I can certainly understand company priorities. I can also understand their focus on streaming boxes and mobile as that is where most Android / Linux / IOS is at. But, that said, most other companies do both (Android / Linux / IOS AND Windows) so there must be money in it for them.
Oh well, I really, really tried. Maybe in the future a full GUI Channels DVR Browser will suddenly show up out of nowhere.
Fingers & toes crossed 
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have a Windows native app. When I was traveling globally a lot, my main device was a Surface Pro. I carried that and my phone and was very frustrated with the streaming providers that didn't have a native app for WIndows that allowed downloading content. When I was on a 12 hour flight, I browser app was useless. Netflix was my go to for entertainment on the planes. A native Windows app with the ability to operate disconnected would be the bomb on a Surface Pro. But its very unlikely for any of that to happen, so no point getting hopes up. For me, getting the Favorites stuff sorted out so they can be kept in sync would be my main priority right now.
I feel your pain 
Thanks for the response.
You are trying to compare a very small company to very large companies, with lots more staff. Those companies also have a lot more at stake to produce apps for as many platforms as possible...and even they are not all universal. The scope of the Channels DVR crew has expanded beyond what originally was, but they still have a limited number of hours in the day. You seem to know a lot about what to do to get what you want, so why not make it yourself? I am not putting you on blast, but if you can't do it in your spare time, I wouldn't expect them to. It would be different if they were promising universal apps, beyond iPad, but they are not. They have delivered a lot more than that and maybe one day when they can get around to it, they will pop out a Windows app, like they did with the Android app and the Kodi add-on. Like the Android app and Kodi add-on, it won't be polished, at first, but they are still giving more than they promised, for the price we are paying.
That argument falls apart when you compare to Emby....who is small, 1 to 3 person "team". They pretty much operate same scale as Channels DVR...yet, they have full web interface, desktop software, and apps on all platforms. And is a more mature home media software, that is their main focus, but does have Live TV/DVR abilty, that they have spent a great deal refining and it works very well. just, lack TVE support, sadly.
And yea, I too hope Channels some day have a desktop software app, and that maybe the web interface gets overhauled to work like Emby, in that it is a full featured app, but also has it "Manage Server" dashboard. that setup is what makes the most sense.
But, its fine as a strict administrative dashboard for now.
I am just fine using the Channels app on a stream device, but can for sure see the desire for a proper PC based app/software.
Maybe they can start small, and just make a Win Store app, (modern ui, metro)
Its pretty easy to make one of those.
Yes, Yes, Yes... My thoughts exactly.
Well said, Speedingcheetah.
If I recall, Bluestacks on Windows was only 2 channel audio. That was a deal breaker for me.
For the big guys Netflix, Hulu... all our devices are part of the streaming platform computer dongle or set top box. It's like asking to watch their content on their server.
I don't think the argument falls apart just because some other small developer decided it was one of their goals to add this capability. Any developer has to decide what capabilities they want to include in, and support, in their products. We have choices as consumers to use/buy the products we like. Nothing is every as simple as "its easy, just a few hours of coding". Everything they add to the feature set adds to the tail of support... forever... and cuts into the limited time of the developers.
I see nothing wrong requesting a Windows full client . it is the up to the developers if they choose to implement one... but some folks on here act like it is a crime to request a full Windows Client.
Yes, it's especially frustrating in regards to the browser as 90 percent of the work is already done... all they have to do is change the existing interface to a true GUI to give it the look & feel of the Android versions.
That does not seem to be so hard, so why not just do it?
I don't really see anyone acting like it is a crime to ask. If you think my post was doing so, I beg to differ. I was simply saying you are getting what you pay for, with regards to what they are offering for a price you agree to pay (if you think it too much and decide not to pay for it, then you are still getting what you paid for). I also don't think my argument "falls apart", as speedingcheetah indicates, when comparing them to a small company, as I was comparing them to the previously mentioned companies. As noted by pdaphone, if a company of Emby's size wants to do something, it does not negate what another company chooses to do. I work in a world where I have to make "feature requests" of software developers, all the time. Some things they choose to work on and others they do not. It is up to me, not them, to decide if my money continues to be best spent with them. It is on them to listen to their customers or risk going out of business. It is the same here. People have asked for a Windows app...again, not even remotely a crime, but a feature request...we will see if they produce one. If they do not and that is important to me and a competitor institutes what I need and it meets my price, I will bail in a heartbeat. As long as they meet what I need, at a price I am willing to pay, I still have the choice of whether to stay or go.
Why did you take it personal .. I did not direct the post at you or anybody ... unless your name is follks.
Guilty, Edgar Folkes (with an e), here.
JK 
I haven't seen anyone "acting like its a crime" to request it. That is the point of this forum. My reply was in response to it turning to bashing the developers because they choose not to add a Windows client, and comparing them to another developer that did. That isn't a request. They don't need a reason not to develop a Windows client. Maybe they don't like Windows.
I guess your name is folks ??
J/K
Since Apple is formost Channels primary platform for development, I woudl surmise that a Apple OS desktop client would come first, long before a Windows based one would.
Since MacOS is moving to ARM, the iPad version on the app will be able to run on those computers natively in the future without any major work by the devs
That only applies to the upcoming new models of devices.
The millions of people that don't have the most bleeding edge new apple thing still need a mac os app.