An Open conversation about the future of Qt.

  • Please, for the sake of this thread, keep this discussion where it "belongs": The thread on the mailing list is already plagued by the usual suspects; we don't need the same here again.

  • @Lukas - I suggest you read this post very carefully and do a little thinking before you rush into yet another of those clichéd response of yours:

    This threat is about the Future of Qt, and I only brought QML up as being pretty much it's only present, and I think you should be able to see how the present is related to the future, since the latter is a product of the first. Now, I do realize this threat is more concerned with the financial future of Qt rather than its development direction, but the two are related as I am about to show further down this post.

    So if you don't mind, stop regarding me as if I am some pest, frolicking and spreading FUD, for I may as well be more concerned with the future of Qt than you. At least enough to the point I am not making any illusions of it, and of what NEEDS to be done to ensure it.

    That is right, it is not about what I want, neither is nor should be about what you or anyone else wants, for what people want is subjective and rarely relevant. There is one thing that is incomparably more important than what people want, and that is WHAT PEOPLE NEED. And what Qt needs while we are on the subject.

    It is a fact that today it is Nokia that pays the trolls, and as such Nokia comes as not simply the major, but the predominant Qt contributor, a fact that has pretty much tarnished the hopes of MOBILE success of Qt. Well, I don't think that it should be Nokia or any other company paying the trolls, the FIRST and MOST IMPORTANT thing Qt needs in order to secure its future is INDEPENDENCE, or in short, Qt must pay for the work of its primary development force - the trolls. That means Qt must become more successful commercially, WITHOUT sacrificing the accessibility it got through the LGPL license.

    Which brings me to the next point - in order for Qt to become more successful commercially without sacrificing its accessibility, it needs a MUCH LARGER user base and much more flexible licensing fees. There aren't many developers that can afford Qt commercially today, and there is a whole world of developers who will be able to afford more flexible licensing. So on top of the few big commercial clients Qt has today, it can have scores of smaller which will significantly increase the revenues generated by the framework, to the point there won't be a need of any big company, funding it and enforcing its limiting corporate politics on it, Qt will be able to support itself just fine.

    BUT Qt has to win those developers first. So in order for Qt to get what it needs, it must give developers what they need. And enough with the illusions, developers don't need QML, it has its merits, it has its future, but focusing on it won't save Qt, not in the short term, and certainly not in the long run.

    There is already a cross platform solution, working on every commercially viable platform, and it is called HTML5+JS, and for Qt to become a success it needs to compete with it. That means:

    First and foremost - catching up to it when it comes to support, and why not even exceeding it, by developing a fall-back capable API that could bring Qt on embedded, which QtQuick2 can't. And NO, I don't mean QtGui, I mean something still relevant to our time, only not OpenGL based.

    Second - offer nativity, which is something the interpreter/VM based HTML5+JS combo cannot offer.

    And this is all it would take for Qt to become a solution other development frameworks cannot compete with, which will inevitably grab the attention of every adequate developer out there, giving developers an elegant and effortless way to gain audience on every platform on the market, exceeding what their proprietary frameworks can offer. If Qt provides this much needed and currently TOTALLY absent from the market solution, this will attract many consumers, many code contributors and many funding contributors, this will grant Qt complete independence and long term safety, which, combined with the larger developer base spells out the formula of ROUSING SUCCESS. Why struggling to compete in fear and insecurity of the future when you can simply dominate and be 100% free and independent?

  • No, I just think that this should not be another QtQuick discussion, as we know how such discussions tend to be conducted (also with a view to the mailing list). This has nothing to do with a personal opinion about someone else, but rather that this thread deserves better.

    However, I'm not the authority who is to decide what is allowed to be discussed here, or not; I just ask to keep the potential consequences in mind.

  • There are a lot of issues in terms of "what Qt future should be"

    I want to keep the fucus of this thread on "How make future possible"
    What needs to be done, to keep the development team going.

    Software developers are not interchangeable. If we want Qt to be able to survive outside of Nokia, we are going to need some action.

    I for one want to see the Open Governace process maintined and moving forward.

    I am leaving for Berlin now, see some of you there.

  • Just reading an article on the "BBC": and it mentions Windows Phone 8 having native C/C++ API support. Does this mean a Qt port to WP8 is possible / allowed? If so, it might be an interesting option...

  • Moderators

    I vaguely recollect that this is more like "native" - but it's not full c++ support, just a subset that MS will allow. There was a separate thread for that on DevNet, you might want to look it up there, as I can't guarantee my memory to work well :)

  • Bah... thought it would be too good to be true.

  • Moderators

    it's not the thread I was talking about, but close: "link":

  • Qt on WP8 should be possible since Windows 8 has Qt support. From what I have read, just like Windows 8, WP8 also fully support native c\c++ for all kinds of apps.

  • Qt on WP8 is great :)

    [quote author="Jayakrishnan.M" date="1340267066"]Qt on WP8 should be possible since Windows 8 has Qt support. From what I have read, just like Windows 8, WP8 also fully support native c\c++ for all kinds of apps. [/quote]

  • bq. "I commissioned a deeper investigation into the scope of work required for Qt to work fully on Windows 8. I will receive the full review of this investigation early next week. I will make sure to share this detail with everyone as soon as I am able to."
    "Chuck Piercey":
    Director Product Management & Key Accounts

  • Well, for one, Qt is open-source so it is impossible to "kill" it. As far as I understand, Qt Project itself is also now not dependent upon Nokia per se for governance. I think the administrative costs and server costs etc. are paid by Nokia but those probably could be taken care of.

    The question really is, where do the Qt contributors and maintainers employed by Nokia go now? How do we ensure that they can keep working on Qt full-time? I hope that divison of Nokia is sold to a home(s) where they can still keep working on Qt open-source.

    As for mobile platforms, port to WP8 is a non-trivial endeavor. Android is a more likely destination, with some success already by Bogdan and others.

    (About me: You have not seen me much around here, but I do love me some Qt and would love to contribute to Qt in my spare time, especially Android port.)

  • My two cents is this: I hope that in an ideal world the Trolls can be sponsored by a foundation like the FSF and also that Nokia would do the right thing and donate Qt to the same foundation and keep it free from commercial interests forever. Why Nokia has gone down the Windows 8 Phone route makes me shake my head in absolute disbelief.

  • ^^ For money of course, M$ paid 1 billion $$$ to Nokia to go for windows, enough money to displace the purchase of Qt (~150 million) and all investments Nokia did into developing Qt...

  • OK. So this joint venture wasn't about using M$'s OS, but for Microsoft to put it's OS on Nokia devices. That makes more sense. I didn't even think of it that way.

  • My theory was MS actually wanted for Nokia to fail, so it can grab a nice chunk of Nokia's market share, which was pretty much dominating the mobile market a few years ago. Unfortunately for MS this plan didn't work out all that well, surely, Nokia lost its market, but it was immediately taken over by Apple, Samsung and a few other smaller Android platform players, MS is a big and slow to respond company...

  • Is there any comments about external Nokia Qt contributors about Qt Future regarding theses bad news ... ICS, KDAB, DIGIA,INTEL,and other ? Is there anything in project to ensure a bright Qt Future without Nokia ?

  • I readed all the thread and nobody mentioned nothing about the "KDE Free Qt Foundation":, that means that in the worst, case the KDE proyect will aquire the ownership of Qt, and Qt will be controled by a real FOSS community.
    The open source Qt is guaranted, there are no need to make a fork or to worry about the future.

  • Sure, KDE Free Qt Foundation could end up with the rights on Qt. However, I doubt that would be a good thing for Qt. It is more like a last resort in case all else fails. With the transfer of the rights on Qt to the foundation, none of the infrastructure needed to run the project comes with it, let alone the resources needed to keep all those kick-ass developers working on Qt full time to make it the great toolkit we all love. So no, I'd much rather see a take-over by a company that actually can invest the resources to keep Qt running and keep it moving forward.

  • bq. With the transfer of the rights on Qt to the foundation, none of the infrastructure needed to run the project comes with it, let alone the resources needed to keep all those kick-ass developers working on Qt full time to make it the great toolkit we all love

    You finally came to your senses, if KDE, a fairly big foundation and community cannot move Qt, what about the few volunteers you kept on repeating should stop "complaining" and write a complete modern GUI API...

    On the other hand, the majority of effort, exerted by Nokia went in direction QML, the framework itself is fairly complete and most APIs are stable and done, KDE will have no problem maintaining what already exists, unfortunately, it won't have the capacity to innovate.

  • So no, I’d much rather see a take-over by a company that actually can invest the resources to keep Qt running and keep it moving forward.

    It depends on which company, although nokia did sponsor Qt a lot, yet also in charge of
    the road map of Qt.Could you imagine Qt taken by Oracle or MS?

  • [quote author="utcenter" date="1343995985"]
    You finally came to your senses, if KDE, a fairly big foundation and community cannot move Qt

    Moderator's note:
    Watch your words, please. This forum is meant to be driven in a friendly manner. While we can "fight" with arguments, becoming personal, if not insulting, is not acceptable. We will delete further comments that do not fit into the "general rules":/forums/rules.

    Please not, that this is not to stop the actual discussion, but just to get everything back to a polite and unoffending track.


  • ^^ Are you addressing me, as the act of quoting me infers? I fail to see anything impolite in my post, which merely noted he is finally agreeing with something I stated over and over again and he rejected. Overacting much perhaps? Having a bad day? Well, don't take it out on me ;)

  • According to some dictionaries, "to come to your senses" means "cause someone to (or start to) think and behave reasonably after a period of folly or irrationality"[1] or "to start to understand that you have been behaving in a stupid way"[2].

    I definitely declare this unpolite and offending.



  • You can put pretty much anything in an offensive context, but that doesn't mean it was originally used in such. Surely, there is a conflict of opinions here, but clearly and obviously it is not a product of stupidity but of personal bias.

    From your own link:
    come to one's senses = to begin thinking sensibly

    and then...
    sensibly =

    1. Perceptible by the senses or by the mind.
    2. Readily perceived; appreciable.

    All in all, my post actually congratulates Andre rather than insulting him. Yes I infer irrationality but certainly not stupidity. So calm down and enhance your English language horizons ;)

  • There's a simple rule in communications scienes: If the receiver gets it wrong, it's always the sender's fault. (This is not from me, some clever scientists proposed it.)

    Your proverb can be understood as a compliment. And it can also be understood as the complete contrary - unpolite and offending. Everyone I talked to, understood it the latter way.

    It's always problematic to use proverbs and phrases in an international forum, like this one. Not everyone might get the correct point, and not everyone using such a phrase is fully aware of the exact meaning. Better to avoid them, particularly if they can be interpreted in different ways like here.

    To calm down things, it's ok to express ones apologies or explain things. On the other hand, adding some more "advice" that can be interpreted as some hidden criticism or joke on other's language skills may be interpreted offending again. Not everything that was meant funny, is recepted this way.

    So, let's stop arguing on English language subtleties and come back to the actual topic, please.

  • When someone wants to feel offended he can always twist everything into an offensive context, and when the receiver disregards the sender, I fail to see how this is a problem of the sender. If the corruption of communication is on your side, there is very little the sender can do. If you have a virus on your system that alters the data you receive, I fail to see how this is a problem of the sender.

    I myself begin to feel offended that you are putting words in my mouth and inferring I aim to insult.

    "to come to your senses" means to become reasonable after a period of being unreasonable, "enhance your English language horizons" means to realize that not everything that can be put into an offensive context is an offense. If those are offending to you - it is your problem. If you prefer to interpret my words in an offensive context instead of the context of my intent - it is your problem. If you want to feel offended, you can easily find a reason to, I can call you "smart" and you can assume I am being sarcastic and actually mean you are stupid or something. What you are trying to do is actually very dishonorable in my book and reduces the respect I have for you. Feel free to misinterpret that as well if you want ;)

  • To come back to the topic...

    [quote author="qtnext" date="1343946379"]Is there any comments about external Nokia Qt contributors about Qt Future regarding theses bad news ... ICS, KDAB, DIGIA,INTEL,and other ? Is there anything in project to ensure a bright Qt Future without Nokia ?[/quote]

    The companies that surrond the Qt ecosystem do care about the future of Qt and they are in contact with each other in order to find solutions to bring Qt back on a solid, long term lasting base. Some of these talks started right during the Qt Developers' Summit in June - Nokia's announcement was just a few days before. Of course, those ideas take time to mature and nothing has been announced yet.

    But to proof the interest of that companies, look at the Qt Developer Conferences that will be held in November and December in Berlin and Silicon Valley. Two firms of the ecosystem, KDAB and ICS, stepped in by their own and saved all the Qt enthusiasts' date of the year. So I'm quite sure that we will hear back something from them.

    One should also be aware, that Nokia still owns Qt. The good ideas still need Nokia Nokia in the one or the other way. As long as the negotiations still go on (or need to start at all - I don't know), it's not a very wise idea to go public with that plans.

    Regarding the KDE foundation. Yes, there is the contract between Trolltech and KDE, which Nokia is bound to too. Everyone involved in the details of that contract regards this as one the worst solutions. The other one being a fork of the LGPL version. Both would lead to fragmentation of the Qt community.

  • @Andre, but Qt is commercial product, and I doesn't see the difference between begin it maintained by a foundation or another company.
    Supose that Qt is begin mantained by the KDE foundation, if a company has a commercial interest with Qt, then they will contract fulltime developers to make Qt grow, as well as so far with Nokia.
    I see a business and manteinance model similar to the Linux kernel.
    Anyways this is supposing the worst case.

  • I just wanted to add my 2 cents regarding "You finally came to your senses" remark. I re-read the post and my interpretation is: "You see this from my point of view".

    Regarding the scientist who has proposed that when communication is mis-understood it is the sender's fault. One cannot control how a message is perceived through another's emotional state. Scientists fail to take into account we are emotional as well as logical beings.

  • ^^ In my area of interests I have stumbled upon renowned scientists that are profoundly stupid and blunt liars. Like for example celebrity physicist Michio Kaku, who claims that quantum teleporation involves the actual teleportation on physical objects, which is fundamentally wrong. How is it even possible for "educational" channels to present him as a physics and especially quantum physics expert, when from what he says it is clear the man hasn't got even basic idea of quantum physics. There is a fine line between science - the intellectual discipline, and scientism - a religion-like belief system that goes against logic and reason to impose politically convenient mindsets on society.

    Back on topic - Qt was purchased by Nokia in the dawn of the 2008 financial recession, for an unreasonably high amount of money. If Nokia is to sell Qt today, it will have to be at a significant loss, not only the initial transaction but all the investment, made by Nokia ever since. If a company is to purchase Qt, it would be with the purpose of money making. That means the amount of money, invested in Qt and paid to its developers will always be less than what Qt actually makes.

    But why not cut the middle man? Why should there even be a company to make money on the backs of developers and increase the cost of a product just to post profit? Wouldn't it be much better if everything Qt makes goes towards its further development?

    I've long had the idea of a framework, entirely developed by a community which directly benefits from its commercial exploitation. The more developers contribute to the framework, the more points they get, the more points they have, the bigger share of the income, generated by the framework they receive. Developers, working entirely for themselves, with no "business men" to drive it into the ground, burn billions and cost hard working people their jobs, like we've seen over and over again. No corporate greed, no corporate interests, instead a direction that is 100% in the best interest of the framework and its developer base. Easy to use high level APIs, with public access to the low level bowels, rich in supported features and platforms. A framework, whose direction is based on the requests of its developer base, instead of being ignored, as it is under Nokia's reign.

  • entirely developed by a community which directly benefits from its commercial exploitation

    I am not quite understand your ideal, could this method give
    those good programmers enough of money?

    Who would like to and have the ability to become the leaders?
    Do you think Qt could remain high quality without those good
    programmers like trolltech work on it fulltime?

    Even I want to make Qt become better, I am only one of the
    average programmer as other.Average programmers like me
    could do a lot of things, but it is hard to believe a good library
    like Qt could be done just by those average programmers like

    Without financial support, could you gather enough of "Guru"
    to do the jobs of code reviews?

  • Well, if a company can make enough on a framework to pay its developers and post profit, if you subtract the money that goes for profit from the total money, made on the framework, then you have even more money left for its developers.

    If you for example write a new framework module on your own, or as a part of a team, then you or your team get all the revenue, generated by this module. Of course, your module might make use of already existing modules, created by other developers, in which case the income is split based on for example code ratio, if for example 1/3 of your module code is using another module and your module requires the other module, then the author/s of the base module get 1/3 of the module revenue.

    It is similar to freelancing, only you are 100% working for yourself, you aren't making the salary of anyone else.

    There isn't a real need of a "leader" - decisions are being made by the community. If there is a feature, being requested, those, who request it are free to add it provided it doesn't break existing functionality, or other developers can agree to implement that feature and get a share of the points of the module/s which include the requested feature. This way the usual policy of forcing certain technologies on developers will finally be broken, which will inevitably make the framework more attractive to other alternatives, where you have to pay to use proprietary, and not always optimal technology. Some people might say this will lead to fragmentation, but the best technology will inevitably establish themselves as dominant, so the line that separates diversity from fragmentation will not be crossed. This will also create internal competition, stimulating developers to write cleaner and easier to use APIs.

    There is no limitation that the developer community MUST be comprised of ONLY AVERAGE developers. Average developers are the portion of the developer base that uses a framework, while anyone, advanced enough to contribute by a significant amount will naturally be a high end professional programmer, who will pretty much make a living on it. The only difference - there will be no employer to feed, so the framework can be more affordable while at the same time more rewarding to its developers.

  • Well, this may clear the discussion a bit:

  • An hour ago, I got an email notification of a post to this thread. It was a blathering note, complaining without much of a point. Thankfully someone was wise enough take it down.

    It did however, get me thinking about a reply, It's was someone angry that Digia was making too much money, and this person was angry at the change in license.

    Many of you know me, and know that as the CEO of I make my living off of Qt, and have a complex relationship with Digia.

    I hope I speak for the bulk of the community, when I say,
    I want Digia to make money on Qt! Sadly they aren't.

    Digia continues to invest in Qt to help in grow, and for that I am thankful.
    But that investment is coming from their stockholders pockets, and that's not sustainable.

    The dual license strategy is very complex, with perils and trade-offs for every move. The switch to the LGPL v3 will likely grow the slice that is commercial, while pushing a few embedded projects away from Qt. I don't know how it will net out. Time will tell.

    I applaud their efforts to seek ways to generate the income they need to keep Qt growing, and allowing the open source community to benefit form their efforts.

    Thank you Digia.

    Peter Winston

  • Moderators

    [quote author="PeterWinston" date="1409448581"]Thankfully someone was wise enough take it down.[/quote]

    It's a spamming troll we (moderators) have been battling since several months. Sorry you were exposed to his outburst. We are usually quick to react and ban him, but obviously the email notification about a post contains the full poster's message.

    Going back to the subject: while I'm not entirely happy with the Digia way, they are indeed doing a pretty good job in general and I sincerely hope they manage to balance the finances enough to sustain and expand the product and keep all the great Qt developers employed there.

  • administrators

    And again.

    Yes, some individual who has taken to posting senseless rants. It's not even proper trolling.

    I feel sorry that the individual is so bitter and hope he/she tries to get on with his/her life. As pointed out previously to the bitter person in question, the ranting isn't getting him/her anywhere.

    And thank you Peter for the encouragement, let's make Qt bigger together!

  • Hey, smart dudes whom enjoy censoring others, do yourselves a favor, watch the last episode of the original Cosmos series by Carl Sagan, who speaks for Earth? It’s easily found on youtube.

  • If you are calling deleting the same senseless, usually off-topic rant that somebody keeps on posting here "censoring", then yes, I am one of those censors. I don't mind an open discussion here, but I do mind finding the same, unfounded, yelling rant over and over again in various completely unrelated topics.

Log in to reply

Looks like your connection to Qt Forum was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.