[Qt-interest] Qt as true mobile multi-platform framework.

[Constantin Makshin]

On Saturday 06 November 2010 08:37:29 David Ching wrote:
> I don't disagree with anything you said, but you haven't said anything to 
> make me think Qt is a true mobile multi-platform framework.  ;)
Well, even if Qt isn't a true [mobile] multi-platform framework, I hope you won't deny that it has one of the largest list of supported platforms? :)

> I honestly hope it becomes one, but it won't be if Nokia continues the "US 
> isn't the whole world" argument.  Only when it becomes serious about 
> embracing the US market and what the US market thinks is important (Android, 
> iPhone, RIM) will it have a chance.  RIM is Java based, so scratch that. 
> iPhone is a genuine possibility.  Regarding the Apple policy, I wouldn't 
> have started a Qt port either, but you know what?  Monotouch (Silverlight on 
> iPhone) did and is being rewarded now.  So as far as I'm concerned, 
> Silverlight is winning on iPhone.  They made a strategic bet and won.  Qt 
> didn't and is where it's at now.
Firstly, Monotouch was developed before Apple introduced those extra restrictions.

Secondly, if you read the last paragraph of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_(software)#MonoTouch or the article at http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/04/apple-takes-aim-at-adobe-or-android.ars , you'll see that Monotouch was in the same, of not worse (at least Qt itself and applications based on it are written in C++), situation as Qt would be.

> If Qt has tiers of platform support, and Windows 7 is only Tier 2, what 
> "tier" do you think the Android community port would fall to?  6 or 7 maybe? 
> I don't know for sure, but would think any community port would be 
> substandard compared to what a commercial company would put out.
Windows 7 is Tier 1 if MSVC 2008 is used to compile Qt and its applications. It's "Windows 7 - MSVC 2010" combination that's Tier 2. Considering a critical bug in MSVC2010 64-bit compiler (http://bugreports.qt.nokia.com/browse/QTBUG-11445) that was fixed in the end of September, "Tier 2" status of MSVC 2010 doesn't look so surprising.

And Android port, I think, would be in Tier 3.

Also, Android and, especially, iPhone are in the same situation — they both are products of Nokia's direct competitors. It's sad, but understandable, that a commercial company doesn't want to put effort and money into support of competing products.

> Thanks,
> David
> 
> 
> "Constantin Makshin"  wrote in message 
> news:201011052247.57373.cmakshin at gmail.com...
> 
> No offence, but US isn't the whole world.
> 
> There are quite a lot of Symbian phones, Maemo exists on Nokia 
> N770/N800/N810 tablets and N900 tablet-phone, MeeGo is already available on 
> some netbooks and will replace Maemo on phones (phone version is still WIP). 
> Windows Mobile isn't completely dead, too.
> 
> Windows Phone 7 is based on .NET and doesn't support native [3rd-party] 
> applications, so chances of Qt being ported to this platform are 
> questionable. And it was released less than one month ago, so I guess it's a 
> bit early to discuss its worthiness.
> 
> I agree than Android is popular, but why not use the community-developed 
> port of Qt when it's done? Ignore something just because it's not developed 
> by Nokia?
> 
> As for iPhone version of Qt — do you remember the restrictions Apple added 
> to their iPhone development license that banned all intermediate layers and 
> code that wasn't using native iOS API? Those restrictions were relaxed some 
> time ago, but when they were active, would anyone develop a Qt port or 
> Qt-based iPhone application knowing that it's likely to be rejected by 
> AppStore staff?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/qt-interest-old/attachments/20101106/dda4c81d/attachment.bin