[Qt-interest] Qt for the iPad?

[Jason H]

HAH! http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/13/meego-gone-wild-features-detailed-companies-come-on-board-at-i/

Now, Nokia needs to make the Middleware UI, Handset UI, and the Netbook UI, into its own (open) platform, (Qt) (call it Ovum, in relation to Ovi, but meaning 'Egg'? Qovum? Qtinuum  ) If Nokia can supply those three parts, (Which Qt totally can do) then we have a platform where Nokia will generate sales by people using the Nokia-supplied components (Ovi App store, music store) Of course, not everyone would elect the Nokia components because there isn't money in it for them (or could there be?) but if they did replace those with their own, it would only be fracturing the marketplace. If Nokia steps up and provides these (and maybe a kick-back of revenues for using the Nokia stores) then we have a real threat to the iPhone platform! Nokia, what are you going to do!?






----- Original Message ----
From: Jason H <scorp1us at yahoo.com>
To: BRM <bm_witness at yahoo.com>; nobodyhere <pem.accounts.spam at gmail.com>
Cc: qt-interest at trolltech.com
Sent: Tue, April 13, 2010 1:39:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Qt-interest] Qt for the iPad?

I am consolidating several posts of replies to this thread here. 

Word has it, that Adobe is about to sue Apple. I expect Adobe to lose. It is  private platform, owned by Apple, with developer terms dictated by Apple. It is not an open environment. The platform is Apple's to control.

What I realized moments ago, is that Apple puts so much into their platform, unlike other vendors. All the phone vendors (with Nokia somewhere in the middle) just make devices, slap Android on it and count the number of units sold. They (Samsung, HTC, etc) have no vested interest in the platform. Nokia is in the same dangerous area of slapping Maemo5/Meego on it and counting units. The reason why the iPhone rocks is because it is a platform that generates revenues from iTunes and App Store sales. Nokia does have the Ovi store. While Android is picking up steam, I think Nokia is in a really good position, but they really need to focus on the platform as a revenue generator, and not just a hardware sale. When they really, really want to ensure the best experience on their platform, they'd likely implement the same kind of policies that Apple has. However with Qt and the LGPL in tow, it will be a far better environment for the end user AND developer. I
worry about that the Meego platform will serve to be a default firmware which apps are developed against. Nokia really needs to take it as a platform and mature it just like Apple is doing. Not only feature parity but innovation as well. Apple's recent 4.0/multitasking announcement just obsoleted Windows Mobile 7, before it was even released. There is no doubt that Meego is a better starting point, but it needs to be coalesced into the Nokia platform. Nokia needs to take responsbility for everything outside of 3-rd party apps, and even then, make sure the 3-rd party apps are up to snuff. That is the value that Apple is really creating. By taking ownership of the platform, they ensure the end user gets a desirable expereince. The background sound/GPS/polling API is ingenious. As it balances battery against performance effectively.

I just love how all this is a repeat of 1982. Apple: closed, expensive platform. DOS: open platform. Apple got the GUI thing right first, but the whole market went for DOS. Once IBM had built a computer using off-the-shelf components and Compaq rev-eng'd the BIOS, we had a clone (and market) explosion. We're looking at a repeat of that scenario today. Today's iPhone users are no different from the early Apple users. What we need is a Nokia-controlled platform that people can (implied 'want to') load on their HTC and Samsung phones...









----- Original Message ----
From: BRM <bm_witness at yahoo.com>
To: nobodyhere <pem.accounts.spam at gmail.com>
Cc: qt-interest at trolltech.com
Sent: Tue, April 13, 2010 11:30:45 AM
Subject: Re: [Qt-interest] Qt for the iPad?

----- Original Message ----

> From: nobodyhere <pem.accounts.spam at gmail.com>
> To: BRM <bm_witness at yahoo.com>
> > 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)?

As I said - Microsoft doesn't control the hardware. Apple does.

This would be like arguing why Palm wouldn't allow .NET or Java or Qt or Flash on the Palm Pre, or Nokia not allowing wxWidgets on the N900.
There is a categorical difference between Apple not allowing Flash or .Net or Qt on the iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad and what you are claiming.

> > 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.

Don't even go there. It has only been very recently that the EU has started looking at a lot of US companies.
Interestingly enough, all those "looks" can be tracked back to Microsoft, who after having lost in the EU and US on anti-trust,
and lost several rounds in ISO/etc stated that their competitors will soon see anti-trust charges against them.
Coincidence? I think not.

> 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".

Question:
- Does Microsoft have an Open Source version of Windows? (Mac OSX is built on Darwin/OpenDarwin. iPhoneOS is built on Mac OSX.)
- How many truly open source projects does Microsoft sponsor? How many of those originated outside Microsoft? (Apple supports quite a number, including the CUPS printing services.)

Yes, Apple protects their domain; but they also do a lot in the greater community - including supporting open source, Linux, BSD, and more.

Microsoft, OTOH, has done nothing but try to subvert the community. Whether through FUD (e.g. Get The Facts), standards destruction (e.g. ISO/OOXML),
clouding the market place (e.g. SCO vs. IBM, SCO vs. Novell, TurboHercules - yes, those can all be traced back to Microsoft), and various other tactics.
One thing they learned a few years ago was to get others to look like the front-runner of the issues they want to make - makes it a little harder to trace
back to Microsoft; but nonetheless it does; and I wouldn't be surprised if they got a RICO violation for it - or more Anti-trust charges for it too.

> 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.

If by Open you mean only targeted at Windows, frequent security issues, and more - yes.
If by Open you mean that you & I could fix problems, etc. then no.

The only truly open systems are the BSD and Linux distributions out there.
Mac is closer to Open than Microsoft as it is based on Darwin/OpenDarwin.

Microsoft only ever opens up enough to try to keep their market share, and exclude anyone that might try to take it away.
Do they really have the communities best interest in mind with CoApp? No - it's all about keeping people on a closed-source, proprietary, broken operating system made by Microsoft.
Sure, it'll help make things like KDE on Windows or GNU Win32 function better, and be easier to distribute; but it's not about the community - that's something Microsoft will never truly understand or grasp.



> 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.

When you are talking about devices like the iPhone, every little bit of disk space and performance matter very much.
Apple is and always has been about the experience of their devices and software, and they will always do what it takes
to ensure what they deem provides the best experience. That's their business; that's their target audience.

Yes, the Qt guys do a great job at providing platform independent access to native interfaces, and integrating into the native interfaces.
But, as Thiago has pointed out, that comes at cost - time, money, testing, etc - and it's not cheap.

> 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.

I'll agree there b/c you've spent time and money developing the application.
But honestly, it's their choice.

Don't like it? Sue 'em. Try to make a class action out of it.
But you probably won't get far.


Ben


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