
Ask HN: Why doesn't Microsoft build its own Android “fork”? - eibrahim
Why doesn&#x27;t Microsoft just build a custom version of Android?  They get instant access to the vast android apps and they can integrate it deeper with the Windows ecosystem and also innovate in their own &quot;fork&quot; of android.<p>They could eventually surpass other versions of Android and become the goto android implementation.<p>I never understood why they didn&#x27;t go that route - after all Android is open source.  What am I missing?
======
nunez
Because the OS doesn’t matter nearly as much as the apps running on that OS,
and Google only allows licensed OEMs to preload Google apps onto their devices
(for a fee). Also, how strange would it be for Microsoft to pay Google
billions of dollars for them to use their App Store? That would not only be
them conceding that they couldn’t win on mobile, but that would also reduce
them to yet another Android Phone manufacturer that has to spend tens of
millions of dollars on low margin devices that won’t sell.

Also, Windows Phone was an amazing OS in its own right but failed largely
because they couldn’t solve apps. It is impossibly hard to compete against
Apple or Samsung in this space, especially when the OEMs didn’t want to play
ball.

(Samsung, HTC and LG made a few Windows phones that they didn’t invest a lot
of time on. They were most likely an expensive relationship maintenance
activity to retain a partnership with MS. I believe this happened because MS
imposed really strict guidelines for their OS experience right out the gate
that didn’t really benefit anyone but Microsoft (OEMs make money on
preinstalled apps, for example; that wasn’t allowed.) It was much easier for
them to just pump more money on making great Android devices than trying to
make Windows Phone great again)

~~~
jchung
Is Android inextricably coupled with the Google App store? For thought
experiment's sake: could Microsoft fork Android and then host their own app
store that supports the same apps that a dev would submit to Google's App
store, thus making it possible for devs to get their android apps listed in
both stores merely by submitting the app twice?

(Serious question. I know nothing about app stores and/or mobile operating
systems)

~~~
Jyaif
Yes it's possible. It's exactly what Amazon is (was?) trying to pull off.

------
tjoff
I've read (rumor alert) that this is kind of what they originally had in mind
with the WSL (Windows Subsystem for Linux).

This would allow windows phones to run android apps from within Windows
(though several obstacles remains, since the play store and other google
services are proprietary)

Rumored this worked so well that Microsoft canned it in favor of UWP, because
if windows could run android apps there would basically not be any need for
UWP. As a result Microsoft changed focus and gave us WSL on the desktop
instead.

The above could very well / likely be made up but I like that explanation.

~~~
WorldMaker
There are arguments that Android compatibility killed Blackberry, and those
were brought up at the time.

There is also the thing that Android apps without Google Play Services often
feel like zombies of themselves. The easiest way to see that is comparing
Amazon's FireOS to Android: which apps aren't even available, which ones are,
but fail in strange ways, etc.

------
murkle
Google Play Store isn't open, control of that is key.

It doesn't matter if the platform it's running on is "Microsoft Android" or
something else - Google still controls the store

~~~
fenwick67
Yes, but apps don't HAVE to use the Play store.

Amazon, for example, has all its apps in a separate store because it doesn't
like to play Google's games (the Amazon shopping app is not in the Play store
because they don't want Google getting a slice of their profits).

A similar strategy could theoretically work for MS.

~~~
yoz-y
Amazon does have its own store because it wants the app profits for
themselves, however they do have shopping, kindle, prime and so on apps in the
Play Store[1].

I suppose that Play Store has the same rules as the Apple App store. That is,
you can have your own checkout and payment system as long as you sell things
that are not for content that you consume in the application. This is why Uber
and Amazon and other shopping apps do not have to share the profits, but for
example Audible does not sell books through their iOS app and microsoft
actually pays 30% to apple (now probably 15) for any Office subscription
people get when getting it from the app.

[1]:
[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.amazon.mSh...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.amazon.mShop.android.shopping)

~~~
chokolad
You can't buy books via Kindle app on iPhone. You have to manually open
Safari, go to amazon site and buy a book there. I believe it's exactly because
Amazon does not want to give Apple the cut of the book profit.

~~~
yoz-y
Yes, because kindle books are considered content for the application. Its the
same for Audible. But the original point was that there is no Amazon Store app
on the Play store (which there is) and the other applications are there but
crippled.

It is perfectly reasonable for Amazon to not want to give a 30% cut on books
to Apple. I wish there would be some exception for this kind of content in the
stores.

------
grizzles
They did and canned it. It was called Astoria and from what I heard it worked
really well. The media said the opposite but "Too well" was what one MS guy
said to me. They had a ton of people working on the project.

~~~
slipstream-
I also heard "too well", as in, developers just wanted to use their android
apps instead of making windows apps.

It wasn't totally canned though, it became the Windows Subsystem for Linux.

~~~
lostmsu
If that is, indeed, the case, then Microsoft makes a bad image of itself by
not giving this to their existing users, who desire that a lot.

------
ocdtrekkie
The issue is that while Android itself is "technically" open source, it's a
walled garden platform. Microsoft's own apps won't work without proprietary
Google software. (Both Skype and Outlook won't launch without Google Location
Services enabled, I haven't tried the launcher or the new Edge.)

They can't include Google's proprietary software in their fork, since part of
the agreement for distributing that software includes a clause where you agree
not to fork Android.

Even if Microsoft created their own location service for Android, changed
their own apps, and made their own app store, they'd have to convince other
app developers to support it, since Google has spent the last few years
convincing everyone to build their apps on proprietary libraries and services.
Essentially, they end up in the same boat as Windows Phone: Having a platform
without apps, and not a strong incentive for developers to modify their apps
to support it.

------
eight_ender
Microsoft would have to provide a compelling reason to use their own app store
and other services that would replace the Google ones.

That's not to say it's impossible. Microsoft has been doing a lot of mobile
development lately, and if you were trying to build a case for losing the
Google Play store Office, Skype, and other business apps are a good place to
start.

The pessimistic part of me thinks that BYOD is so prevalent these day that a
pure "business phone" locked into the Microsoft ecosystem just wouldn't work.
Maybe five years ago it would have appealed to enterprises wanting to roll out
a fleet of employee devices but now a phone needs to be as appealing to the
consumer as the business.

------
ljquintanilla
They tried by investing heavily in Cyanogen mod but that didn't go anywhere.

~~~
frik
Well their investment basically killed Cyanogen inc and Cyanogen mod.

Good that it's open source, so they forked it, and is now known as LineageOS.

------
hacker_9
Alternatively why not build a transpiler for android apps? Java -> C# would be
quite doable, and then just style the APIs and UI layouts similiar but too
similar to end up in court. Then what dev wouldn't have a go if the process
could be 90% automated? Instead they stayed in their own bubble of custom tech
that didn't bring anything particularly revolutionary to the table, and failed
to attract attention as a result.

~~~
Skunkleton
Android apps aren't strictly java, and they don't depend on open frameworks.
Rather, they are built in a combination of languages and depend largely on
googles proprietary frameworks.

~~~
hacker_9
Sure but the other languages such as C++ could be directly supported. The APIS
could be copied and renamed. Not hard to duplicate the functionality without
seeing the internals, just time consuming.

------
edoceo
And why didn't RIM!? I'd love to have a phone with a hard keyboard like the
old crackberry. That device was awesome.

~~~
nunez
They run full Android with RIM security extensions. See the DTEK line. They’ve
outsourced device manufacturing to TCL but are still in the mobile business.

------
nunez
If I recall correctly, Microsoft did intend on having Windows Phone 10 run
Android applications (they leaked it early even) but then pulled it back last
minute.

------
ben1040
They don't get instant access, though.

As a developer I already have to support both Google's flavor of Android and
Amazon's flavor of Android, with their own separate implementations of IAP,
push notifications, etc.

I'd have to support MSFT's implementations too and you'd have to convince me
(and the people who pay me) that it's worth bothering to do.

------
neolefty
Are the days of Microsoft attacking all comers over? Or even trying to carve
out their own niche in mobile? They seem much more interested in _playing
nice_ with the new platforms -- free Office on Android & iOS, for example, and
good integration between phones and Windows on the desktop.

Of course, they've also sold Office on Mac _forever_.

------
j_s
Related / triggered by: Microsoft gives up on Windows 10 Mobile |
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15432720](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15432720)
(4 hours earlier, 361+ comments)

In case either one gets separated from the other as the front page drifts by.

------
blackoil
MS is experimenting with deals to have apps pre-installed on Android phones.
e.g. An HTC/Lenovo phone with MS Launcher, Edge, OneDrive, Office, Cortana,
Bing will be enough of a Microsoft phone. They don't need to go and fork the
OS.

------
pmurT
MS already makes royalty on every significant Android device made

------
cjsuk
They'd fuck that up too.

------
pwg
> What am I missing?

You answered your own question here:

> after all Android is open source.

~~~
koolba
That didn’t stop Amazon though it’s arguable that they have more to offer a
consumer from a walled garden approach (Prime Video, Music, Kindle books...).

