up the screen and a mouse is just more precise.

I had the option of "tablet mode" and the pixelbook is pretty much the thinnest notebook/tablet on the market, but even it's 12" size is just too big to hold in "tablet mode" for extended periods of time.

Is this a good move for Microsoft? It feels like what IBM tried with OS/2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/2#Windows_3.x_compatibility

IBM created a Windows compatibility layer. However, that meant that developers saw that they could write their programs once for Windows and OS/2 users would be able to use the programs. The reverse wouldn't be true. So there was little incentive to create native apps for OS/2 compared to Windows.

https://www.howtogeek.com/688970/what-was-ibms-os2-and-why-d...

> Also, OS/2 had a chicken-and-egg problem. Its best selling point was its compatibility with MS-DOS and Windows applications. However, this meant few developers took the time to write OS/2-native apps. So, why run OS/2 at all?

Do developers start believing that an Android app is enough to also court the Windows market? Android apps, even if they run "well" on Windows, won't be as well adapted to the Windows UX as apps intended for Windows. This isn't the case of Microsoft saying "you can now develop for Windows using the Android APIs." It's more, "you can now run Android apps with their phone UX (as submitted to a phone app store) on Windows."

I'm not saying that the feature won't be popular. However, it is potentially a weak strategy. Let's say that Microsoft makes Android apps on laptops/desktops popular. That makes it easier to market ChromeOS/Android-based laptops/desktops. If people see their apps as coming from Android and not Windows, why bother with the Windows license?

I think this is aimed at developers. "You can build your app for Android and can test it directly on Windows. Pick a Windows machine, not a Mac..."

You can already test the app directly on the device you are coding it on. This doesn't change anything.

I don’t think this is much of a difference for me. I have Android, iOS, and Electron/Web developers. Right now we target Windows with Electron, but could use Android in the future. Either way I’m not really building a Windows desktop app that would give Microsoft a moat. I think they realize that. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Windows is firmly entrenched, OS/2 never was.

Nitpick: it wasn't a compatibility layer. It was actually Windows 3.1 running in DOS. There was no emulation.

Ah, win.exe I seem to remember.

My son's Chromebook runs Android apps and he uses a bunch of them from games to tools.

(caveat i worked at MS for years but now don't)

One of Microsoft's greatest strengths on show here. Embrace and extend.

They made a mess of trying to build an app business with windows RT, Windows 8, windows 10. They can't get into the apple appstore ecosystem so they pivot to embracing the Android ecosystem to have an app catalog on windows.

(Ironically what google did with Android was the play that Microsoft should have done with windows phone - classic OEM play which they had done successfully for years before)

The Windows Android layer can only install from the amazon store and does not include any google play stuff, right? Is the amazon android app ecosystem that much better than the current windows store?

To answer your second question, very likely. Microsoft would have zero luck populating their own Android store from scratch. It's a win-win for both companies as they're playing second fiddle to the Google Play Store and maybe even the Samsung store. Attracting developers to submit apps requires a large market.

The question wasn't if it was better than a new, from-scratch store. It was if it was better than the current windows store.

The Windows Store would always be from scratch for Android apps. This is just adding the apps from the Amazon store into the Windows Store.

What would be the reason to use android apps on windows besides them not being available on windows? What feature could an android app running on windows do that a windows application couldn't do?

The only reason to run Android apps on Windows is because there aren't native Windows versions of these applications.

Then you see why I compare the current windows store to the amazon android store and not a hypothetical new windows android store.

Probably yes. People don't like to use app stores unless they are forced.

Or maybe I'd even say "people don't like to use terrible app stores unless forced". Unfortunately, all of the commercial ones I have used are really terrible (gPlay, the Apple App Store, the MS Store), though at least on everything but iOS you aren't 'forced' to use them per se, just aggressively encouraged. It's kind of mind-boggling to me that none of them have managed to make an acceptable example, how hard can search + suggest be? Even when they implement wishlist/bookmarking, it's clunky and frustrating.

I don't think Google Play or the Apple App Store are terrible, at least for end-users. They have the apps people want and function as advertised.

The Microsoft Store struggled because initially it was limited to UWP apps. Developers could not easily ship their existing Windows software on it. Microsoft shot themselves in the foot by excluding the store from Windows' biggest selling point: it's extensive library of existing software.

To make things worse, the store has always been a bit...buggy, compared to the contemporaries I mentioned earlier. I have, on more than one occasion, spent half an hour troubleshooting why a game wouldn't download and install, with the store throwing obtuse unhelpful errors.

Hmm, I would say my experience with gPlay is that the signal-to-noise ratio is very high, often even when you specifically know what you're after, it can be hard to find the app you want and not an imitator. It also goes to great lengths to get promo/featured apps and games in front of you, no matter what. Also the filtering leaves a lot to be desired, for example there's no way to look for a game that has no advertising and no IAP, just a purchase price (the cynic in me assumes that's because of Google's priorities). The Apple App Store (I only deal with it on macOS) has fewer, better apps, but even less filtering/sorting, and maddeningly no kind of wishlist/bookmark, so I sometimes see something passing and mean to check it out, but then can't remember and never try again.

It's really hard to say if the Apple App store is good for users since user's have no choice there is no way to know. I know for me, searching for apps on the Apple App store is particularly frustrating. So many bad apps trying to scam people for subscriptions for simple apps.

I could certainly imagine a successful Steam iOS store that had a better experience for games than the Apple iOS App Store. Better reviews, better community, better suggestions, and sales (something the Apple App Store doesn't do AFAIK), more ways for devs to connect with users, better store pages with more options for devs, better categories/tags, etc... Also cross platform so buying some iOS game gets me the same game on Android, PC, Mac, Linux, were appropriate

Also Steam allows adult content if that's your thing.

The current Windows Store doesn't have many good non-desktop apps. Even just getting a properly working Kindle app would be a pretty big deal.

Unfortunately another of their strength lies in the 3rd part: "extinguish". It's only a matter of time before their recent software of WSL, GitHub and Android on Windows becomes yet another walled garden.

So you're saying it's only a matter of time before Windows, which is 35 years old, might become a walled garden?

I find that the argument embedded in that question isn't very insightful.

The developments of personal computing since subscription applications became prevalent and app stores were integrated into operating systems has made things quite different from the era that preceded this one.

Apple used to sell OS upgrades. Today you can basically run Windows 10 for free. The revenue streams are different these days and they have plenty of incentives to turn your OS into a mall.

Windows has essentially always been free. There have been something like two billion PCs sold running Windows. The number of people who purchased a non-OEM copy is relatively small.

But I believe upgrades have always been an extra purchase until Windows 8? Nowadays it's free OS, free upgrades to get you in the door and buy their services (M365 for Microsoft, iCloud/apps for Apple.)

I know at least Windows ME and Windows 98 SE came in boxes.

Until Windows 10 IIRC, Windows 8 was also a paid upgrade. Windows 8.1 acted like a service pack so it wasn't until 10 that upgrades became free, in a way. (Unless you're an enterprise customer, in which case 10 wasn't free either)

Free as in price? The price tag to customers didn't exactly mention the Windows fee, but the very few vendors that sold PC's without Windows pre-installed had a lower price on those options. Luckily many vendors seem to have concluded that Windows is not a sales argument anymore. Free as in freedom? MS has tried to block out Linux from beeing installed through various chips and methods.

It is a walled garden since its inception. There is no package manager for building an open package ecosystem, as exists on other OSes.

I'd say the OS, rather than a language, having a package manager is more of a walled garden..

No it isn't. You can still install and even build packages using the manifest separately. It is just convenience, but doesn't prevent you from installing them yourself.

Prevent, no. However making your promoted paradigm of software installation rely on repos and package maintainers has lead to practices that make it unlikely that you will find any given piece of software in a form you can just drop onto your system and have it run. If you're really lucky there's a static version or an AppImage, if you're unlucky you're pulling down a docker container of someone's build environment and compiling it yourself, if you're really unlucky you have to do without the docker container.

That is on software developers, many of which refuse to package their software. There are Snaps, Appimages, Flatpaks, etc. Free software isn't like Windows where developers are always packaging their software. Package managers don't impact this whatsoever, and what you're basically complaining about is that unpaid contributors make something easier for people that they wouldn't otherwise be able to easily do without them.

I'm complaining that the community's reliance on package management has set the expectation that unpaid contributors make software work on the platform.

Where do you think PowerShell's OneGet comes from? It comes from embracing and extending AppGet.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23331287

You're thinking of WinGet.

OneGet is an open source project run by an open source group at Microsoft and has been around since 2014. It's based on linux package managers.

The embracing and extending here was "that's a nice idea, we'll re-write that from scratch and use the Microsoft Store as a GUI for it", which doesn't seem like the same thing to me at all.

I think that is a matter of perspective. Operating systems wholly reliant on package managers are arguably walled gardens, since acquiring and running software that only exists outside the official repos can be a hassle.

But I don't think most people mean either of these things when they say "walled garden". They are referring to ecosystems where the user's only choice for installing apps is an app store owned and maintained by the OS vendor.

Which is precisely what makes it not a walled garden: you can just, you know, put whatever software you want on it. That's the expected way to acquire software on Windows.

I think this is really unlikely. PC gaming is an increasingly important market for Windows in the consumer space. As more casual users abandon conventional PCs for increasingly capable tablets and smartphones, PC gaming is only becoming and even bigger piece of the pie.

The day Microsoft announces that the next version of Windows will be wholly incompatible with player's existing libraries is the day Windows ceases to be relevant to this market. Suddenly, Wine and Proton on Linux go from being "pretty good, but real Windows works better" to being the best option by a mile.

And this is without mentioning how important legacy support is to enterprise customers. A whole lot of the jank and inconsistent UI designs present in Windows 11 is there because enterprise customers still use old software that relies on old features and APIs.

Ugh, this just came to me and I hate to put this deviltry in the air:

But right now, kinda feels like Microsoft buys Steam or dies.

(Maybe not dies, but "becomes IBM.")

You underestimate the size of their enterprise business.

Valve is a private company, I highly doubt Gabe Newell will ever sell.

Seeing as Gabe viscerally hates Microsoft, I imagine so too. Also, what's the appropriate P/E ratio for a money printer?

How? They've recently bought a ton of gaming IPs, including Bethesda and id, to add to their existing sizable portfolio including some big names like Halo, Forza, Flight Sim, Minecraft, Gears. They seem to have a pretty solid agreement with EA to offer their EA Play service as a part of GamePass Ultimate, allowing access to a sizeable portion of that library for no additional cost to PC and console gamers. They're starting to push hard into Xbox-as-a-service and focusing efforts equally between PC and console, adding the xCloud "Game Everywhere On Everything!" hook.

People seem to forget that Microsoft is the second most valuable tech company in the world behind Apple. Unless some incredible monstrous change or disaster happens to/within the company, they're not going anywhere for a long time.

The ace in the hole is TPM. What happens when Microsoft starts shipping a TPM based anticheat and DRM? That would destroy Proton forever and allow them to lockdown Windows.

That's already a problem with kernel-based anticheats, they can't run in Wine/Proton.

For that, you have Valve stepping in and working with anti-cheat companies to find some middleground for Linux: https://techraptor.net/gaming/news/valve-making-linux-anti-c...

These anticheats are being ported to Linux by valve. If it was Microsoft's anticheat working in a TPM itbwoiodht impossible.

Also, Microsoft is already a DRM vendor with the Windows Store.

I can't wait for that day! Haha!

Well, I'm crossing my fingers the Valve Steam Deck satisfies my PC gaming needs (probably not though). I hate Hate HATE that more and more games are wanting to install System level services. It's absolutely not acceptable for the same machine my financial info and other sensative info is on has apps digging deep into the system.

I could run 2 machines but that's also a PITA, maintaining both machines and trying to decide when to use one vs the other. A gaming machine is powerful but I also need that power for video editing and other things. 2 VR rigs, one for non-gaming, one for gaming, would also suck. etc....

I want Windows to lockdown like Mac (and sure, you can turn it off?) but I'd like apps not to be able to muck with the system. Games have no excuse IMO.

I think they kinda tried with the windows store + arm windows surfaces. The market didn't like it.

To be fair, those Windows RT tablets were complete garbage.

I was working at Microsoft when they came out and they handed them out for free to every employee.

Due to the lack of any meaningful apps (not even Chrome), the thing was DOA. IE11 was the only option for browsing.

> So you're saying it's only a matter of time before Windows, which is 35 years old, might become a walled garden?

Yes - Microsoft had credible plans to wall-off app installation via an iOS-stye app store. Valve considered this threat to be viable enough, they developed SteamOS and promoted Steam Machines.

Since then, Microsoft has continued its cryptographic crusade to plug all avenues for loading software that's not Microsoft-approved from pre-boot, right up to the userland. Currently, Microsoft already have a turnkey walled garden

WSL I struggle to see how WSL could ever be a walled garden. THe only reason it exists is because server infra (including a bunch of Azure!) runs linux, and loads of development workflows are linux-only.

The moment you add something "windows specific" to Linux you prevent it from actually being used because then you can't deploy it.

I really don't see how their Android app support or WSL could realistically go from extend to extinguish.

I don't think Microsoft's MO is to completely dominate your entire stack anymore. They just want to make sure they form some critical piece of it so you can't get rid of them.

The most effective virus is not that which kills its host, but makes the host dependent upon the virus

If Microsoft extends their Android implementation to provide new features before Android itself does, and these features become popular, then all Microsoft would have to do is start putting out their own "Android" phones to begin eating the market.

WSL, I'll admit, will be trickier to convert. However, they have decades of experience at this so don't put it past them to figure it out.

Given Microsoft is using/embracing Amazon's replacements for "Google Play Services" isn't the threat here more that Amazon might finally extend Android after a decade of trying and failing?

(Whether or not you agree that "Google Play Services" is already that EEE play, the incumbent, seemingly not going anywhere, and Microsoft/Amazon are playing underdog in this game.)

How does "someone can install Linux in a VM on Windows"[1] translate into "ajvs won't be able to use Linux anymore"? I don't see how you can make such a claim with a straight face.

[1] WSL is based on Hyper-V virtual machines.

They're already doing it with WSL specific features such as the DirectX driver.

https://devblogs.microsoft.com/directx/directx-heart-linux/

Am I misreading? It looks like they ported the DirectX runtime to Linux under GPL 2.

>> "This is the real and full D3D12 API, no imitations, pretender or reimplementation here… this is the real deal. libd3d12.so is compiled from the same source code as d3d12.dll on Windows but for a Linux target. It offers the same level of functionality and performance (minus virtualization overhead). The only exception is Present(). There is currently no presentation integration with WSL as WSL is a console only experience today. The D3D12 API can be used for offscreen rendering and compute, but there is no swapchain support to copy pixels directly to the screen (yet )."

https://github.com/microsoft/WSL2-Linux-Kernel/tree/e445d061...

https://github.com/microsoft/WSL2-Linux-Kernel/blob/e445d061...

>> "SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0"

They're also working on supporting all the standard Linux equivalents according to your link. I don't see the third E here.

I agree, it's a good-faith effort on Microsoft's part. I think people have a hard time believing they can operate in a non-adversarial way (which is understandable if you lived through the 90s lol)

According to the blog post mentioned earlier[0]:

1. Their kernel implementation is effectively just a paravirtualized proxy to the Windows DX API. So it won't be useful for bare metal users.

2. Only the kernel driver is open source (and presumably that is only thanks to the GPL). The user-mode library is a proprietary component shipped with Windows. I assume this is also DRMed to only work on top of Hyper-V/WSL2, just like many of their VSCode extensions deliberately block usage with unbranded builds (see also: AARD code[1], this isn't exactly new for them).

[0]: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/directx/directx-heart-linux/

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code

Explain how "Microsoft puts a DirectX in WSL" stops you from running Linux in future?

Because it really doesn't seem like it will affect you or what you can do in any way at all.

1. MS adds directx to WSL

2. People write "Linux" apps that require directx

3. Linux technically stays an option but is unable to run apps without NT underneath, and nobody writes plain Linux apps because of market effects

Weak because people could still write apps for just Linux, plausible because convincing people to divert effort to the MS way would work and is classic EEE.

No one in their right mind would right linux apps targeted to run WSL only. Even if they do, it would never capture the market of pure linux. Also any modifications done to linux should be GPLd hence i don’t think thats a problem either.

Your use of "extinguish" describes a situation where you can use exactly what you have now, in exactly the way you're doing now? And the terrible thing which "extinguish" means to you is "future people who might have given me free stuff might not, and it will be Microsoft's fault"? And not only that, but the way MS will "convince people to divert effort" is by making something people want more? And that is somehow terribly unfair?

From Wikipedia:

> "Extinguish: When extensions become a de facto standard because of their dominant market share, they marginalize competitors that do not or cannot support the new extensions." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...

The current world is that there are programs written for Linux distributions with certain subsystems (audio, window manager, systemd, etc) which don't work on other distributions without those subsystems. People who ignore binary blob video card drivers, etc. A Microsoft Ubuntu with DirectX that only runs in WSL would be just another thing like that. It would be practically no different to "macOS is UNIX but you can't run all macOS programs on other Unixes" which hasn't extinguished Linux or Unix.

Even moreso when people who want to write for DirectX can do so for Windows. Why would those people target DirectX on Linux which only runs on WSL? And if it doesn't only run on WSL, let's say DirectX on Linux works on any Ubuntu and Valve use it for Steam and gaming on Linux becomes massively popular by targetting DirectX for video ... how do you then connect to "nobody writes plain Linux apps because 3D games are an option" and from there to "and now despite being massively more popular, Linux is extinguished and this is bad because even though I can run literally any other distribution and write and run my own software and all previous software, I can no longer be bothered to and that's both bad and Microsoft's fault"?

> Ironically what google did with Android was the play that Microsoft should have done with windows phone - classic OEM play which they had done successfully for years before

Windows CE was certainly an interesting platform. The problem was it tried to be some sort of ... hybrid. On one side it tried to have some semblance of being Windows (not just in terms of UI but also in terms of APIs), on the other side it was different enough to not be Windows (weird CPU architectures such as Hitachi's SuperH, for one). Not to mention unlike Apple's Xcode and Android Studio, developing for Windows CE required paying through the nose for Visual Studio and addons (or pirating them).

And then, once the iPhone and Android hit the market, Microsoft just stopped development or even trying to catch up... and when they entered the field again, they messed it up completely.

> One of Microsoft's greatest strengths on show here. Embrace and extend.

Why would Android developers go along with anything Microsoft tries to "extend" Android with when Google will just go "lol, no"?

This seems more like a desperate grasp than "embrace/extend/extinguish."

The third part of that strategy is "extinguish", which cannot happen considering Google controls the Android ecosystem.

Windows is using Amazons Android store? That raises some uncomfortable questions about privacy:

> Regardless of whether you choose to apply Amazon DRM, Amazon wraps your app with code that enables the app to communicate with the Amazon Appstore client to collect analytics, evaluate and enforce program policies, and share aggregated information with you. Your app will always communicate with the Amazon Appstore client when it starts, even if you choose not to apply DRM.

https://www.developer.amazon.com/docs/app-submission/underst...

> When your app starts on a Fire device,

I don't know if the telemetry applies to all apps on the Amazon store, or only apps installed on Fire devices. If the former, I would feel very uneasy about installing Amazon store apps on Windows.

> You can see notifications from Android apps notifications in the Action Center or share your clipboard between a Windows app and an Android app.

This is a very interesting feature. Integrated notifications means you can run any android messenger and keep it minimised.

That sounds like it would be a pretty heavyweight solution to a lightweight problem.

You mean the windows part right? /s

So like run a VM on HyperV with another OS just to use WhatsApp? How much spare ram and cores does your PC have?

Android can run on <1GB RAM devices, and I'm willing to bet WSL's port runs a lot less background services. Couple that with Hyper-V VMs being able to release memory back to the host and it probably won't be too bad. (Maybe even lighter than some Electron apps)

Are you comparing a wrapper around a native app(chromium) to an app running on an OS emulated on a VM, with non-physical connection to a physical drive? I guess the drive bandwidth itself would punish an app enough. Random disk reads and writes are no where near native performance. Android over vm is much worse than electron, for wide usage.

Would you say WSL2 apps are meaningfully heavier than "native"? Because I'm not sure that's the case, and this is just the same. And just like WSL2, you're running a VM with much less background services and bootstrappers.

Drive bandwidth is really no concern here, you have so many Android phones with I/O much worse than computer SSDs. Not everything is a flagship with UFS 3.0+.

I’ll give you an analogy. Imagine an Engine directly connected to the wheels, rather than a drive train vs via axle and drive train. Even if the engine is the best or even the worst, there is a loss of energy happening when its not connected directly. Similarly you are putting more effort on PC to get similar performance of a mid range phone by pushing the energy via drivetrain(VM). Electron is just a wrapper around a native app. Teams is based on it. Then Teams on android running on PC would be based on an entire VM.

Wsl2 apps are not heavy, but they’re limited by the performance penalty of using a drive train(vm).

And apps on android are performant on phones because, there is only one app running the UI in foreground, and many OEMS cheat by killing background services. I see no sense it makes to run an Android native app when PC alternative is available. If the app has ended up using flutter or react native, the would be 3 abstracted layers deep. VM->android->js/dart vm->app

I bet you Microsoft teams on android takes less memory than the bloated electron based desktop version.

You’re not understanding my point, VMs will never have native performance as long as there is a a pass through layer.Running a apt-update on wsl2 is much much slower than running apt-update on my ubuntu laptop.

It doesn't need to. The apps simply need to be executing a fraction of the instruction set to be more performant.

Its not like MS had changed how Android works.

> To enable these types of experiences, we are introducing a new component on top of Windows 11 called Windows Subsystem for Android™, which powers the Amazon Appstore and its catalog. The Subsystem includes the Linux kernel and the Android OS based on the Android Open Source Project (AOSP) version 11.

> The Windows Subsystem for Android is available across the full spectrum of Windows processor types (AMD, Intel, and Qualcomm).

So, on your Windows-ARM laptop, you can run android apps now. Being able to run android apps was one appealing feature of chromebooks IMO.

> We are partnering with Amazon in engaging the developer community, and we will have more details to share about early developer programs to publish Android apps to the Amazon Appstore

I had assumed that the Amazon App store had withered on the vine, but I guess their Kindles have kept it alive.

This partnership is a win win between Microsoft and Amazon. Users should be able to install fdroid too

If you can install fdroid, that would be great!

Did some quick search, people on reddit are saying you can install any apk which means you can install it. It remains to see how easy it is to do so though.

I got the impression developers shunned Amazon app store because it's a bad experience for them. Quite often am I seeing apps there that are many versions behind the play store.

I always assumed it was just because nobody uses the Amazon app store.

From a consumer perspective, the Amazon app store has no real reason to exist. It's just another place to download the same apps that are already in the Play Store, only with the extra hassle of needing to sideload it and set up a separate account from the one you already use for most other things on your phone.

If Amazon is actively making the app submission process worse for developers, then that is a colossal failure on Amazon's part to understand their market position. Developers are not the ones who need Amazon in this relationship.

> The Windows Subsystem for Android is available across the full spectrum of Windows processor types (AMD, Intel, and Qualcomm).

But scroll down to see "Feature-specific requirements for Windows 11"

> Apps available at Amazon Appstore. Additional requirements apply, including 8 GB of RAM, a solid-state drive (SSD), and a supported processor (Intel® Core™ i3 8th Generation, AMD Ryzen™ 3000, Qualcomm® Snapdragon™ 8c, or above).

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/windows-11-specifica...

Overall, that's much higher requirements than you'd find for WSL or Bluestacks. I wonder why they've set the bar so high!

Those are just normal Windows 11 requirements, related to TPM and other hardware features.

Scroll down.

> Windows Subsystem for Android™

You can install Windows 11 on lower requirements. But you might not be able to run Android apps.

It works here on 4gb RAM device. But it will show warning that it may no run well on lower than 8gb RAM devices.

IIRC "WSA" does ARM translation instead of relying on x86 builds like (classic) BlueStacks. Seems like BlueStacks 5 added ARM compatibility and also recommends a powerful CPU. (Microsoft's are basically "recommended" system requirements, and IIRC WSL2 also requires some large amount of RAM)

I didn't realise there was an Amazon App Store until I read this thread today.

This is a good tech demo but feature wise pretty useless. Windows 8 and the UWP mess already proved that people don't want "apps" on their PCs. I can't think of a single Android app that I would use on my desktop or laptop right now.

I installed scrcpy https://github.com/Genymobile/scrcpy which lets you remotely connect to your Android device - similar to VNC.

It was handy being able to use certain apps that don't exist properly on computers like Instagram, SMS, some other messaging apps. Copy and past works and you can install apk files by dropping them into the window. I found it quiet interesting.

Many apps don't have websites and only have mobile apps! It gives another incentive to developers to not release iOS-first apps - they will get simultaneously on Windows and Android instead of the now niche iOS market!

I can't think of a single Android app that I would use on my desktop or laptop right now

Sure, but other people can have different needs. I installed Bluestacks just so that I could run my bank's Android app on my desktop: unlike the bank's website, to pay with the app I only have to enter a 5-digit code. But having the app run on a phone is error prone and slow and a lot of manual typing because all its input (account numbers, amounts, ...) come from other documents/pdfs/websites/emails and I can navigate all of that much faster on a desktop. So: the app on the desktop is, for me, the fastest and most convenient banking way I found so far.

And you have a source to something? Or just a usual Wundowz 8 bed?

Those flashlight apps that siphoned all your contacts were decent though.

In classic Microsoft scattershot leadership, the preview is only available to Beta channel members, but not Dev channel members. Typically, new features would go Dev > Beta > RC > Final. This is going Beta > Dev > RC > release.

Surprise - Dev channel members (who were there because they wanted Android apps as soon as possible) are pissed. It also doesn't help that Microsoft removed the ability to switch to the Beta channel from the Dev channel a few months ago without notice.

Probably something being in conflict with WSA in dev channel is the problem atm. This is first time something is released on beta channel first afaik.

If this is the case, some communication about it would probably go a long way

I'm pretty sure this isn't a sole issue in MS..

Dev channel is for what will become Windows 12.

Ah great, they can use the iOS emulator there.

Well I'll be dammed.

A Microsoft announcement about running Google Android OS apps, that you download via Amazon's App Store on Windows.

That's wild

This is based on AOSP and not Closed source Google Android. So wait for Google to cancel Microsofts licence to make Android devices.

They can't

Microsoft makes Surface Duo. A Google certified Android device. Google forbids companies that make Android devices to make devices on Android forks.

I guess the technicality they can use here is "we're not shipping a device based on AOSP, but a software feature based on AOSP". Even Surface hardware is technically a Windows-based device with AOSP features.

That would be fantastic; if anyone can call Google out on that anticompetitive nonsense MS is a good bet.

Requires use of Hyper-V... does this mean they will bring Hyper-V to Home edition? Seems like many users who would run Android apps are likely to crossover with the group of users who are not going to upgrade their Windows license to Pro or better.

Windows Subsystem for Android™... runs in a Hyper-V Virtual Machine, like the Windows Subsystem for Linux.

They can bring Hyper-V to Home and only let you use it to run Android apps.

WSL, with Hyper-V, is available in Windows Home.

> The newest version of WSL uses Hyper-V architecture to enable its virtualization. This architecture will be available in the 'Virtual Machine Platform' optional component. This optional component will be available on all SKUs. You can expect to see more details about this experience soon as we get closer to the WSL 2 release.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/wsl/faq

Interestingly, I don't see an entry for it in hyper-v

This and WSL use "Virtual Machine Platform" which is a bit like WebView2 but for virtualization.

Now that they have WSL2 it would be much better to just contribute to waydroid: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28616985

what does WSL 2 have anything to do with it? Most people wouldn't run waydroid on wsl, that's 2 levers of abstraction.

I wonder which kind of Android apps people would die to run on the Desktop?

I didn't come yet across an app I would want to run on my computer.

Mobile exclusive games, apps and messengers. Yes mobile gaming is a thing and some people prefer playing them on a PC for competitive advantage. Try googling the number of tutorials based on how to run X app on bluestacks.

Most interesting thing about this is the use of Amazon Appstore. It's like Microsoft is acquiescing by not trying to build yet another app store (even an Android store) and lure developers and support costs along the way. MS is probably aware that Amazon could see this as a backdoor into Windows software licensing too.

I think that it has more do with Microsoft not wanting to build their own replacement for "Google Play Services" just yet. Amazon has a decade or so investment in their alternative to "Google Play Services".

What do people use features like this for?

Was just about to ask the same question. I can't come up with a single Android app I'd like to run on desktop. Is it just an app development thing?

Instagram and Snapchat want to say hi.

Even stuff like TextPlus that lacks desktop clients. I can think of quite a few apps I'd immediately grab.

Maybe Venmo since there is no desktop/web client. It frustrates me that Venmo has become so popular in my circles when it’s smartphone-only. I have a smartphone so I’ll keep using it there, but I could imagine some might appreciate the option to run apps like Venmo on a PC.

The Venmo website allows you to send and receive money just like the app.

Good to hear! Last I checked (around a year ago iirc) it wasn't possible.

There's a growing number of mobile apps that don't expose all their features through their web apps, e.g. Cash, Venmo, TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat etc.

It's a total pain for me to have to always open my phone and use the tiny keyboard to carry out some trivial task.

All the streaming services that allow you to download/save shows/movies for offline viewing, only offer that feature on their apps.

Netflix refuses to run on Bluestacks, so double-check your favourite app first.

It's probably more interesting on things like Microsoft surface. Not sure Microsoft have the stomach for it yet, but they possibly could have another crack at doing phones.

Any app that has developers who think that making an Android version (TAM: 1B+ users) is more important than creating a native Windows version (also 1B+ users), is an app that I will want to run on Windows. I mean, I'd rather have a native Windows app, but if that's not an option, I'd rather have an Android app than a website in most cases.

Windows doesn't have a lot of great touch friendly apps since Windows 8 was a huge failure.

I could see myself using this if I ever bought a windows tablet.

For example, if you like comic books, the touch friendly comic readers on windows are pretty bad. Also the biggest comic store, Comixology from Amazon, is not available in a windows app version.

Lots of games, and some apps/services are mobile-first. I play a few different android games on my PC in an emulator. The best (IMO) Twitter client around is also Android-only.

Plenty of board games have android only apps that let you play multiplayer, but no web or windows app.

So that is one use case! They even tend to support tablet layouts.

In the article, they posted a screenshot where there's an Android game, a WIN32 app (word), a PWA app and a linux app in the same window.

So I think Microsoft wants to position Windows 11 as the platform for all apps.

I translate games and use Android emulators on Windows to test games. I think I could use the Android subsystem, I would give it a try.

In the long term, will my bank force me to install app and stop supporting browser ? Right now desktop (and somtimes legal requirements) is one major reason for them supporting the browser.

> Windows is the most open platform on the planet for creators.

Gaslighting 101

That's not what gaslighting is.

That is an objectively true statement.

Only in a world without Linux distros. Something you have to pay money for, agree to a bunch of dubious legalese, and cede control over how your device operates is pretty much the opposite of "open".

I have a suspicion that they went with the Amazon App Store because it removes the dependency on Google Play Services. Is that just me?

I would say Microsoft needed an Android store and Amazon wanted another large customer base for theirs. I bet Google had no interest in obliging for either of them

And Amazon has a lot of versions of popular apps with their requirements for Google Play Services patched out as it doesn't appear on FireOS (without a bunch of work by the user).

That’s certainly part of the advantage, but I always wonder about the geography here. Amazon and Microsoft are both headquartered in Seattle (technically Redmond for MS, but it’s only a short drive). I imagine there’s a lot of cross pollination going on. They’ve also made noises in the past about integrating Alexa and Cortana, and it’s quite easy to turn a PC into an always-on Alexa device. Everything that makes sense about the Amazon collaboration would make more sense if it was a Google-Microsoft collaboration, except the geography and cross-pollination aspects. Surface Duo has play services and no one bats an eye.

That’s just my unfalsifiable hypothesis, and I’d like to hear other takes.

Google would never have wanted to put the Play Store on Windows because they actually compete with Windows. Access to the Play Store is a selling point of ChromeOS.

Google is still very much an ads company. Play? Chrome OS? Those are for Hoovering data. They are effectively loss leaders. Put another way, Google doesn't need to sell hardware, or software. It needs sources for data.

Why would Google even want the Play Store to be available on Microsoft PCs? Being able to run Android apps is a key differentiator for Chromebooks.

I wonder if Bluestacks will stick around as an alternative or if this will be the beginning of the end for it.

I gave up on Bluestacks years ago. Was too slow to start/load, had some graphic issues with some apps, overall a mediocre experience. Nowadays I use Memu, it's fast and way more flexible than Bluestacks ever was.

For me the biggest problem with Bluestacks is that apps crash frequently and at random on both 4 and 5. It's really baffling that it manages to be so low-quality compared to its competition when they all seem to be using Virtualbox at their core.

Has anyone tried sideloading android apps yet? I assume you'd need MicroG for anything Google dependent.

I saw a tweet go by that ADB is packaged in, so it should be possible to sideload

I just tried it with sideloading an instagram apk (since I don't live in the USA and don't have an USA Amazon Account for the Store) and it works perfectly fine. Just turn on developer mode and use adb to connect & sideload

It is indeed possible, I tried a few and it indeed works but pretty unstable so far.

You can do it via adb, the details are in the developer documentation https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/android/wsa/#enable...

Oh boy, soon I might be able play my favorite Android trash games [1] natively on the PC!

[1] https://youtube.com/watch?v=JT79TVpF1ds&list=PLlc94szfcNDHtz...

So... how about Windows (11?) Phone, round two?

I think Microsoft cares more about Android than Google does. They should work out a deal where Microsoft takes over Android.

What about this makes you think that? Microsoft cares about getting Android _users_, I don't think they care that much about the Android OS beyond their rather poor implementation on the Surface Duo.

Microsoft at least appears to be interested in Android. To me it feels like Google has lost interest in the product.

I'm asking what makes you feel that way? Google is actively releasing new Android versions (Android 12 announced yesterday) full of new features. In what way does that make you feel that Google has lost interest in Android?

MS can do their own Android. And it wouldn't even be a terribly stupid ideea. They already sell laptops, so why not phones?

Microsoft already sells an Android "phone" https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/surface/devices/surface-duo

Surprised with this they didn't do like Amazon and make a ms version of android

They supposedly worked with Google on this, which rules that out.

They probably have a decent estimate of the investment cost it would take to compete with "Google Play Services". Seems a big part of why they are working with Amazon for this Windows support.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com