Ex-Nokia Execs Revive MeeGo OS

[high_flyer]

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2406831,00.asp

[wysota]

Yeah, I heard about it. The main problem in my opinion is going to be funding such an initiative.

[high_flyer]

Well, that for sure is a major problem.
But even with funding - it sill have to atract users and developers.
Smartphones in that class need a good application base.
The N9 we got is really a very nice phone, but you can't do much with it (beyond the very basic use cases), unless you code it yourself - and I don't have that much time on my hands
But I posted it just for the sake of information.

[Lykurg]

Yeeha, the N9 is cool!

I was very pleased to hear, that MeeGo should live on, but I also very doubtful if that project will live long enough and brings actual phones on the market. I hope so, but I don't think so. I am still very sad, Nokia dropped its strategy on Qt and the mobile sector.

[high_flyer]

I am still very sad, Nokia dropped its strategy on Qt and the mobile sector.

The way this whole story went, I think (and hope) that the current situation with Nokia (and Qt) is a blessing in disguise.
My hope is that Nokia sells or simply release the Qt devision and allow it to be formed to its own company again, as it was before Nokia.
At the current state of things when looking at the strategic Nokia direction, there is no place for Qt in theer plans.
Qt is very widely used, Qt doesn't need Nokia - Nokia needed Qt, but they bought it 5 years to late, and now that they have fully dropped everything except Windows which does not support Qt Nokia doesn't need Qt either any more.
So Qt on its own as a company, if run well like the Trolls ran it, could be a success story once again.

[wysota]

My hope is that Nokia sells or simply release the Qt devision and allow it to be formed to its own company again, as it was before Nokia.

The problem is Trolltech was funded from sold licences and support (+trainings). Qt is LGPL now and I'm sure the number of licences Digia sells is nothing compared to funds required to keep developing Qt.

[high_flyer]

Digia sells is nothing compared to funds required to keep developing Qt.

That is a good point, but I think its hard to tell without proper study since I believe the fact Qt is LGPL didn't change much for companies that heavily use Qt - they will continue to need support no matter what licensing Qt has.
To what extent though LGPL has bitten in to the revenue from license and support is something that needs to be measured.

[wysota]

That is a good point, but I think its hard to tell without proper study since I believe the fact Qt is LGPL didn't change much for companies that heavily use Qt - they will continue to need support no matter what licensing Qt has.

True, however one can get support from one of external companies available (and that's actually what companies do) or from free online communities.

To what extent though LGPL has bitten in to the revenue from license and support is something that needs to be measured.

If what was being earned after going LGPL was a large figure, Nokia wouldn't have transferred that market to Digia but instead would keep that easy money for themselves.

[high_flyer]

If what was being earned after going LGPL was a large figure, Nokia wouldn't have transferred that market to Digia but instead would keep that easy money for themselves.

I don't think support is "easy money" (if you you do it right) - and that could be the reason Nokia gave it to another company, since they are not in software support business but (still for the time being) mobile phones.
They didn't buy Qt because they wanted to develop software, they bought it as a GUI technology to match the smart phone GUI trend which they have missed.
Qt as the software product as such (to sell and distribute), was never something that interested them, at least that is the way I understood it.
Just like Apple is not using their Objective C SDK as money bringer (directly) but rather a necessity to have a developer community that develops Apps which makes their mobile products so successful.(which I think is a mistake).
The only reason I am not developing for iPhone is because of Objective C - and I know there are many others too.
I know you can have a Qt app packages such that it will be accepted on the AppStore, but its too much of a hassle for me.

Any way, we can theorize as much as we want, time will tell where all this is going