And Microsoft's market share of mobile devices is almost as pathetic as BlackBerry's. So why would any mobile app developer even give a fuck about some porting tools?

Face it. Microsoft lost the mobile game; not once, but like three times now.

I doubt either. I'm predicting that Microsoft remains a niche player in the mobile world, as it desktop market remains stable or very slowly dwindles. Nobody writing apps for mobile app platforms gives a flying shit about Microsoft's offerings. Maybe if porting was super easy, they might give it a go, but if that's the plan, then I think we're in for more dismal Surface and Windows phone sales.

Frankly, I don't know why MS just doesn't distribute an Android layer for Windows.

Which means nothing so far as Android or iOS apps are concerned. Porting an app designed for Android or iOS would likely mean significant changes to the user interface of the app.

No shit. I don't give a flying fuck what new browser Microsoft puts on Windows 10. When I get my first copy of Windows 10, I'll install Chrome, make it the default and the odds of me ever seeing IE or its successor will largely be nil.

Except that, as Metro so clearly demonstrated, mobile apps suck on a desktop monitor.

My memory may be failing, but the IBM's license agreements only applied to Win16 and Win32s, and not to Win32, thus IBM could not place the Win32 API in OS/2, and thus developed a developer migration toolkit.

This reminds me a lot of how IBM tried to deal with 32 bit Windows compatibility. They created a set of libraries and APIs to try to facilitate the easy porting of Win32 software to OS/2. In the end, developers simply didn't bite, because IBM's desktop market share was too low to make it worth it. I see Microsoft running up against the same problem; why bother going through the effort, even with assistance, of porting mobile apps from the two dominant platforms (and by dominant I mean dominating something like 90%+ of all mobile devices)?

Yes, another iteration of Embrace... Extend.. Extinguish.

Christ, the same tires fucking whining that pseudo scientists have been invoking for decades. "We're the victims of the cabal.'

It was much a lie when Michael Behe was claiming it as it is a lie now.

The researchers have no such powers. It is governments that make laws and policy.

It's a sad day when scientists are once again condemned for working on theories that butt up against prejudices and corporate interests, and accused of "groupthink" by cowards and ignoramuses.

Boy, the psuedo-skeptics with mod points are out in force today. Imagine how low I'd get moderated if I attacked Libertarianism. It's fascinating to see the number of people who truly believe the Universe owes humanity some sort of consequence-free existence.

If there was evidence that would collapse AGW, someone would publish it. Claiming that there is a vast conspiracy in any field isn't going to convince anyone but the ignorant. Again, if I have to give credence to the claim that researchers having been forced out because they debunked AGW, then should I now also reject biological evolution, Big Bang cosmology and all the other fields?

The conspiracy theory claim, to my mind, is the final appeal of the pseudo-skeptic.

Do you have an actual citation here, or are you just going to keep pretending that psueduo-skeptic blog posts are actually references? Fucking hell, do you think I'm a fucking idiot.

Ah yes, the peer review conspiracy theory. Perhaps Ben Stein can do a sequel to Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

Seriously, is it the intent of psuedo-skeptics like yourself to invoke every bullshit claim that the Creationist crowd developed? Is that the company you wish to keep?