Is this a good move for Microsoft? It feels like what IBM tried with OS/2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/2#Windows_3.x_compatibility https://en.wikipedia.org

Is this a good move for Microsoft? It feels like what IBM tried with OS/2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/2#Windows_3.x_compatibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/2#Windows_3.x_compatibility IBM created a Windows compatibility layer. However, that meant that developers saw that they could write their programs once for Windows and OS/2 users would be able to use the programs. The reverse wouldn't be true. So there was little incentive to create native apps for OS/2 compared to Windows. https://www.howtogeek.com/688970/what-was-ibms-os2-and-why-did-it-matter/ https://www.howtogeek.com/688970/what-was-ibms-os2-and-why-d... > Also, OS/2 had a chicken-and-egg problem. Its best selling point was its compatibility with MS-DOS and Windows applications. However, this meant few developers took the time to write OS/2-native apps. So, why run OS/2 at all? Do developers start believing that an Android app is enough to also court the Windows market? Android apps, even if they run "well" on Windows, won't be as well adapted to the Windows UX as apps intended for Windows. This isn't the case of Microsoft saying "you can now develop for Windows using the Android APIs." It's more, "you can now run Android apps with their phone UX (as submitted to a phone app store) on Windows." I'm not saying that the feature won't be popular. However, it is potentially a weak strategy. Let's say that Microsoft makes Android apps on laptops/desktops popular. That makes it easier to market ChromeOS/Android-based laptops/desktops. If people see their apps as coming from Android and not Windows, why bother with the Windows license?