[Qt-interest] Qt for the iPad?

[Jason H]

Suggestion: Is there a dollar figure that would have to be reached  that would motivate Qt Development Frameworks to support the iPhone?

I just look at those 1,500,000,000 app downloads (1.5B) and say that's a market I want to service.

Could we (the community) put together some fund to help fund the work to get the iPhone/iPad supported? The iPad is actually looking like a juicy market for Qt - larger display, high priced apps. Or could Nokia make a special license version where XX% of app sales/revenues on those platforms goes to maintain the iP[o|ad]? (Remember both Ovi and Apple App Store takes 30% off the top) 




----- Original Message ----
From: Thiago Macieira <thiago at kde.org>
To: qt-interest at trolltech.com
Sent: Mon, April 5, 2010 6:14:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Qt-interest] Qt for the iPad?

Em Segunda-feira 5. Abril 2010, às 23.43.57, Gordon Schumacher escreveu:
> On 4/5/2010 3:19 PM, "Richard S. Wright Jr."
> 
> <rwright at starstonesoftware.com> wrote:
> > If I could hack it in a week, Nokia could do it quickly, and more cleanly
> > if they WANTED to. End of story. Shut the #$%! up about "how hard" it
> > would be to move Qt to the iPhone.

Yes, it could be done.

So let me put this matter to rest:

Qt Development Frameworks is not stupid. Yes, a port could be done, for both 
Android and iPhone or any other platform, given enough incentive, time and 
resources. No, I have no clue how much of each.

Proof of that is that ports to *both* platforms already exist. Richard Wright, 
in this thread, says that he's already got the non-UI parts of Qt running on 
the iPhone/iPad. And I know from reading blogs that the Android port does have 
GUI running already, via Project Lighthouse.

And yes, Qt Development Frameworks is keeping the eyes and ears open, looking 
at the market. Sure we'd love to bring the masses of Apple backyard weekend 
developers to MeeGo, just as we'd love to bring the Android developers in too. 
Sure we'd love to have Qt running on those devices, but also others too, why 
not?

What you're asking is that Nokia, a company, do this work. If resources were 
unlimited and free, this would be a no-brainer decision.

Since resources cost money and are limited, it's not so simple. Doing another 
port right after Symbian is a destabilising factor; a company doing a port 
needs the financial incentive to do it; and finally, if people are going to be 
allocated to doing the port, then what *else* is not getting done? (Don't fall 
into the illusion that Qt Development Frameworks has people idling looking for 
things to do; no, everyone is busy doing something else)

What's more, Gordon has a couple points here too, about the effort of 
supporting it as an officially-supported platform and about the vendor's support 
of the port.

> If it's an unofficial community-driven port, fine, okay, no problem.  If
> it's blessed by Nokia as an Officially Supported Platform(tm), then it
> would need to be treated as a first-class citizen... which means people
> to write, test, and *support* the code (consider the vagaries that are
> already in there just to make the eighteen different freakin' versions
> of Windows all go!)  There would unquestionably be speed-bumps; I would
> [WA]guess that it ultimately would be a task of a comparable size to the
> Symbian port.  The iHardware may be closer to OSX etc. than Symbian was
> to... well, anything else - but on the other hand, Nokia controlled
> Symbian, and it would appear that Apple believes they have a vested
> interest in this *not* happening.  (I can't for the life of me
> understand why, though.)

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
  Senior Product Manager - Nokia, Qt Development Frameworks
      PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint:
      E067 918B B660 DBD1 105C  966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358