[Development] The future of the "Ministro" brand on Android (was: Proposal: Adding a repository in Qt Project for the Ministro tool, needed by Qt for Android)

[Bache-Wiig Jens]

>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> As part of the Android-port of Qt 5 being contributed to the Qt 
>> Project by BogDan, he also contributed the code for a general-purpose 
>> Android app which is used for getting libraries and plugins on demand 
>> when a Qt app is deployed to an Android device. This tool is called "Ministro".
>> 
>> We need a repository to put it in, and the existing repositories do 
>> not seem to fit, so I'm proposing making a new repository for this:
>> ministro/ministro
> 
> I certainly don't mind adding the repository but I presume there will be a branding change once the Android port is made official. While "Neccessitas" and "Ministro" sounds cool, I think it would be better if we stop using those names officially and start to refer to them just as "Qt for Android" and "Qt Library Installer" or something similar and clear.
> 
> I think people get a bit worried when they have to install something called "Ministro" on their phones. At least I was rather concerned the first time I installed a Qt app on my device and had to check twice. Perhaps we should name the repository accordingly?
> 
> Regards,
> Jens
On Jan 12, 2013, at 11:00 AM, Abrahamsen-Blomfeldt Eskil <Eskil.Abrahamsen-Blomfeldt at digia.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I think there will have to be further discussion around this. Ministro was initially written to be a common-purpose library distribution, not exclusively used for Qt libraries. It would be like depending on "apt" or something like that. More discussion is needed to decide how to proceed with this, I think.
> 
> However, regardless of the outcome there, I don't think there's any problem branding the technology which distributes and shares the libraries as "Ministro". What name is used for distributing the app in app stores can be unrelated to the name of the technology which is only used in the code. So, like Alan said, I don't think this issue has to be resolved before the code is integrated in the Qt Project.
> 
> I think we need to make start off by making the binding-code for a Qt app generic enough that it can be configured to connect to a Ministro-based app with any name/app identifier. This way, we can do any necessary rebranding or other changes at a later stage when all opinions are heard.
> 
> The idea from there is to try to make the Ministro-app in the app store owned by a Qt Project-user, but how this would work legally is currently a bit unclear. If it turns out it's impossible, then we might need to make Qt Creator's Android-plugin Ministro-app-agnostic, Digia will make a Digia-owned distribution of Qt which can be selected in Qt Creator, but also allow developers to connect to the current Ministro app or their own, custom distribution of Qt if they so wish.
> 
> As for the name of the app: For the end-user of the app, I think it makes little difference whether the external app they have to download is called "Ministro" or "Qt". Either will most likely be a name they've never heard before. "Qt" might actually sound scarier to the average end-user than "Ministro" if you think about it :) If the app is exclusively used for Qt libraries, it should be named Qt, though, but if it's a general-purpose distribution mechanism, I think "Ministro" is a good name. I do think the main issue for many people will be the fact that you have to download a separate app to start the app you just downloaded, regardless of its name. I am worried that this will give developers an extra argument to use regular Android APIs for their app rather than Qt. Ideally, you should have to accept as few compromises as possible when using Qt for your app.
> 
> -- Eskil


Thanks for clarifying. I believe the time is right to bring up this topic as we are just about to merge Ministro into the now official Qt for android port but I chose the wrong topic to bring it up in. Hence I have renamed the thread.

Consider this my +1 to naming the new repository "ministro/ministro".

That said, I am not sure I am entirely ok with this. I would like a single repository for quality tested Qt libraries and not an arbitrary collection of open source libraries of various quality that any application could pull in. I want to be certain that the only thing users will get when they see that installer screen is a quality tested Qt package.

If Ministro is not that tool, then perhaps qt-project should make a new official application under a different name that does this and only this. Ministro can of course live alongside with it and be an alternative to more adventurous users. Perhaps a separate repository is needed to distribute the commercial version of the libraries anyway?

I disagree that it does not matter if the app is branded "Qt" or "Ministro". The goal of this project is to increase awareness and usage of Qt. If Qt on Android becomes big and uses a name like "Ministro" to distribute the library, we will loose an opportunity to attract new developers to the platform. What if we need a similar tool on IOS? Will we give that yet another name? 

The time of "java" and "flash" is about to run out, but even my mother has a vague idea what those are and why she has to accept those security updates because so many applications depend on them. At the moment users might perhaps not be able to tell the difference between "Ministro" and "Qt library installer" on the app store but when all their cool applications start to use it they might.

And even if we for some reason do not int the end want to push the Qt brand with the installer, I think we should at least reconsider the implications of the brand now that we have the opportunity. I am not a native english speaker but Ministro sounds unnecessarily foreign to me. Perhaps something trendy or more developer friendly like "LibKit" or "Library Store" would do.

Regards,
Jens