The Lounge

@Stephen - you assume the deal happened spontaneously, but it might very well been cooking for some time. Such dramatic strategic shifts take preparation. Microsoft has been worrying about competitors significantly lesser than Qt, as a good crossplatform library Qt is a viable longterm thread for MS. People use Windows because their programs can only run in Windows, Qt makes it easy to write programs that run on other operating systems, including Linux, which is free. And I myself wouldn't ever bother with Windows if all my programs were available for Linux. Besides being cross platform, as a native C++ framework, Qt has a performance and memory advantage to .NET too.

There is plenty of room in the mobile market, in fact if Qt steps in, it will be WITHOUT competition, as there currently AREN'T ANY native cross platform frameworks. With the Android SDK your application only runs only on Android, with the iOS SDK your applications runs only on iOS, same for Microsoft's development toolchain, even with SDKs like MoSync or Marmalade which support most mobile platforms, you don't get desktops.

There is definitely a place for a ALL IN ONE solution, being capable of running on all major mobile and desktop platforms, and many developers would be interested into making their applications available everywhere in an effortless way. We have many brands of cars too, it doesn't mean there is no room for a new, versatile vehicle that runs more efficiently, on all types of fuel and across all terrain, figuratively speaking.

Qt gaining mobile market share is only illusional for as long as it is in the hands of Nokia, who will not dedicate to supporting major mobile platforms, and has no popular platform but uses that of MS which Qt doesn't support. But in the hands of another company, Qt has the potential of rising in popularity very quickly. Android alone is about 50% of the mobile device market, and having dealt with the Android SDK I'd chose Qt over it any day, and I see no reason why this won't apply to most developers. Android is on its way to desktops too and will pretty soon start stealing market share from Microsoft. Just look at how much market share Chrome managed to steal in just a few years.

[quote author="leon.anavi" date="1317306632"]This is an interesting rumor but as we all know the road from rumors to a stable OS for the mass market is long and thorny.[/quote]

It seems that "Meltemi won't make it to the mass market":https://twitter.com/nkaratt/status/213202227379179520 after "the recently announced job cuts in Nokia":http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-14/nokia-to-cut-10-000-jobs-as-elop-tries-to-stanch-losses.html.

found what i was looking for. Thanks anyways

Tomi Ahonen is always an enjoyable read :-)

The most probable price of Nokia lumia 610 in India is Rs 12000. The price of Asha 311 should be around Rs 6000. Nokia always had a range of Symbian phones between these prices. Meltemi should fill these price ranges. There should be some overlap between high end asha and low end meltemi and between high end meltemi and low end WP. So I still see a place for Meltemi. I guess Nokia's strategy is to upgrade the UX and technical specs across all range of devices so that these are better than the corresponding offerings from rivals.

Meltemi would have stiff competition from low end Android. But in my experience, low end Android phones don't give a satisfying experience. So Meltemi has a great chance here.

Malicious gossip might have it that there is an analyst trying to limit his Facebook losses, but the article is still worth reading, as it also provides a more realistic estimation as well.

This wan't exactly what I was hoping for but thank you very much for the tip, I'll have a look :)

I think if you describe your projects in general terms at least, you will get more feedback.

After almost a year of starvation, and a profit loss of 1,7 billion in the first Q3 of 2012, Nokia
is NOW starting to sell the N9 in the US, only NOW ? And they also will sell the Pure View in the
US has it was not initially planned ?
What a bunch of retarded people the guys running Nokia.
Nokia was in the past a sane company, driving inovation, driving good politics towards
the opensource comunity and the developers. The new Nokia envisioned by thoose retard people is a scary thing, it's all about not respecting the consumer, nor the developers, it's about having the best phone in the world but not putting it to sell because it's not Windows Phone, and I will stop for now.
I apolagize because my post it's all about rating and it's getting nowhere. My respects and
salute to all true Nokia and Qt workers, as for those running Nokia what a bunch of retard people.

What do you mean? QML is part of Qt.

Anyway, you can take a look at "QGraphicsView":http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-4.8/qgraphicsview.html and/ or "QGLWidget":http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-4.8/QGLWidget.html.

Has for tablets, there are some rumors that Nokia maybe working on something, either with Windows 8 or some other OS. Elop said in a interview that tablets are a very interesting subject to Nokia.

Commercial does not necessarily mean closed source :-)

For the latter you will have to comply with the LGPL or use a commercial license. But even if you make your application open source under GPL, you are still allowed to sell it and make money out of it.

[IANAL]

[quote author="temp" date="1335561126"]Programmers that have mastered the fastest and most efficient programming languages are simply not wanted (unless it is something more serious than quick cash making), today it is all about the new, slow, bloated and inefficient languages, since more waste = more profit.[/quote]

See this interesting site at "tiobe":http://www.tiobe.com :

"TIOBE Programming Community Index for April 2012":http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html

Some language's position is a humour...

[quote author="dclark" date="1335482240"]The Spectrum is still remembered in the Qt source code and "documentation":http://doc-snapshot.qt-project.org/5.0/qlcdnumber.html#details ![/quote]

Hmmm! Good to know :)
(My Spectrum was my fav computer for years :))

+1
If all the videos are available via torrent !!!!!

@Cobalt.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<style-scheme version="1.0" name="Cobalt">
<style name="AddedLine" foreground="#2aa198"/>
<style name="Comment" foreground="#0088ff" italic="true"/>
<style name="CurrentLine"/>
<style name="CurrentLineNumber" foreground="#586e75" bold="true"/>
<style name="DiffFile" foreground="#859900"/>
<style name="DiffLocation" foreground="#b58900"/>
<style name="DisabledCode" foreground="#93a1a1"/>
<style name="Doxygen.Comment" foreground="#0088ff" italic="true"/>
<style name="Doxygen.Tag" foreground="#0059a8" italic="true"/>
<style name="Field"/>
<style name="Keyword" foreground="#026d10" bold="true"/>
<style name="Label" foreground="#026d10" bold="true"/>
<style name="LineNumber" foreground="#b3b3b3" background="#4c4c4c"/>
<style name="Link" foreground="#268bd2"/>
<style name="Local"/>
<style name="Number" foreground="#3ad900"/>
<style name="Occurrences" background="#93a1a1"/>
<style name="Occurrences.Rename" foreground="#000000" background="#d65557"/>
<style name="Occurrences.Unused" foreground="#808000"/>
<style name="Operator"/>
<style name="Parentheses" foreground="#dc322f"/>
<style name="Preprocessor" foreground="#80a0c4"/>
<style name="RemovedLine" foreground="#bd2a28"/>
<style name="SearchResult" foreground="#ffffff" background="#b99e00"/>
<style name="SearchScope" foreground="#000000" background="#e2efff"/>
<style name="Selection" background="#b36539"/>
<style name="Static" foreground="#859900" italic="true"/>
<style name="String" foreground="#3ad900"/>
<style name="Text" foreground="#e6e6e6" background="#002140"/>
<style name="Type" foreground="#ff9d00"/>
<style name="VirtualMethod" italic="true"/>
<style name="VisualWhitespace" foreground="#c0c0c0"/>
</style-scheme>
@

Why does it has to be a compromise, either get functionality at the expense of outdated GUI, or get stylish GUI at the expense of making it harder to implement functionality, the whole point is we need both.

What sucks about the current "toy app" trend is most of those apps are close to useless that is why they rely on eye candy full on, cause simple people are easy to impress.

And just because eye candy is a money milking marketing strategy does not mean it cannot be incorporated into software whose use goes beyond displaying online service content.

The reason I went on this "crusade" is for quite a while I tried doing modern design with QWidget, and not only is it awkward and backwards, but performance lacks too. QWidget is built on literally a 20 century concept, and it doesn't fit. And it sucks there is not 21 century, more custom, more fluid, more dynamic and interactive C++ GUI API.

Kudos to the trolls for inventing the concept of Qt Quick, and I know it must be a nice feeling to have many people using a language you invented (QML) but it is quite foolish to turn your back on Qt's primary programming language for like 2 decades. They could easily have invented Qt Quick to be natively open to C++ and plug QML in as an option, which would save the efforts of having to add C++ frontend support later, when annoyed and disappointed developers call for it. A smart programme will always make a new API open to native use and plugin additional languages support, and the only logical reason I see behind the decision to provide the benefits of a new GUI API exclusively through QML is using innovation to extort developers into adopting yet another limited usage, inferior in terms of performance and efficiency, leading to even more fragmentation of the developer base language, like we don't have enough of those already.

I cannot shake the felling QML is a little late to the game too, I mean, with HTML5 and all, surely, Qt Quick may have better performance out of the box and the potential to extend it with C++, but HTML5 with JS is quite powerful and has a lot of advantages compared to QML, our company is already developing fluid, dynamic websites with animations and interactive features, and all you need is a browser, even without HTML5 support those are totally doable in HTML and JS. Not to mention HTML is an open standard with quite a lot of users, more than QML is likely to ever enjoy. QML would have been amazing... 5 years ago, but for what QML offers there already many good solutions enjoying amazingly good adoption rate. That is why I feel Qt Quick needs to exploit the advantage of offering native binary performance and efficiency and the power of being free to use C++ without having to base your designs on QML's limitations and write extra code to interface native code to QML.

hopes that recent news about Nokia Windows Phone succes and feature phones also ... will have a negative impact on Qt future :(

But perhaps, you can learn from recompile to recompile ;-)