[Development] Qt and IoT infographic

[Edward Welbourne]

Thiago Macieira (earlier):
>>> Research shows NO ONE deploys Arduino for real products. It's a
>>> maker toy, stuff hobbyists use to make one-off things and some
>>> professional makers use for initial prototyping. When they get
>>> serious, Arduino goes out the window and they get real boards.
[...]
On Tuesday, 29 August 2017 12:41:25 PDT Jean-Michaël Celerier wrote:
[...]
>> Besides, this comes a bit as disdainful. I work in music research and
>> *everything* embedded uses Arduinos, Pi, Beaglebones or similar. If you
>> have seen interactive artistic installations in museums, outdoor
>> expositions, or contemporary concerts, there is a huge chance there's a Pi
>> or an Arduino running somewhere. Sure, there aren't "products" that end up
>> produced thousand times and sold on the counter or at Moser, but they are
>> shows, expositions, etc. which generate revenue all the same, for the
>> artists, museums, etc. and need programmers to get the stuff running and
>> banging sound.

Thiago Macieira 29 August 2017 23:07:
> I was talking about production runs, where you make thousands to millions of
> exact copies. I guess I wasn't very clear about that.

No, you were clear; and Jean-Michaël got it - he's clearly aware of that
(fourth sentence).

> For one-offs or maybe tens of copies, sure, there's a lot of Arduinos. And a
> lot of Raspberry Pis too.
>
> For production runs, that number goes very quickly to zero.

While the number of Pis or Arduinos goes to zero, the product prototyped
on them could well use Qt; and, if that gives significant benefits
compared to something more bare-bones (the most the available developer
resources can put together in raw C++ or C, without a rich tool-kit to
save them most of the work), it may serve as a motivator to pay the
extra dollar or three to have something capable of carrying (a
sufficient) Qt-Lite.  So, while the final product might not be Arduino
or Pi, the availability of Qt on those platforms may increase the uptake
of Qt in final products, for all that those are on some more
stripped-down device.

Still, indeed, Qt's strengths are a better fit to the system to which
the device ends up talking - albeit, I'm afraid, IoT standard practice
is for that to go via the manufacturer's privacy-busting cloud "service".

	Eddy.