Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Rumored To Integrate Android Apps

Comments Filter:
  • Security (Score:4, Informative)

    by mrbill1234 (715607) on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @03:10PM (#46231023)

    If they can run Android apps with the same OS level security as iOS, and the same level of app vetting as the Apple App Store - they may be onto something.

  • Re:Slippery slope (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @03:24PM (#46231221)

    Blackberry 10 (BB10) has been able to 'side load' Android apps but not being a direct route, was troubling to some users. With the current official BB10 10.2 you can directly load Android apps. 10.2 has been rolled out by many carriers but not all just yet. My opinion to be sure, but the whole 'app gap' debacle is a freaking joke. Many of the so-called major apps BB has been missing are available in competing (and sometimes better) apps. You'd never know it thanks to all the Android and IOS fanboyism but BB10 happens to be pretty great. :)

  • by MightyMartian (840721) on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @04:16PM (#46231729) Journal

    Windows 3.1 and Win32S ran well in OS/2. What killed OS/2 in the end was that they had no access to the full Win32 API being used in Windows NT, and when Chicago/Windows 95 adopted the (nearly) full Win32 API suite, developers decided Microsoft, with its vast OEM network, was going to be the winner and abandoned any notion of supporting OS/2. I remember the last floundering days of OS/2 Warp 4, when IBM put out both a browser and an MS-Works-like office suite, as well as some sort of Win32 migration layer to the OS/2 32 bit API in the hopes that they could lure developers. Sadly, even by the mid-1990s, when my involvement with IBM as a VAR ended, Word and Excel had sufficient penetration that that last ditch attempt fell on its face, and OS/2, for all its advantages was relegated to a slow death.

  • Re:Yes, it does (Score:5, Informative)

    by sexconker (1179573) on Wednesday February 12, 2014 @05:27PM (#46232479)

    That's not how it fucking works, lol. You even specified "profits" which makes even less sense. Profit is a fixed value of realized net gain. You can't have more than 100% of it, and you can't have less than 0% of it. You can't conflate Company B's LOSS with another's PROFIT to determine the MARKET's PROFIT. There's a reason we separate out PROFIT and LOSS.

    Here's an example since I'm sure you still don't get it (you'll probably REFUSE to get it since you linked to appleinsider.com ).

    Company A: $6 Profit
    Company B: $4 Profit
    Company C: $0 Profit/Loss
    Company D: $5 Loss

    Market X had a PROFIT of $10 AND a LOSS of $5 ACROSS Companies A, B, C, and D.
    You never talk about a MARKET's Profit or Loss as a whole, you talk about its REVENUE, or its Profits ACROSS those Companies which were Profitable, and losses across those which bleeding.

    Company A got 60% of the Profit, Company B got 40%.
    Company D made up 100% of the Loss.
    Company C broke even.

    You absolutely do not fucking count it as $5 Profit across the Market with Company A getting 120% of the Profit and Company B getting 80% (and Company C getting -100%).
    Profit is not a fucking vector. It is always positive. You cannot conflate Profit and Loss and flip the fucking sign.

    So why do Apple shits like to report it this way? Because they're fucking morons who read a table and don't understand what the numbers mean, or they simply want to see Apple have a larger number so they purposefully concoct bullshit like this.

    With 87% and 30%, assuming no other profitable players, you're really dealing with 74.36% and 25.64%.

    Furthermore, your link says 56% and 53%, not 87% and 30%. With 56% and 53%, you're really dealing with 51.38% and 48.62%.

Chemist who falls in acid is absorbed in work.

Working...