Important: Please read the Qt Code of Conduct - https://forum.qt.io/topic/113070/qt-code-of-conduct
Qt app store
Currently I m using a mac , and I m looking the amazing and usefull App store for mac desktop.
It would be very cool to have a Qt App Store like this ! I mean a software to provide free and payable application.
We already have apps database like http://qt-apps.org/ and apps from qt ambassador program. So we only need an app store application , and probably a compagny (nokia, digia, opensource community..) to manage everything ( filtering and more...)
On windows this kind of app will get a lot of success, I m sure!
So what do you think ?
Edit: moved to Brainstorm section; Andre
andre last edited by
I think it is not as easy as you make it sound. Qt applications run on different platforms, with different form factors and different operating systems. There are already app stores where you might find Qt based applications: The Ovi store (is it still called like that?) for the Nokia mobile phones, the Mac store for MacOS applications and of course the many linux distro reposatories (yes, these are basically app stores, only without the payment option) for the linux platform. Windows will introduce an app store for windows with windows 8. So, what would be the benefit of a Qt app store? Who do you cater to exactly? Do you really think end users care what toolkit was used to build their apps? I think they only care about their apps being great: fast, pretty, usable, smart. End users want applications that run well on the platform and device they are currently using. Just build the app for the platform you are targeting, and sell it through the app store for the platform. Qt enables you to build great applications, but end user do not need to care about them being based on Qt.
To me, it sounds like a bad idea.
You are true, but I am afraid for Qt. Windows app store will probably accept only his framework .NET. Nokia will follow the same way by removing qt from his phone.. About Apple, The Mac app store didnt accept qt apps.
It's understandable, microsoft and apple want to homogenize Mobile and desktop application.
What about us ? Meego and intel AppUp ? KDE and opensource ?
So, maybe we can have a qt app store witch stands out this other ? Why not a plugin for internet browser which support QML ...
So, it was just some idea that I wanted to share
andre last edited by
[quote author="dridk" date="1313744636"]You are true, but I am afraid for Qt. Windows app store will probably accept only his framework .NET. [/quote]
Why would they? That would be plain stupid, as there is a lot of windows software out there that is not build on .Net, but are important for the Windows ecosystem. Why would they want to keep that out of their store? Even Apple doesn't do that, they just check for guide line adherance (like: where do you keep your application files).
[quote]Nokia will follow the same way by removing qt from his phone...[/quote]
Sigh. No, they will not. And if you are afraid they will, then why on earth would they start investing in a Qt App store?
[quote]About Apple, The Mac app store didnt accept qt apps.[/quote]
AFAIK, that is a false statement, and Apple does not reject Qt apps, at least not because they are Qt apps.
[quote]It's understandable, microsoft and apple want to homogenize Mobile and desktop application.[/quote]
Really? It would be deatch of Windows if MS would push that for the windows desktop. And they know it.
[quote]What about us ? Meego and intel AppUp ? KDE and opensource ? [/quote]
Among others, yes.
[quote]So, maybe we can have a qt app store witch stands out this other ? Why not a plugin for internet browser which support QML ...[/quote]
To do what, exactly? Back to the first issue I mentioned: how would an app store for such a hetrogeneous environment work exactly? What would be the benefit for the end user, and why would an end user care about the application toolkit?
The only Qt "app" store I see working, is one not aimed at end users, but at Qt developers. They care about the platform. It would not be an app store really, but more of a "components, widgets & tools" store where you can find preferably all there is on offer in terms of both free and commercial Qt add ons and useful components you can use to build your own Qt application. I, at least, would be very interested in such a thing. Luckely, discussions on that have already commenced (on the QtCS at the "A CPAN for Qt" session).
Ok, I hope you are true !
So, yes, maybe I have the developer point of view, and what I want is qt app store for developers .
About app store , I was refered to this post : http://www.qtcentre.org/threads/35292-Qt-Apps-banned-from-Mac-App-Store
lgeyer last edited by
There are several Qt-based applications already approved for and available at the Mac App Store.
Some of them are listed in the thread you've posted.
bq. We have 5 different applications approved by Mac AppStore.
All of them use Qt 4.7.3 LGPL version. We have compiled our self.
kidproquo last edited by
According to "their blog":http://mixxxblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/mixxx-debuts-as-1-free-app-in-mac-app.html the Mixxx DJ app was the top free application on the App Store for a while and they're certainly Qt based.
I take that as a pretty good sign that Qt is allowed since I don't think they've just snuck under the radar.
waxwed last edited by
Thought I'd post it as it looks good ... but I've not tried it out as yet.
john_god last edited by
Actually I like a lot the ideia of a Qt Store, but in another terms, more like Nokia Store, with app's not only for mobile OS (simbian, meego and maemo) but also with app's for desktop's (Windows, Mac, linux). To me that makes sense, because smarhphones today are small computer's, and with Qt, the same apps work in PC's and mobiles. This is great for programmers and great for end users, it's nice to have my apps when I'm working in my desktop, and again, the same apps and same data when I'm in my phone. End users dont care about Qt, (if at all they know what that is), but they care about the comodity of having the same store to get apps for their phones and desktop PC's (windows, linux or mac, whatever). But because MS -lobby- ( hum...) I mean, aliance with Nokia, now this will never happen. Come to think, I believe this it's what MS will do with their store, and what Apple already did. But with MS it will be so much poor because they will not allow developer's to use Qt, so we would not get confused (thank you MS for not letting me be confused :( ), developers will have to use MS proprietary tools and they will not allow Apple and linux apps.
Right now I have one paid app in Nokia store, that is a version of the same free desktop app. I don't have a statistic study, but I believe Nokia Store is giving visibility to my desktop app, and I believe this is definitely a profitable area that could have been explored by Nokia.
fluca1978 last edited by
I think app stores are a popular concept today not because they are original or innovative, at least in my opinion, but because they are simple for the user to understand and (ab)use. After all, an app store is nothing more than a remote repository with search indexes and download facilities...uhm...sounds to me like a software repo we already have for linux and unix (and mac os). What is interesting about an app store is the visibility it gives to your application.
Besides this, I don't think we will never ever have a single way of app store when dealing with different operating systems. We cannot even agree on a format for current projects (ports, deb, rpm, pkg, ips, opencsw, tarballs, exe, zip, dmg, ....) and being Qt a cross platform developing environment I don't think we will have easily one for it.
Even getting a cross-buildfarm will not be so simple due to different dependencies (databases for instance). Maybe something can be achieved with plugins, but it sounds to me that each big vendor will have its own distribution store.
By the way, the app cafe used in pcbsd is a qt application that works as an app store. Quite simple, easy to work with, and worth to mention not because works for qt, but because is built on top of it.