Introducing Instagram, Facebook and Facebook Messenger for Windows 10.

[themaniac]

3 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

I happen to actually like the WP interface quite a lot. I think it's fast and intuitive. I don't dislike Android or iOS, I just happen to prefer the WP interface.

 

But the way that Google has treated apps on WP is pretty despicable. They even, at one point, for Windows Phone 7, revoked Gmail IMAP support for WP7 devices (You lost stuff like Push Send/Receive functionality) - so Gmail would only work under POP mode.

 

Basically they're saying Microsoft is too small to give them the effort, but the reason WP is too small is because companies like Google won't put the effort in to create apps. The lack of Apps is the #1 issue with WP. If WP had the full suite of Google Apps (Even what iOS has available), then many of the criticisms I hear about WP would no longer exist.

completely agree, if i had the money i'd get the 950xl right now(mainly because i get the 950 for free), microsoft if probably putting significantly more effort into there phones then google(google probably doesn't even give a damn about android) yet they gets fuck all, i wish people would just atleast consider a WP

[dalekphalm]

8 minutes ago, themaniac said:

completely agree, if i had the money i'd get the 950xl right now(mainly because i get the 950 for free), microsoft if probably putting significantly more effort into there phones then google(google probably doesn't even give a damn about android) yet they gets fuck all, i wish people would just atleast consider a WP

I'd use the 950, personally, since the screen is too large on the XL, but yeah, if I knew someone that wanted a Lumia 950XL, I'd go halvesies with them on it.

[themaniac]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

I'd use the 950, personally, since the screen is too large on the XL, but yeah, if I knew someone that wanted a Lumia 950XL, I'd go halvesies with them on it.

i'd just keep them both and use one as a backup because i dont trust anyone with expensive stuff

[grayperview]

where is my pornhub app?

[christianled59]

6 hours ago, xTrixieHD said:

YEAH! More unneccesary apps for websites we could much easier go to

FUN!

Well Instagram is an exception. Have you ever tried using it on a desktop? You can't. You can just scroll.

[AlTech]

12 hours ago, dmegatool said:

Does Windows 10 mobile apps works on Windows Phone 8 or they're completely different ? 

No they don't work on WP8/8.1. You have to upgrade to use it. But it's free to upgrade. Just download the "Upgrade Advisor" app for WP8.1 and it will allow you to upgrade.

[xTrixieHD]

16 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

https://www.microsoft.com/en-US/store/apps/Google/9WZDNCRFHX3W

There's a google app but it's shitty.

 

 

I really cannot say i'm suprised.

[xTrixieHD]

My god this thread spiralled out of context

[AyeJayKay]

Introducing 2009 to Windows.

[dalekphalm]

5 minutes ago, AyeJayKay said:

Introducing 2009 to Windows.

Yeah well if App developers wouldn't just put in the absolute bare minimum of effort, we'd have equal apps for WP back in 2009.

 

And then maybe WP would have a larger market share too?

 

Course, purely speculation. But the #1 thing people list when saying they wouldn't use WP is lack of apps.

[AyeJayKay]

2 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Yeah well if App developers wouldn't just put in the absolute bare minimum of effort, we'd have equal apps for WP back in 2009.

 

And then maybe WP would have a larger market share too?

 

Course, purely speculation. But the #1 thing people list when saying they wouldn't use WP is lack of apps.

It's a vicious cycle. Consumers won't buy WP devices because of the lack of apps and app developers won't develop apps because of the lack of consumers.

[dalekphalm]

Just now, AyeJayKay said:

It's a vicious cycle. Consumers won't buy WP devices because of the lack of apps and app developers won't develop apps because of the lack of consumers.

I agree - which unfortunately means the burden will fall on Microsoft to convince, incentivize, bully, pay, blackmail, or guilt devs into making apps.

[AyeJayKay]

7 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

I agree - which unfortunately means the burden will fall on Microsoft to convince, incentivize, bully, pay, blackmail, or guilt devs into making apps.

That's what Google did with Android. AFAIK, Google doesn't take cuts from developers selling their apps on the Play Store unlike Apple on the App Store. This, along with allowing OEMs to freely use Android allowed Google to create the powerhouse that is Android today.

 

Microsoft is in a baddd position though since the market has now saturated with two major operating systems. Microsoft either had to pay large amounts of money for OEMs and developers to push their brand OR create an OS (windows 10) that could easily port a large catalog of legacy software and hopefully convince consumers that this is a better way. Seems like they're betting on the latter.

[dalekphalm]

14 minutes ago, AyeJayKay said:

That's what Google did with Android. AFAIK, Google doesn't take cuts from developers selling their apps on the Play Store unlike Apple on the App Store. This, along with allowing OEMs to freely use Android allowed Google to create the powerhouse that is Android today.

 

Microsoft is in a baddd position though since the market has now saturated with two major operating systems. Microsoft either had to pay large amounts of money for OEMs and developers to push their brand OR create an OS (windows 10) that could easily port a large catalog of legacy software and hopefully convince consumers that this is a better way. Seems like they're betting on the latter.

Do you have a source on that?

 

According to this:

https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/112622?hl=en

The App dev gets 70% of the sales, and the 30% remaining goes to "the distribution partner and operating fees". Not entirely sure who the distribution partner is, but I assume that's Google, since they're the ones distributing it.

[AyeJayKay]

7 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Do you have a source on that?

 

According to this:

https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/112622?hl=en

The App dev gets 70% of the sales, and the 30% remaining goes to "the distribution partner and operating fees". Not entirely sure who the distribution partner is, but I assume that's Google, since they're the ones distributing it.

I may have been mistaken but I swear there were plenty of articles in like 2009 where the discussions were about why developers preferred to prioritize the App Store even though the revenue cut was steep.

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, AyeJayKay said:

I may have been mistaken but I swear there were plenty of articles in like 2009 where the discussions was about why developers preferred to prioritize the App Store even though the revenue cut was steep.

I imagine that Apple simply takes a larger cut (Something in the range of 45-55% of your revenue, I'd guess). I won't believe Google doesn't take a cut without solid evidence.

 

Edit: About Apple's cut: Apparently they also take 30%:

https://developer.apple.com/programs/whats-included/

[AyeJayKay]

5 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

I imagine that Apple simply takes a larger cut (Something in the range of 45-55% of your revenue, I'd guess). I won't believe Google doesn't take a cut without solid evidence.

ahh here it is.

 

Google says the company "does not make money" from its application store. "Developers will get 70 percent of the revenue from each purchase and the remaining amount goes to carriers and billing settlement fees," a Google spokesperson said in a statement to Wired.com. "We believe this revenue model creates a fair and positive experience for users, developers and carriers."

 

http://www.wired.com/2009/02/google-takes-he/

 

So yes there is a cut on the Play Store but Google does not collect it.

[dalekphalm]

2 minutes ago, AyeJayKay said:

ahh here it is.

 

Google says the company "does not make money" from its application store. "Developers will get 70 percent of the revenue from each purchase and the remaining amount goes to carriers and billing settlement fees," a Google spokesperson said in a statement to Wired.com. "We believe this revenue model creates a fair and positive experience for users, developers and carriers."

 

http://www.wired.com/2009/02/google-takes-he/

"Does not make money" is a rather vague statement, I would say. Does that mean that they simply do not profit from it? In other words, they do receive income, but the income does not exceed the expenses?

 

Why would they be paying the Carrier, and what is a billing statement fee? The carrier should not be making money if I buy something from the Google Play store.

 

For example, if I buy said item from the Play Store while on my computer, with the intention of later downloading it to my tablet, how does Google know which carrier I use? What if I do not use a carrier at all?

 

Example: My Tablet is WIFI only - there is no carrier. Who takes that 30% then?

[AyeJayKay]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

"Does not make money" is a rather vague statement, I would say. Does that mean that they simply do not profit from it? In other words, they do receive income, but the income does not exceed the expenses?

 

Why would they be paying the Carrier, and what is a billing statement fee? The carrier should not be making money if I buy something from the Google Play store.

 

For example, if I buy said item from the Play Store while on my computer, with the intention of later downloading it to my tablet, how does Google know which carrier I use? What if I do not use a carrier at all?

 

Example: My Tablet is WIFI only - there is no carrier. Who takes that 30% then?

It is indeed quite vague but it is Google after all.

 

I am not a Google rep so I don't have this info. My best guess is that Google partnered with the carriers (they're quite a powerful ally) in order to gain market share for Android. By allowing them revenue cuts from the play store, they would in turn market and push the Android brand. As to settlement fees, I don't know who runs the play store payment networks but they would need a cut as well.

 

As to unlocked devices with no specific carrier affiliation, perhaps those purchases only receive the billing cut. IDK, shots in the dark.

 

Again all speculation. So far the information we have points that Google did have such policies in order to gain market share and I would need to see evidence to prove otherwise.

[dalekphalm]

5 minutes ago, AyeJayKay said:

It is indeed quite vague but it is Google after all.

 

I am not a Google rep so I don't have this info. My best guess is that Google partnered with the carriers (they're quite a powerful ally) in order to gain market share for Android. By allowing them revenue cuts from the play store, they would in turn market and push the Android brand. As to settlement fees, I don't know who runs the play store payment networks but they would need a cut as well.

 

As to unlocked devices with no specific carrier affiliation, perhaps those purchases only receive the billing cut. IDK, shots in the dark.

 

Again all speculation. So far the information we have points that Google did have such policies in order to gain market share and I would need to see evidence to prove otherwise.

Damn you for not having confidential insider information! /s

 

Carriers DO push Android phones quite hard in most places.

[RagnarokDel]

On 29/4/2016 at 7:54 AM, noisebomb44 said:

YEAH, where is my gmail app (for desktop win 10, that is)

outlook has one

Google is racist against Windows

[BuckGup]

Look apps I don't use! 

[Sharp_3yE]

On 4/29/2016 at 4:55 AM, xTrixieHD said:

Where's my youtube app, and my google app.

No official but there's a lot of youtube apps.

[AlTech]

48 minutes ago, RagnarokDel said:

Google is racist against Windows

Well I suppose that would be OSist.

[Sharp_3yE]

On 4/29/2016 at 5:39 AM, Centurius said:

Meh call me back when they do a proper instagram app for desktop 

 

On 4/29/2016 at 5:40 AM, DildorTheDecent said:

Instagram never really is meant for "desktops"

 

Much better on phones and to a stretch tablets. 

 

On 4/29/2016 at 5:44 AM, AluminiumTech said:

 

Instagram isn't available for desktop via the app. Only Windows 10 Mobile

 

On 4/29/2016 at 6:11 AM, The Benjamins said:

You can add most email account to the windows 10 mail app. gmail works great in it.

 

 

 

So no tablet support?

 

On 4/29/2016 at 6:35 AM, AluminiumTech said:

Nope

 

INTRODUCING *Drum Roll* InstaPic https://www.microsoft.com/store/apps/9wzdncrfhwhx

A third party app for instagram.

Anything on Mobile can be just as good or better on Windows. There's a lot of 3rd party apps that works just as good or better as the official app or the web.

This app isn't perfect by any means though and would be nice if they updated it to a windows 10 style.

 

 

 

 

On 4/29/2016 at 7:24 AM, noisebomb44 said:

It was a joke, although i can see why maybe businesses or old people would want a email client on a desktop, but like @xTrixieHD said to most its "unneccesary apps for websites we could much easier go to"

 

Speaking of working better, an email app can be much better then using the web site. For multiple accounts it can be much easier to manage them through an app then a web site. Also the layout can be better depending on the website. Also, things can load better since everything doesn't have to be downloaded. You get notifications, a live tile, notifications on the lock screen. There's a lot of benefits of an app over a web site for certain things.