On Thursday, November 18, 2010, Carl Symons wrote: > You write, "...with operating systems like MeeGo". Is Plasma for CE a > MeeGo application?
not exclusively, no. what MeeGo does give us, however is: * a reason for Nokia, Intel, AMD and other MeeGo partners to get behind Plasma as well * a friendly (due to being a strong Qt promponent) operating system that is portable and open to couple with Plasma without having to invent and created such a thing ourselves (which we don't have the resources for) MeeGo is, right now, simply the best option available from the Plasma perspective and so it is in our best interests to elevate its profile in this conversation. it's also the target that receives the bulk of our development attention. > Does it apply to other OSs? yes, but not as compellingly. one could take Android and ship Plasma with it or instead of the Google provided UI. but unless Google replaces their UI with something Qt based (or even better: a Plasma driven shell) then it's more work with less control for the company producing the product. for iOs and RIM's QNX based stuff is quite frankly uninteresting as they are both one-company solutions. there is no one else out there who can use those platforms for their devices, so they are not of interest here. where it could be interesting is if Plasma enabled one to install, say, iPhone apps on their device. but that isn't going to happen, for a number of reasons. > How does it compare > with Appcelerator/Titanium used to develop native-ish apps for iPhone, > Android and RIM? completely different. opposite sides of the equation, even. Appcelerator is there to write apps for different existing platforms. Plasma, at least in this context, is there to provide a platform on a device that apps can be written to. so Appcelerator could add Plasma support one day if there was a market for Plasmoids. and conversely, Plasma already supports hosting some other types of apps (e.g. Google Gadgets). that's an interesting question, though, and one that perhaps deserves a separate entry on that community.k.o page. > What are the other choices related to the following: > "Help decision makers (e.g. managers) understand the concrete benefits > of using Plasma for smartphones, tablets, netbooks, set-top boxes and > other CE devices so that they choose to make it part of their platform > strategy." > > And how does the Plasma-related solution compare to these other choices? it's more portable, more open, multi-device (the "one plasmoid, multiple device target customizations" is completely unique right now to Plasma), has better and more language options and generally faster to develop for than the alternatives. this is why there are already more Plasmoids that work nicely on an N900 style device than there are Maemo apps that i can download for my N900. these are the ideas that "elevator pitch" needs to get across. > How savvy are the decision makers/managers? usually quite savvy. they are all technology experts, though usually with management instead of development backgrounds. > For some devices, developer participation is a major consideration > (smartphones, tablets). yes... > Companies offering other types of devices > (e.g., set top boxes) won't have as much need of third party > developers. that's becoming less and less true, actually. more and more devices, even ones we wouldn't usually consider as candidates for such an approach, are being designed with this in mind. > So will the decision makers be more like Apple/closed > garden iStuff doing their own development, or Motorola/Droid, HTC, > Samsung, et al who open their basic platform widely to outside > developers. some will be looking to the Apple model, some will be looking to the latter. both are possible strategies, and while Plasma is useful in the "close garden" model it is even more compelling (in the same way, say, Android would be) to the more open approach. so i'd like to concentrate on those looking for the more open approach since we should have more to offer them. -- Aaron J. Seigo humru othro a kohnu se GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43 KDE core developer sponsored by Qt Development Frameworks
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Plasma-devel mailing list Plasma-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel
