On Sep 16, 2010, at 02:05, <[email protected]> <[email protected]> wrote:
> Let's recap:
>
> MeeGo's promise is vertebrated basically through the MeeGo API. If we don't
> assure a "MeeGo compliant" app runs across MeeGo devices within a range of
> releases then the success of the project is at stage.
>
This promise of one app working across devices is truly ground breaking and a
really great idea.
> This is already complex. You can see the problems you might get looking at
> the Android fragmentation, and the reactions it gets.
>
One of the major reasons for this is that despite the Apache license on Android
it is not open source. Yes, the source code is available, but Google throughs
the OS over the wall every now and then - you don't get to help develop the OS,
you just get what Google says you get.
> The Qt / Qt Mobility / Web Runtime game combined with the different UXs is
> already more complex than the setup offered by Android and iOS. We should
> find there all what it takes to build a great commercial developer offering
> under the "compliance flag".
>
But this should be at a very low level. The second you start climbing up the
stack you get significant dependency problems.
> Then you have MeeGo Extras, hosted at meego.com and handled by the MeeGo
> community, containing compliant apps and also compatible apps departing from
> the MeeGo official API.
>
You'll need to be very specific about the difference between compliant and
compatible.
> The MeeGo commercial offering doesn't *require* Extras but can benefit from a
> successful Extras anyway. Letting Extras out of the Compliance program makes
> sense, especialy now that the comercial part still needs to be created and
> consolidated.
>
Forcing Extras out of compliance means you are disenfranchising your community.
Jeremiah
_______________________________________________
MeeGo-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
