Main Page
From Ibstudy
(NAnnPMkzuACkdTPYN) |
(MQzQtcZKoNtBuzXVJ) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | + | Thanks, everyone. Really insrietteng comments.jody wrote:>>With the move to QT as the main native development toolkit the underlying OS will have less to do with it. Good point. But in that case, here's a hint to Nokia: If the OS doesn't really matter, stop talking about it. Nokia feeds stories like this by discussing Maemo vs. Symbian in public. If QT is the future, everyone at Nokia should be saying constantly that the OS is irrelevant, and obsessively talking up the benefits of QT.Pauli wrote:>>In general the Qt APIs are very complete and pleasantly uniform; I don't think most mobile app developers will ever need to interact with any OS-specific layers below Qt. QT has a great reputation, and I'm a big fan of OS-independent software layers. But Pauli, don't you think it's a little pathetic that folks like us have to go around explaining Nokia's OS strategy for it?>>Consider the iPhone's operating system: the fundamental Darwin/BSD layer is certainly important, but the user-visible magic happens in the Cocoa Touch framework. It isolates developers from the base OS. Apple could replace Darwin with a very different kernel and the large majority of iPhone software could be ported with just a recompile. And the users would never notice because Apple's smart enough not to make a big deal about issues like this in public. Anonymous wrote:>>Having had worked at Nokia for 17 months, 6 in EspooExtremely insrietteng comment. I should remind everyone that we have no way of knowing if an anonymous poster is actually who he/she claims to be. However, the details in the comment match things I've heard from Nokia people.>>they operate with a hub/spoke model where the S60 OS team feed into 'device program' teams that actually 'own' the delivery of a specific device end-to-end. That model is, in my opinion, one of Nokia's biggest problems in smartphones. Responsibility for a particular product is spread across a number of people. If you want to design a great, integrated systems product, you need unified management of it. | |
Revision as of 13:18, 8 May 2013
Thanks, everyone. Really insrietteng comments.jody wrote:>>With the move to QT as the main native development toolkit the underlying OS will have less to do with it. Good point. But in that case, here's a hint to Nokia: If the OS doesn't really matter, stop talking about it. Nokia feeds stories like this by discussing Maemo vs. Symbian in public. If QT is the future, everyone at Nokia should be saying constantly that the OS is irrelevant, and obsessively talking up the benefits of QT.Pauli wrote:>>In general the Qt APIs are very complete and pleasantly uniform; I don't think most mobile app developers will ever need to interact with any OS-specific layers below Qt. QT has a great reputation, and I'm a big fan of OS-independent software layers. But Pauli, don't you think it's a little pathetic that folks like us have to go around explaining Nokia's OS strategy for it?>>Consider the iPhone's operating system: the fundamental Darwin/BSD layer is certainly important, but the user-visible magic happens in the Cocoa Touch framework. It isolates developers from the base OS. Apple could replace Darwin with a very different kernel and the large majority of iPhone software could be ported with just a recompile. And the users would never notice because Apple's smart enough not to make a big deal about issues like this in public. Anonymous wrote:>>Having had worked at Nokia for 17 months, 6 in EspooExtremely insrietteng comment. I should remind everyone that we have no way of knowing if an anonymous poster is actually who he/she claims to be. However, the details in the comment match things I've heard from Nokia people.>>they operate with a hub/spoke model where the S60 OS team feed into 'device program' teams that actually 'own' the delivery of a specific device end-to-end. That model is, in my opinion, one of Nokia's biggest problems in smartphones. Responsibility for a particular product is spread across a number of people. If you want to design a great, integrated systems product, you need unified management of it.
