BlueStacks' Android App Player for Mac Moves into Beta with Support for All 750,000+ Apps

[MacRumors]

Back in June, we noted that BlueStacks had introduced an alpha version of its Android app player software for Mac. The app, which is also available for Windows, allows users to run Android apps on their desktop machines. With the alpha launch, however, BlueStacks supported only about 15 Android titles on the Mac.

As noted by VentureBeat, BlueStacks today announced that its Mac app has moved into beta, opening up access to all 750,000+ Android apps.

Bluestacks' virtualizes Android to run the platform's mobile apps, similar to how VMWare lets you run a virtualized version of desktop operating systems. The company calls its patent-pending virtualization technology Layercake, and it's also partnered up with Asus and AMD to bring Android apps to their devices.

While most people probably aren't clamoring to run mobile apps on their desktops, Bluestacks is useful for those rare occasions where you need to run an app with no desktop equivalent. For example, there's currently no way to use Instagram without an iOS or Android device.

TechCrunch has more on the developments, noting that BlueStacks has surpassed five million organic installs of its Windows and Mac apps, and has reached an agreement with Asus to have its software distributed on the manufacturer's PCs.

The report points to Flipboard as another example of a mobile-only app that can be run on Windows and Mac machines using BlueStacks, with BlueStacks noting that the potential for Windows and Mac compatibility could help mobile developers decide to target Android as their initial platforms rather than iOS.

"We look at it from the POV of our mobile developer partners - they start out by deciding, what mobile platform do we build for first? What's going to get the most distribution? Now with BlueStacks, building for Android first means they'll get on all PCs and Mac," [BlueStacks VP of Business Development John Gargiulo] says. There are many ways to monetize the Mac distribution, too, in addition to the in-app purchases developers can offer (without sharing a cut with Apple). BlueStacks will announce its further monetization plans in Q2 2013.

Beta versions of BlueStacks' software for Mac and Windows can be downloaded from the company's website.

Article Link: BlueStacks' Android App Player for Mac Moves into Beta with Support for All 750,000+ Apps

[Avatarshark]

I don't know. Sounds like a Google has started a shell corporation just make it seems like their apps are more accessible than Apple's.

Also it sound like they just took their SDK and just remove the development part but just left in the emulator in it. Nothing new.

[KanosWRX]

"For example, there’s currently no way to use Instagram without an iOS or Android device."

I'd say that's a good thing! Sick of square pictures with horrible colors and people who think they just made a good looking photo.

[Jaro65]

We should be able to do this with iOS apps as well. I think it would be cool to run some of my iOS apps in the corner of my ACD.

[dokujaryu]

Originally Posted by Avatarshark

Also it sound like they just took their SDK and just remove the development part but just left in the emulator in it. Nothing new.

I doubt that since the Android emulator is barely functional. They probably wrote something from "scratch". I have to put "scratch" in air quotes due to the plethora of open source software surrounding android.

[iglobe]

Originally Posted by Avatarshark

I don't know. Sounds like a Google has started a shell corporation just make it seems like their apps are more accessible than Apple's.

Also it sound like they just took their SDK and just remove the development part but just left in the emulator in it. Nothing new.

Especially for more ad revenue.....

[gatearray]

Wow, some of the crappiest mobile apps around can now lag, er, I mean "run" on my Mac?!?!

Pinch me, I must be dreaming.

[raremage]

Well, I'm happy for folks that feel like they need to run Android apps on other platforms, but I personally doubt I'll ever use this. I can't think of one native Android app that I need that doesn't have an equivalent on iOS.

[jaw04005]

It's an interesting idea. Are all the companies (and apps) shown on their Web site supporting this? Or is BlueStack doing this without permission?

For example, they show the Twitter logo yet this sounds like something Twitter would flip out about.

[coder12]

Originally Posted by iglobe

Especially for more ad revenue.....

Which makes sense, if you're an ad-based company, numbers mean a lot.

[thelead]

Originally Posted by raremage

Well, I'm happy for folks that feel like they need to run Android apps on other platforms, but I personally doubt I'll ever use this. I can't think of one native Android app that I need that doesn't have an equivalent on iOS.

You can't run iOS apps on your Mac though (at least, consumers can't). I'm sure it's coming though.

[goatless]

Along with the Android-based malware? Will we be at risk for that??

[ElRojito]

This is going to not go well. This is basically a fancy emulator and the problem is when software is made to run in a certain environment it never works in another. Anyone else tried to do an N64 emulator or something and play it on your PC? It's just not the same.

[Popeye206]

Not something that interests me. Maybe some Mac users might like it, but seems like a waste. I'd be way more interested in running my iOS apps on my Mac, but even at that, it would be minimal. I just don't see too many applications here.

Now... run iOS Apps on AppleTV and let me control with my iPhone or iPad... that's what I'm talking about!

[InfoTime]

Weather forecast for the date of the approval of this app in the Mac App Store:

[The Bulge]

[3N16MA]

Originally Posted by KanosWRX

"For example, there’s currently no way to use Instagram without an iOS or Android device."

I'd say that's a good thing! Sick of square pictures with horrible colors and people who think they just made a good looking photo.

You mean you don't like seeing me in a picture doing something random like smiling next to a Walmart while using 43 different filters so my face looks like it's made of plastic?

[HiRez]

Why the hell would anyone want to run Android apps on their desktop?

[SgtPepper12]

Originally Posted by HiRez

Why the hell would anyone want to run Android apps on their desktop?

My girlfriend has many friends who use "What's App". However, "What's App" has no Desktop version and she has no smartphone. So she installed bluestacks and "What's App".

[rmwebs]

Originally Posted by gatearray

Wow, some of the crappiest mobile apps around can now lag, er, I mean "run" on my Mac?!?!

Pinch me, I must be dreaming.

They would be no more crappy than the iOS ones...dont start thinking for 1 second that iOS apps are any more "pro" than Android apps

----------

Originally Posted by HiRez

Why the hell would anyone want to run Android apps on their desktop?

Probably for the same reason they would want to run iOS apps on the desktop.

Silly question really...

[RMo]

Originally Posted by jaw04005

It's an interesting idea. Are all the companies (and apps) shown on their Web site supporting this? ... For example, they show the Twitter logo yet this sounds like something Twitter would flip out about.

Which reminds me: I'm sure I'll be glad when this finished and working because I'm dying to use the Twitter app on my desktop, given that there's currently no other way to access it.

(But I could actually see this being useful in other cases. I haven't used Android much, but there are some iOS apps without desktop equivalents that I would understand if some people wanted to use. I'm sure it's the same here.)

[jontech]

Awesome, was able to install get free apps from Amazon, get free MP3 credits, all without having to buy Android!


Nice!

----------

Originally Posted by rmwebs

They would be no more crappy than the iOS ones...dont start thinking for 1 second that iOS apps are any more "pro" than Android apps [COLOR="#808080"]

----------

It's not the Apps that's the problem.....

[nilk]

Originally Posted by Avatarshark

I don't know. Sounds like a Google has started a shell corporation just make it seems like their apps are more accessible than Apple's.

Also it sound like they just took their SDK and just remove the development part but just left in the emulator in it. Nothing new.

If this is just the Android SDK's emulator (which is Android running on a ARM emulator) it would be unusably slow. But I don't think it is the Android SDK's ARM emulator.

I imagine that they built a layer that does something like the Android x86 port, so that the Android bits are actually compiled for x86. I haven't been able to confirm that, but I've read that this doesn't run apps with native ARM code (but pure Java/Dalvik runs fine), and that people are expecting them to add an ARM emulator later. So that leaves me to believe this is running an x86 version and not an ARM emulator (and not an emulator at all, in the same way that WINE Is Not an Emulator).

What evidence do we have that this is a shell corporation of Googles? In any case, Android apps are in fact more accessible because Android is open source and anyone can build off of that. I mean, I can take the x86 port of Android and install it on any x86 machine (or virtual machine) and run pure Java/Dalvik apps on it. And we've already had something equivalent to BlueStacks for Mac by just taking Android x86 and running it on VMWare Fusion, VirtualBox, or Parallels (though maybe BlueStacks has significant advantages over that).

What I'm interested in is if BlueStacks can be used by developers as an alternative to the horribly slow Android SDK's emulator. I don't see why not.

[rmwebs]

Originally Posted by jontech

Awesome, was able to install get free apps from Amazon, get free MP3 credits, all without having to buy Android!


Nice!

----------




It's not the Apps that's the problem.....

Would you care to share what you think the problem is then?

[Kaibelf]

In other news, a man today went to a fine restaurant, ordered the swordfish, and then put ketchup on it.