Re: Common platform is sometimes better
By that logic we would still be stuck with DOS, or Mac OS9, or win3.x /Win 9.x
Android is after many years still a work in progress and Wear OS is poor cut down version. We need better.
Developers will port for any platform that succeeds, =has worthwhile user base. Partly Google cheated with Android by using an unlicensed version of Java based on the desktop version. Simple Symbian apps were written in a mobile Java, thus easy to port.
We do need OS innovation because the current popular platforms are not very good. Security, low power consumption and "sleep" are fudged in after thoughts.
Too much effort goes into GUI tweaking, often making it worse (excessive skeuomorphic OR "flat" are equally bad), the Ribbon and Win 10 being prominant examples. One to rule them all doesn't work. Watches, phones, big tablets with keyboard options, TV sets/setboxes (screens more than 1.2 m away and 28" to 56") and desktop/laptops all need different GUIs. Pocket gadgets with long battery life, secure switches/routers, phones, desktops/servers/setboxes and IoT may need different OS.
MS has tried the the Common Platform (CE with Desktop GUI on 320 x240 was stupid, Win 8 on desktop using phone GUI was stupid). Java was from the beginning a write once run everywhere, except it wasn't because embedded things (web interface only), phones, desktop/Laptop and setboxes/TV needed radically different GUI.
I'm glad about your app. Single platform isn't the reason you have it.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
