Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 11th Feb 2011 11:35 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless A lot of people are wondering why Nokia didn't choose to go with Android. How can Nokia differentiate themselves when Android is a lot more open and free than Windows Phone 7? As usual, the key to this is in the details. If you read the announcements carefully, you'll see that Microsoft offered Nokia something Google most likely didn't. Update: What a surprise. Elop just confirmed Nokia has a special deal with Microsoft. Whereas HTC, Samsung, and so on are not allowed to customise WP7 - Nokia is, further confirming my theory.
Thread beginning with comment 462035
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
So
by Nelson on Fri 11th Feb 2011 14:36 UTC
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

Microsoft just killed off an up and coming competitor Linux OS, and dealt a severe blow to the most promising application development platform on Linux (Qt) and provided a massive setback for KDE.

All while gaining Nokia's massive distribution channels, various global entrenchments, and a halfway decent hardware OEM.

They just caused an entire species of bird to go extinct with one stone.

Reply Score: 5

RE: So
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 11th Feb 2011 14:41 in reply to "So"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Qt has been up and coming and promising for years now. Nothing has materialised out of it. An absolutely great development environment, BUT NOBODY IS USING IT. I don't understand how this doesn't get into people's brains. Nokia was pouring money into a bottomless pit - a very beautiful pit with lovely decorations and stable foundations, but bottomless nonetheless.

Qt is one of the most hyped products in history, yet besides KDE, is there anyone serious even using it? IT has ZERO presence in the mobile world and it has ZERO presence in the desktop world (other than KDE, putting it at about 0.5% of the world's desktops). That's the cold and harsh truth.

.NET on the other hand...

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: So
by Nelson on Fri 11th Feb 2011 14:47 in reply to "RE: So"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I don't disagree, but it was the best Linux had in terms of a development platform. I was just commenting on the genius of the move by Microsoft. It makes good business sense, beyond the obvious help it will give WP7.

As a .NET developer I wholeheartedly agree.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: So
by kragil on Fri 11th Feb 2011 15:01 in reply to "RE: So"
kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

.net (as in C# and VB#) on the other hand has 8000 WP7 apps and a lot of enterprise shit. Then there is the über popular Silverlight.

Which great .net applications are so widely used?

Qt has stuff from Google, Adobe, Rovio, Skype etc, it may not be much but there more popular Qt apps than real .net apps.

Applications and games on Windows are still C++.

Edit: Oh, there also are the dozens of great Xbox live arcade and indie games.

Edited 2011-02-11 15:05 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: So
by Hiev on Fri 11th Feb 2011 15:55 in reply to "RE: So"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Qt is one of the most hyped products in history

Amen.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: So
by segedunum on Fri 11th Feb 2011 17:22 in reply to "RE: So"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Qt has been up and coming and promising for years now. Nothing has materialised out of it. An absolutely great development environment, BUT NOBODY IS USING IT. I don't understand how this doesn't get into people's brains.

What doesn't get into peoples' thick skulls is that Nokia was bloody useless at creating a development platform because they wanted to somehow protect Symbian. It wasn't that Qt was no good at all.

You don't solve having little in the way of a developer community and reacting to the competition by selling off your development platform to someone else.

.NET on the other hand...

Speaking of zero presence......and that's on a platform that Microsoft controls.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: So
by dsmogor on Fri 11th Feb 2011 18:45 in reply to "RE: So"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

I beg to disagree. QT is quite successful on Windows for small companies that didn't want to go, .net or java.
For Desktop C++ development it started to shape up as a standard.

Edited 2011-02-11 18:45 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: So
by Nth_Man on Fri 11th Feb 2011 20:07 in reply to "RE: So"
Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

Qt has been up and coming and promising for years now. Nothing has materialised out of it. An absolutely great development environment, BUT NOBODY IS USING IT.

HOOOOW can you say this?

Qt is most notably used in Autodesk [7][8], Google Earth, KDE, Adobe Photoshop Album, the European Space Agency [9], OPIE, Skype, VLC media player [10], Samsung [11], Philips [12], Panasonic [13] and VirtualBox.

[7] http://qt.nokia.com/qt-in-use/autodesk/
[8] http://qt.nokia.com/qt-in-use/qt-in-visual-effects
[9] http://qt.nokia.com/qt-in-use/story/customer/esa-european-space-age...
[10] http://qt.nokia.com/qt-in-use/story/app/vlc-player/
[11] http://qt.nokia.com/qt-in-use/qt-in-home-media
[12] http://qt.nokia.com/qt-in-use/qt-in-ip-communications
[13] http://qt.nokia.com/about/news/panasonic-selects-qt-for-hd-video-sy...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: So
by apoclypse on Fri 11th Feb 2011 23:33 in reply to "RE: So"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

Qt has been up and coming and promising for years now. Nothing has materialised out of it. An absolutely great development environment, BUT NOBODY IS USING IT. I don't understand how this doesn't get into people's brains. Nokia was pouring money into a bottomless pit - a very beautiful pit with lovely decorations and stable foundations, but bottomless nonetheless.

Qt is one of the most hyped products in history, yet besides KDE, is there anyone serious even using it? IT has ZERO presence in the mobile world and it has ZERO presence in the desktop world (other than KDE, putting it at about 0.5% of the world's desktops). That's the cold and harsh truth.

.NET on the other hand...



This is bullshit. I can name plenty of apps on the Desktop that use Qt. Maya, Lightwave, Miri, VLC, Nuke. I have more but don't want to make this into a list of applications. Qt is slowly starting to be used heavily in the content industry application development, especially if the developers value cross platform capability and plan to include Linux.

.Net is more prevalent if your whole ecosystem revolves only around windows. However developers that value cross platform development will choose Qt.

How about you use Google Thom before making silly comments. I totally agree with you on the whole mobile part. Qt has no presence there other than Meego and with the failure of that platform, now it never will.

Edited 2011-02-11 23:34 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: So
by mr_pinsky on Mon 14th Feb 2011 16:00 in reply to "RE: So"
mr_pinsky Member since:
2010-09-06

Obviously, Thom has a different definition of ZERO and NOBODY than most of us.

------------

“400.000 developers”

“tens of thousands of companies in multiple industries actively using and contributing to Qt”

“Qt everywhere. Qt continues to make vast inroads into especially low end Linux devices and distro’s. Qt also continues to provide a platform for others to innovate and differentiate upon. For example Dreamworks switching all their internal animation tools to Qt and making cool movies like 'MegaMind' and 'How to Train Your Dragon'”

- Daniel Kihlberg, Director Qt Ecosystem
http://blog.qt.nokia.com/2011/02/12/nokia-new-strategic-direction-w...

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: So
by nt_jerkface on Fri 11th Feb 2011 17:36 in reply to "So"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Microsoft just killed off an up and coming competitor Linux OS, and dealt a severe blow to the most promising application development platform on Linux (Qt)


Microsoft didn't kill off anything. Nokia screwed up by partnering with Intel who has just been experimenting with how far they can take x86.

Nokia should have focused on ARM from the beginning and let another company experiment with pint sized 486 phones. Note that Microsoft had zero interest in pushing a WP7 atom phone despite their history with Intel and x86. I suspect they had concerns over power consumption and went the safe route.

Nokia has also had internal problems. They have plenty of engineers on staff so that usually means management.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: So
by Nelson on Fri 11th Feb 2011 18:02 in reply to "RE: So"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I think it's safe to say Meego is effectively dead, Intel will never get it out of the door. At least with Nokia it at least had a fighting chance to see some form of release.

Qt similarly has been dealt a fatal blow by one of its biggest investors and contributors, Nokia lit a fire under Qt's ass ever since it aquired TrollTech. Now what?

For as independent as many open source projects like to claim they are, they sure are dependent on their corporate overlords. Otherwise they wouldn't be running around like a chicken with its head cut off over at the Meego and Qt forums.

This is quite the spectacle.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: So
by dsmogor on Sun 13th Feb 2011 14:03 in reply to "RE: So"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

Well, MS definately had its hand in decision not to enable QT on Nokia WinPhone.
So they may not started the troubles but now they hold the axe.

Edited 2011-02-13 14:05 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2