[Qt-interest] Qt for the iPad?

[nobodyhere]

> The other major difference is that Apple isn't trying to push Carbon/etc as a Platform-neutral API and then only support it on their own native platforms, where as Microsoft pushes .Net/C# as a platform neutral API but only supports it on Windows and then gives pseudo-support to Novell/Mono for Linux/Mac/Unix/etc.

There is a categorical distinction.  Apple is *banning* Adobe Flash (and possibly Qt and/or Mono?) from their OS.  Is Microsoft banning some API from Windows?  Has Microsoft banned any APIs from Windows 7 (or Windows Mobile 7)?


> So yes - Apple isn't being very friendly, but they're well within their rights to do so; and they are not interfering in the market place either.

I didn't mean it as an argument for government regulation.  Although Microsoft has been attacked by the European Union over less (but then again, the EU is attacking all US technology companies - because who will stop them from stealing money from US companies?).  I meant it as an argument for developers and tech-savy consumers to consider Microsoft better than Apple - with respect to this specific issue.

If you are a hardcore openness nut...  Then it is fine if you want to say "Microsoft is the devil".  But if you do, then please also say - "but Apple is worse than the devil".

Oh, and you might want to add on top of that, that "Google is watching you" O:-)


> Microsoft provides the OS, but not the hardware 

That is exactly right - Microsoft's Operating System strategy is noticeably more open (and supportive of an open market, for both hardware and software) than Apple's system.  As a general rule, I think it's great that both strategies to exist - and I am glad to use plenty of hardware and software from both Microsoft and Apple.

But two things I complain about.  One, I think Mac x86 limitation of hardware choices goes too far in terms of being closed.  Their choices are very limited.  Most of them use the same chipsets, they are all the same Intel processors (mostly Core 2 Duo), and only Mac Pro and iMac have a decent (discrete) GPU option (Mac Pro and iMac are both oversized).

Two, if they ban an API that follows whatever Cocoa Touch UI guidelines (like MonoTouch, or Qt?) - then I think they may have gone too far...  Or, at least, I think it's viable for people to notice that Google and Microsoft aren't doing that.  And if I had actually written a MonoTouch app, and then seen MonoTouch get retroactively banned - well that would be really horrible!  In fact, Apple has done such retroactive banning, such as retroactively making approved apps remove access to the DCIM central folder.

It's really horrible to think that you could spend all this time writing something, and then they retroactively ban it.  Even if they just block it the first time you submit it, for some unexpected reason that is impossible to fix - then you could really have gotten screwed.


PS: I hope my rhetoric doesn't sound close-minded or adversarial; thank you for the info / discussion


----- Original Message -----
From: "BRM" <bm_witness at yahoo.com>
To: "Elfen" <pem.accounts.spam at gmail.com>, "Jason H" <scorp1us at yahoo.com>
Cc: "Thiago Macieira" <thiago at kde.org>, qt-interest at trolltech.com
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 4:49:43 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: Re: [Qt-interest] Qt for the iPad?



While I would prefer Apple to allow Qt apps, that is there choice. Just like it would be Microsoft's choice to only allow .NET on Windows/WinCE if they so decided. 
Difference is, Microsoft provides the OS, but not the hardware (in most cases) so they have a harder time enforcing that with the exception of things like the XBox. 

The other major difference is that Apple isn't trying to push Carbon/etc as a Platform-neutral API and then only support it on their own native platforms, where as Microsoft pushes .Net/C# as a platform neutral API but only supports it on Windows and then gives pseudo-support to Novell/Mono for Linux/Mac/Unix/etc. 

So yes - Apple isn't being very friendly, but they're well within their rights to do so; and they are not interfering in the market place either. 

And yes - I am very much one that doesn't like the ilks of Microsoft and their Embrace/Extend/Extinguish business methodology. 

Ben 





From: Elfen <pem.accounts.spam at gmail.com> 
To: Jason H <scorp1us at yahoo.com> 
Cc: Thiago Macieira <thiago at kde.org>; qt-interest at trolltech.com 
Sent: Mon, April 12, 2010 5:01:46 PM 
Subject: Re: [Qt-interest] Qt for the iPad? 

I agree it is frustrating with Apple arbitrarily rejecting huge projects like Qt and Adobe Flash... Another one I worry about is how Novell spent all this effort on MonoTouch (for C# on iPhone), and developers who use it, and who knows if Apple will arbitrarily block all apps compiled with MonoTouch too. For anyone who has ever complained about Microsoft (instead of complaining about Apple)... There's probably a phrase for someone who persecutes minor offenses (like Microsoft), and then ignores huge offenses (like Apple, like Intel). 

In any event, I personally am more into Qt for the desktop support (Windows, Mac, GNOME, KDE). I hope Qt is able to keep a strong desktop focus, despite being owned by a mobile company (Nokia). 




On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Jason H < scorp1us at yahoo.com > wrote: 


That is ingenious! 

And you are right, Mobility definitely has that ability. I am wondering how QtMobility would interface with the device HW. If everything is made accessible via Java, then there would need to be a Qt/Java bridge... This is beyond my knowledge at this time. Anyone have an idea how that hardware interacts with the java apps? 




----- Original Message ---- 
From: Thiago Macieira < thiago at kde.org > 

To: qt-interest at trolltech.com 

Sent: Mon, April 12, 2010 3:45:44 PM 
Subject: Re: [Qt-interest] Qt for the iPad? 




Em Segunda-feira 12. Abril 2010, às 20.17.38, Jason H escreveu: 
> Maybe focus moves to Android now? If I could straddle two platforms (Nokia. 
> Google) it would still be worth it to me. 

There is also a community port of Qt to Android and they have already managed 
to get applications running. The solution they found was to make the 
application an .so and place it inside the .jar file, alongside a stub loader 
that calls out to your C++ code. Quite an ingenious solution, if you ask me. 

The big advantage of Android is that it's Linux, so most of the code in Qt 
simply works out of the box. And with the Lighthouse project, the UI part is 
coming along nicely. 

The disadvantage is that it's not like any other Linux. The libc is broken, 
pthread support is lacking, etc. 

> However, QtMobility would need 
> to be outfitted with a lot of Android dongles, and I don't think Mobility 
> is ready for that yet... 

Mobility has been designed from day 1 to have different backends, depending on 
the platform. This would require only writing of such backends for Android. 

-- 
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 







_______________________________________________ 
Qt-interest mailing list 
Qt-interest at trolltech.com 
http://lists.trolltech.com/mailman/listinfo/qt-interest