Greg A recent experience with a simple Android application (tablet) was that much of the real grunt work has to be done on Windows (it could be another desktop application), and the inter-communication between the platforms becomes important. Depending on the immediacy required, "The Cloud" can be useful.
In my case, the Android application was a relatively simple (and touch-oriented) data collection thing, but the data collation, organization, visualization etc does require the larger screen and more capable coding. It would be horrible to have those functions trivialized to touch simplicity, yet having to be as capable as a desktop application can be. I shudder to think that 'consumer / user demand' will drive complex applications to less-than-capable environments. I don't think it will happen. I guess there is a place for a "TV and Celebrity iPad app <http://www.imdb.com/apps/ipad> " that surveys the IMDb website <http://www.imdb.com/> and screen-scrapes it for the most popular movies in the USA this week (and other trivial information), but personally I would rather look at the IMDb website itself and absorb its information in a less superficial fashion. As a side issue, isn't Silverlight out the door now? _____ Ian Thomas Victoria Park, Western Australia From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Greg Keogh Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 11:30 AM To: ozDotNet Subject: More on cross-platform development A few months ago I posted a question in here for general advice about cross-platform development for Windows, Android, iPad and iPhone. I asked on behalf of a colleague who has a mature sophisticated Windows desktop app and a simplified Silverlight 4 version. The same chap rang me yesterday in a bit of a panic as his marketing guys are now getting pressured about versions of the app on various phones and tablets. Based upon the earlier replies from here and what my friend has been studying it looks like cross-platform development is getting steadily more complicated. I'd like to throw our current impressions out and see if I'm on the right track... In summary, it looks like we use HTML5 to share a codebase, or we go native on each device. The former means that the apps will be crippled because HTML5 just can't reproduce the rich UI of GDI/WPF or Silverlight, and we'd need staff with a totally new skillset. The latter means multiple teams with different code and specialist skillsets, which is potentially very complex and expensive. Apple have banned VMs and interpreters from their OSs (or is it simply browser plugins?), rumour has it to kill off Flash, but .NET and Silverlight seem to be collateral casualties. Is it true that Silverlight has no hope in the Apple world? I fear that the Silverlight version of our app is doomed to die at an early age because it can only be seen in the ever-shrinking world of the desktop web browser. Years of Silverlight development may be wasted. Not only is there coding confusion about using ObjectC, Java, C#, HTML/Javascript, etc, there are marketing problems about the functionality of the apps on different devices. The Windows desktop app is very sophisticated, but the versions for phones and tablets would have to be seriously dumbed-down to be touch friendly. Even the Metro version would be utterly incapable of expressing the full app functionality. We now have the nightmare of managing not only different codebases and developer teams, but mutiple versions of the app with various functionality. Anyway, you get the idea. There must be other people in here who are going through this multi-platform conundrum in the new phone and tablet world. What ever happened to the promise that software development would get easier as languages and platforms converged? Remember the promise that VMs like Java and .NET would make our lives easier? It looks like different huge companies have betrayed us and are forcing us to use their platforms for their own greedy profit. That leaves the developers and the marketing people bewildered without a clear path, and it's happening around me now. Greg
