Have their motherboard and chipset divisions failed? What are you talking about? "Every time"?
Ah they are a Silicon processor company so it makes sense that chipset and motherboard is an extension of that, but the motherboard business really does not make that much for them, they use it to make reference design so others can use it... however...
Let see their video conference and software business failed, their flash business failed, (yeah I know they sold it before it really failed) their networking business failed, and the list goes on.
They do these things in hopes it will enable more business and most of the time it never did what they hope it would. Why do you think Apple went its own way with a processor for the ipad since Intel has no clue how to make a truly mobile processor.
So many companies are trying to be GE, when in fact they should only focus on what they do best and in the case of Intel they are Mircoprocessor company, they are good, not necessarily best but they is what the know.
A single source is a huge advantage to the common user. Even platforms like Linux, that are open, support repositories that make life easier for the user.
Ummm....why? You seem to be just repeating the assertion without saying why a second (or dozenth) source is inferior.
My guess is that the simple folk would continue to go to the app store, even if the rest of us were to think different and use alternatives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Actually it hasn't. One of the reasons the Linux distros became successful is that they recognized that users need an easy way to find, get, install and maintain their systems. Linux would not be where it is today without repositories.
The point I was responding to was that a single repository is best, rather than multiple repositories.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Like wise the iPhone which really took off once third party software became common. That is not to say Apples approach is perfect but it is undeniable that app store soured sales.
The question is not whether or not third party software is available. The question is whether it is best to restrict all software acquisition to a single source.
Ah they are a Silicon processor company so it makes sense that chipset and motherboard is an extension of that, but the motherboard business really does not make that much for them, they use it to make reference design so others can use it... however...
Right. The OP claimed that "Every time Intel tried to get into something they hope would sell more processors it fails."
Depending on how good Windows 7 is this will be either the only competitor for Android left (for non apple consumer phones) or a total flop. If there is one platform why have 2 app stores? Will they charge developers twice for the same app?
Uh, because Nokia's phones will keep running with ARM processors and the netbook ones will use Atom? And a smartphone and a netbook require quite different user interfaces.
OS X sync is next on Nokia's Ovi synch roadmap so your wish may become reality soonish. Bluetooth data exchange has worked on all Nokia phones for quite a while.
The key to Nokia's approach is not MeeGo or Symbian, it seems to be Qt which provides you with the possibility of writing code once and then compiling it for MeeGo, Symbian, Windows, Linux and OS X (Cocoa) without code changes. That will generate a much wider base for applications than anyone else if it catches on.
As to how easy is it to write to Qt specs, I don't really know (not a developer). Qt is already quite widely used (google Maps for example). But I'm really not qualified on this topic and is just a layman's view.
It is interesting to say the least as it seems like Nokia is refocusing itself to be platform agnostic to some extent. After all, both of their Mobile OSs are now full open source. The only "closed" part (at least to some extent) is Qt, which you have to pay at least a developer's license for.
I may be wrong on many of these accounts as this is just a "mind flow" post after a busy work day and quickly reading today's news on areas which is not my forte (app-. development).
Regs, Jarkko
QT is very open. It is LGPL licensed so there is no need for a developers license unless you want to modify QT itself. Linking to QT for most apps is not problem.
And QT is extremely easy to use. You can write directly to the QT API in C++ or use Python though the QT/Python bindings. There are bindings for other languages as well. QT Kinetic project is currently producing QT Declarative (QML) which is a UI layout language that can be bound with native C++ or Javascript. It is fully cross platform and is exceptionally easy to use. If you can layout HTML you can produce apps in QML.
QT is probably most well known for being the layer under the KDE desktop on Linux, but you would be surprised how many major applications depend on it (Google Earth, etc).
QT is very open. It is LGPL licensed so there is no need for a developers license unless you want to modify QT itself. Linking to QT for most apps is not problem.
And QT is extremely easy to use. You can write directly to the QT API in C++ or use Python though the QT/Python bindings. There are bindings for other languages as well. QT Kinetic project is currently producing QT Declarative (QML) which is a UI layout language that can be bound with native C++ or Javascript. It is fully cross platform and is exceptionally easy to use. If you can layout HTML you can produce apps in QML.
QT is probably most well known for being the layer under the KDE desktop on Linux, but you would be surprised how many major applications depend on it (Google Earth, etc).
Thanks. That's the drift I had gotten as well. Just wasn't sure. Are the Dev tools open as well? And how does all of this compare to Apple's dev environment (one of the things that enables so many Apps in the App Store)?
I did read some declarations that Qt is just as easy as Apple's or even easier and makes it easier to write bug free code. It's just difficult to know what is BS marketing (on both sides) and what is the truth.
But Qt is interesting to say the least. If it takes off, the potential for Apps is several decades over the App Store potential. That's why I'm trying to get my bearings on this one. I realised this somewhere last summer and now it seems to be coming together. We live in interesting times.
But Qt is interesting to say the least. If it takes off, the potential for Apps is several decades over the App Store potential. That's why I'm trying to get my bearings on this one. I realised this somewhere last summer and now it seems to be coming together. We live in interesting times.
Regs, Jarkko
Terve Jarkko
The following site has really great resources for Mac development and languages. While aimed at scientists, their tutorials on Cocoa, OpenCL etc are excellent. Not sure what they have on IphoneOS dev tools, but, as I am sure you are aware, they are the same as the regular Xcode tools (at least for the most part).
Comments
Have their motherboard and chipset divisions failed? What are you talking about? "Every time"?
Ah they are a Silicon processor company so it makes sense that chipset and motherboard is an extension of that, but the motherboard business really does not make that much for them, they use it to make reference design so others can use it... however...
Let see their video conference and software business failed, their flash business failed, (yeah I know they sold it before it really failed) their networking business failed, and the list goes on.
They do these things in hopes it will enable more business and most of the time it never did what they hope it would. Why do you think Apple went its own way with a processor for the ipad since Intel has no clue how to make a truly mobile processor.
So many companies are trying to be GE, when in fact they should only focus on what they do best and in the case of Intel they are Mircoprocessor company, they are good, not necessarily best but they is what the know.
A single source is a huge advantage to the common user. Even platforms like Linux, that are open, support repositories that make life easier for the user.
Ummm....why? You seem to be just repeating the assertion without saying why a second (or dozenth) source is inferior.
My guess is that the simple folk would continue to go to the app store, even if the rest of us were to think different and use alternatives.
Actually it hasn't. One of the reasons the Linux distros became successful is that they recognized that users need an easy way to find, get, install and maintain their systems. Linux would not be where it is today without repositories.
The point I was responding to was that a single repository is best, rather than multiple repositories.
Like wise the iPhone which really took off once third party software became common. That is not to say Apples approach is perfect but it is undeniable that app store soured sales.
The question is not whether or not third party software is available. The question is whether it is best to restrict all software acquisition to a single source.
Ah they are a Silicon processor company so it makes sense that chipset and motherboard is an extension of that, but the motherboard business really does not make that much for them, they use it to make reference design so others can use it... however...
Right. The OP claimed that "Every time Intel tried to get into something they hope would sell more processors it fails."
I disputed that, and it seems you agree with me.
It is almost amusing to see the fight that is going in the world outside of Apple and RIM. Let the fragmentation continue!
How many operating systems do we have now?
Symbian
BADA
MEEGO (me too?)
WebOS
WinMo
Android
I can't wait to find out who will be the winner of these, haha.
WebOS is Palm only and is awesome
MeeGo?? Is that a PokiMon character??
(Sorry - I could not resist)
Methinks MOMO will be the better Pokeman name.
Depending on how good Windows 7 is this will be either the only competitor for Android left (for non apple consumer phones) or a total flop. If there is one platform why have 2 app stores? Will they charge developers twice for the same app?
Uh, because Nokia's phones will keep running with ARM processors and the netbook ones will use Atom? And a smartphone and a netbook require quite different user interfaces.
OS X sync is next on Nokia's Ovi synch roadmap so your wish may become reality soonish. Bluetooth data exchange has worked on all Nokia phones for quite a while.
The key to Nokia's approach is not MeeGo or Symbian, it seems to be Qt which provides you with the possibility of writing code once and then compiling it for MeeGo, Symbian, Windows, Linux and OS X (Cocoa) without code changes. That will generate a much wider base for applications than anyone else if it catches on.
As to how easy is it to write to Qt specs, I don't really know (not a developer). Qt is already quite widely used (google Maps for example). But I'm really not qualified on this topic and is just a layman's view.
It is interesting to say the least as it seems like Nokia is refocusing itself to be platform agnostic to some extent. After all, both of their Mobile OSs are now full open source. The only "closed" part (at least to some extent) is Qt, which you have to pay at least a developer's license for.
I may be wrong on many of these accounts as this is just a "mind flow" post after a busy work day and quickly reading today's news on areas which is not my forte (app-. development).
Regs, Jarkko
QT is very open. It is LGPL licensed so there is no need for a developers license unless you want to modify QT itself. Linking to QT for most apps is not problem.
And QT is extremely easy to use. You can write directly to the QT API in C++ or use Python though the QT/Python bindings. There are bindings for other languages as well. QT Kinetic project is currently producing QT Declarative (QML) which is a UI layout language that can be bound with native C++ or Javascript. It is fully cross platform and is exceptionally easy to use. If you can layout HTML you can produce apps in QML.
QT is probably most well known for being the layer under the KDE desktop on Linux, but you would be surprised how many major applications depend on it (Google Earth, etc).
indeed, this fragmentation is great news for iPhone and Apple.
Why? Is Apples fragmentation better than others fragmentation?
Why? Is Apples fragmentation better than others fragmentation?
Yes.
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2010/0...le-developers/
Yes.
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2010/0...le-developers/
Can you come up with an example that is not from Daniel, I won't read his stuff.
QT is very open. It is LGPL licensed so there is no need for a developers license unless you want to modify QT itself. Linking to QT for most apps is not problem.
And QT is extremely easy to use. You can write directly to the QT API in C++ or use Python though the QT/Python bindings. There are bindings for other languages as well. QT Kinetic project is currently producing QT Declarative (QML) which is a UI layout language that can be bound with native C++ or Javascript. It is fully cross platform and is exceptionally easy to use. If you can layout HTML you can produce apps in QML.
QT is probably most well known for being the layer under the KDE desktop on Linux, but you would be surprised how many major applications depend on it (Google Earth, etc).
Thanks. That's the drift I had gotten as well. Just wasn't sure. Are the Dev tools open as well? And how does all of this compare to Apple's dev environment (one of the things that enables so many Apps in the App Store)?
I did read some declarations that Qt is just as easy as Apple's or even easier and makes it easier to write bug free code. It's just difficult to know what is BS marketing (on both sides) and what is the truth.
But Qt is interesting to say the least. If it takes off, the potential for Apps is several decades over the App Store potential. That's why I'm trying to get my bearings on this one. I realised this somewhere last summer and now it seems to be coming together. We live in interesting times.
Regs, Jarkko
But Qt is interesting to say the least. If it takes off, the potential for Apps is several decades over the App Store potential. That's why I'm trying to get my bearings on this one. I realised this somewhere last summer and now it seems to be coming together. We live in interesting times.
Regs, Jarkko
Terve Jarkko
The following site has really great resources for Mac development and languages. While aimed at scientists, their tutorials on Cocoa, OpenCL etc are excellent. Not sure what they have on IphoneOS dev tools, but, as I am sure you are aware, they are the same as the regular Xcode tools (at least for the most part).
http://www.macresearch.org/