Google: >simplified desktop platform >highly modular mobile

I'd call Microsoft's approach "adaptable" rather than universal. The idea behind UWP is that you have an application that can take on additional functionality depending on the capabilities of the platform it's currently running on. The problem with UWP is that a lot of developers will just shit out an application that runs the same everywhere because it's easy. This leads to the impression that UWP is a platform for "mobile" applications and useless for anything else.

>>57155253
>highly modular mobile platform
>universal computing platform
Google's mobile platform is not that much different from Microsoft's universal computing platform except for the fact that vendors of former sometimes lock their bootloaders.

>>57155318
Good comment, thanks for the clarification. I think it's a shame that folks aren't being more forward looking with something like UWP, but I imagine that in five years or so UWP or a similar product will be what's seen as the new norm going forward. It just makes too much sense to not happen eventually I feel.

>>57155335
I could see a future in which Android ends up evolving into a more full fledged platform in its own right. ChromeOS definitely feels more like a stopgap than anything and it's pretty obvious that they want to move in that direction with opening the Google Play Store for ChromeOS. I guess my question would be if it makes more sense to upscale a mobile-first platform or downscale a more powerful platform, if that makes sense.

>>57155349
Why would you ever downscale a more powerful platform?

>>57155361
Maybe I phrased that poorly. I'm talking like, you know, getting Win10 running on a handheld. In the current day there are obviously going to have to be some compromises made to get it to run well, but by adapting backwards so to speak it'll be easier to work back to the full fledged experience than building forward off of a simpler platform.

Bump for input

I sort of like Google