[Development] New company name for Qt part of Digia and unified web site

[Kuba Ober]

On Sep 16, 2014, at 8:11 AM, Knoll Lars <Lars.Knoll at digia.com> wrote:

> Hi everybody,
> 
> I’m happy to tell you that we’re making significant progress towards the
> new unified web page that I’ve first been talking about at the contributor
> summit. We just launched the first stage of it on http://qt.io. For now
> qt.digia.com is going to redirect to it. I hope you will like the new web
> page. Please have a look and give us your feedback.
> 
> In addition, we also now have a new company name for the Qt part of Digia.
> It’s simply ‘The Qt Company’.
> 
> For more details check out my blog at
> http://blog.qt.digia.com/blog/2014/09/16/the-qt-company-introduces-a-unifie
> d-website-and-20e25-monthly-indie-mobile-package/ and of course
> http://qt.io
> 
> Moving forward, we would like to slowly move some more pieces that are now
> on qt-project.org over to qt.io. We don’t have concrete plans yet on when
> and what will move, but would probably want to start with simple things
> such as the documentation. Any feedback on this is of course also more
> than welcome.

My only worry is that it seems like an idle exercise. Why spend all this time doing something that, ultimately, serves no real purpose? Qt’s image ultimately depends on the quality of the code and the documentation that comes with it, not on the domain name nor the amount of flashy css/javascript that went into the site’s design.

One of the reasons I loath to recommend to the management to go back to paying for Qt licenses is that we’d have been sponsoring what amounts to 2 or 3 major rebrandings and “revamps”, and it seems like throwing money down the drain. As a user, I want good code. The website, as far as I’m concerned, can be text-only. Any money that the owners of Qt spend for anything besides the code is, to us as the end users, *our* money burned for frivolities.

Cheers, Kuba Ober