| Trolltech Home | Qt-interest Home | Recent Threads | All Threads | Author | Date | |
| All threads index page 1 | |
I've intensionally waited a long time before responding to the potential buy-out news. Let's just be honest about this news and the motivations behind it: -Nokia is interested in Qtopia, and that's probably about it -Trolltech's board of directors, which own stock, and the shareholders, care about making money, and as shareholders stand to make "a few" bucks if Trolltech were purchased by Nokia. -I think Trolltech's board of directors, and its engineers care about more than just $. They care about making a great product, Qt, and they care about all that cross platform goodness. They see the acquisition as a way to grow since Nokia has a big wallet and can fund some aggressive development Trolltech can't current afford. Aka Qt development, at least in the short term, could expand with the additional financial resources. -Being acquired is a big risk, at least with respect to Trolltech's long term goals. I don't think Trolltech/Qt was started just to be purchased. The idea of making a great toolkit, not just for cross platform development, but even single platform development was the motivation. There is a serious risk that that goal will be lost down the road once Trolltech is acquired. Nokia can say whatever they want now, but they are NOT bound what so ever to keep their end of the deal 6 months, a year, or more down the road. We could see Qt development cut back big time, or only done just to support Qtopia improvements. And if that happens, because Nokia is on hard times like Motorolla is now, all those lovely Trolls can only be sad that Qt got the axe despite their valiant attempts to convince Nokia it was still worthwhile funding it's development. -As both a GPL user and a commercial user I'm terribly nervous about all this. I'm very happy with how Trolltech has been developing Qt4. Qt4 is so much nicer to work with than Qt3, and it seems to just keep getting better and better. I'm not really unhappy with how it's been getting better either. Well, I suppose I wish there were a few more OSX guys at Trolltech to keep Trenton company so we could see a slightly faster development pace of OSX specific things, and I'd like to see some QCoreImage/QCoreAnimation like hardware accelerated technology developed, but other than that I'm very happy with how Qt4 is progressing. I, personally, don't think being acquired is worth the implicit risk just for the short term cash infusion. If Trolltech really cares about the long term development of Qt they should be incredibly nervous about the long term prospects of being acquired and losing control of what they have built thus far. It's a gamble, a huge one, and one they really don't need to take IMHO. All in all, this is an opinion. I'm not a stockholder in Trolltech, but I did drive some of their license sales. That used to be enough, but I guess Trolltech has decided more resources are required. I think Trolltech's board and developers are getting greedy. They want to see Qt realize all these high lofty things. I want to see that too, because I love using Qt and can't wait to do more and more with it, coding less and doing more, but given the work I've invested into my own software that uses Qt extensively, the risk involved in this aquision is too great. If I had a vote I'd vote against it in a heart beat. Here's hoping some of those Trolls with authority read this and reconsider their decision, or, if possible, help explain why I should not be so concerned as both an open source and a commercial developer. I'd also like a frank explanation from their standpoint why this is good news at all. Why, as both an open source and commercial developer, should I be excited at all about the potential acquisition? -Will -- [ signature omitted ]
Will Stokes wrote: > I'd also like a frank explanation from their standpoint why this is > good news at all. Why, as both an open source and commercial > developer, should I be excited at all about the potential acquisition? > Thanks Will. I agree. It seems that the Trolls are, for the moment, compelled to remain quiet about something. They aren't saying what, but some hints seem to lead toward a new Nokia product announcement. The hints also seem to indicate that Qt, and not Qtopia, will be in the spotlight of that announcement. I would not be surprised if, in the coming weeks, we hear about something Real Big. I could be totally wrong, but that's what my tea leaves are saying. Don't get me wrong. As a commercial user I'm still pretty edgy about the whole deal. This is the kind of creativity-crushing, technology-embracing-and-extending-and-extinguishing kind of stuff we've seen for decades in this industry. However, I am slightly comforted by the fact that several Trolls have been openly optimistic. I have come to trust them over the years to do the right thing, and they haven't let me down yet. Trolls: If you can't tell us what's going on, can you at least tell us *when* you will be able to tell us? :) --Dave -- [ signature omitted ]
Dave Smith wrote: > Will Stokes wrote: >> I'd also like a frank explanation from their standpoint why this is >> good news at all. Why, as both an open source and commercial >> developer, should I be excited at all about the potential acquisition? >> > > Thanks Will. I agree. You should be excited because this means Qt and Qtopia will continue to grow, and be the best cross platform products you have come to know, both commercially and open source. Nokia has pledged to become a KDE patron, which means KDE will also continue to grow. > > It seems that the Trolls are, for the moment, compelled to remain quiet > about something. There are probably a few reasons why: 1) we don't know. (most employees only found out about it on Monday) 2) because we cannot speak publicly about some things (there are large fines involved going through this process, if we make mistakes). > They aren't saying what, but some hints seem to lead > toward a new Nokia product announcement. The hints also seem to indicate > that Qt, and not Qtopia, will be in the spotlight of that announcement. > I would not be surprised if, in the coming weeks, we hear about > something Real Big. I could be totally wrong, but that's what my tea > leaves are saying. > > Don't get me wrong. As a commercial user I'm still pretty edgy about the > whole deal. This is the kind of creativity-crushing, > technology-embracing-and-extending-and-extinguishing kind of stuff we've > seen for decades in this industry. However, I am slightly comforted by > the fact that several Trolls have been openly optimistic. I have come to > trust them over the years to do the right thing, and they haven't let me > down yet. Trolltech as a company, will continue to exist (just with a slightly larger "Uncle's pocket"). We are not going anywhere. We will continue to develop Qt and Qtopia. We will continue to sell licenses. We will continue to release open source. > > Trolls: If you can't tell us what's going on, can you at least tell us > *when* you will be able to tell us? :) This is not a done deal, yet. There will most likely be official news from time to time. But not until the acquisition is completed (roughly 6 months), or falls through completely, can we really speak much about it. -- [ signature omitted ]
I second every letter that Will wrote here. I drove alot of license sales. In a flash that dried up. BTW, I've worked for Nokia. Ask anyone from the San Diego office...er there used to be a San Diego office. Nokia just evaporated it when their business whims changed. Alot of people lost their jobs after faithful hardworking service to Nokia. The point is that QT is a means to an end for Nokia. If the mood changes, QT is done. IT won't matter how much passion you have for the product. Your CEOs, if they really cared for the workers, could have found a better buy for Trolltech. Um, Google comes to mind. M On Jan 31, 2008, at 8:37 PM, Will Stokes wrote: > I've intensionally waited a long time before responding to the > potential buy-out news. Let's just be honest about this news and the > motivations behind it: > > -Nokia is interested in Qtopia, and that's probably about it > > -Trolltech's board of directors, which own stock, and the > shareholders, care about making money, and as shareholders stand to > make "a few" bucks if Trolltech were purchased by Nokia. > > -I think Trolltech's board of directors, and its engineers care about > more than just $. They care about making a great product, Qt, and they > care about all that cross platform goodness. They see the acquisition > as a way to grow since Nokia has a big wallet and can fund some > aggressive development Trolltech can't current afford. Aka Qt > development, at least in the short term, could expand with the > additional financial resources. > > -Being acquired is a big risk, at least with respect to Trolltech's > long term goals. I don't think Trolltech/Qt was started just to be > purchased. The idea of making a great toolkit, not just for cross > platform development, but even single platform development was the > motivation. There is a serious risk that that goal will be lost down > the road once Trolltech is acquired. Nokia can say whatever they want > now, but they are NOT bound what so ever to keep their end of the deal > 6 months, a year, or more down the road. We could see Qt development > cut back big time, or only done just to support Qtopia improvements. > And if that happens, because Nokia is on hard times like Motorolla is > now, all those lovely Trolls can only be sad that Qt got the axe > despite their valiant attempts to convince Nokia it was still > worthwhile funding it's development. > > -As both a GPL user and a commercial user I'm terribly nervous about > all this. I'm very happy with how Trolltech has been developing Qt4. > Qt4 is so much nicer to work with than Qt3, and it seems to just keep > getting better and better. I'm not really unhappy with how it's been > getting better either. Well, I suppose I wish there were a few more > OSX guys at Trolltech to keep Trenton company so we could see a > slightly faster development pace of OSX specific things, and I'd like > to see some QCoreImage/QCoreAnimation like hardware accelerated > technology developed, but other than that I'm very happy with how Qt4 > is progressing. I, personally, don't think being acquired is worth the > implicit risk just for the short term cash infusion. If Trolltech > really cares about the long term development of Qt they should be > incredibly nervous about the long term prospects of being acquired and > losing control of what they have built thus far. It's a gamble, a huge > one, and one they really don't need to take IMHO. > > All in all, this is an opinion. I'm not a stockholder in Trolltech, > but I did drive some of their license sales. That used to be enough, > but I guess Trolltech has decided more resources are required. I think > Trolltech's board and developers are getting greedy. They want to see > Qt realize all these high lofty things. I want to see that too, > because I love using Qt and can't wait to do more and more with it, > coding less and doing more, but given the work I've invested into my > own software that uses Qt extensively, the risk involved in this > aquision is too great. If I had a vote I'd vote against it in a heart > beat. Here's hoping some of those Trolls with authority read this and > reconsider their decision, or, if possible, help explain why I should > not be so concerned as both an open source and a commercial developer. > I'd also like a frank explanation from their standpoint why this is > good news at all. Why, as both an open source and commercial > developer, should I be excited at all about the potential acquisition? > > -Will > > -- > To unsubscribe - send a mail to qt-interest-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > with "unsubscribe" in the subject or the body. > List archive and information: http://lists.trolltech.com/qt-interest/ > -- [ signature omitted ]
Michael Simpson wrote: > I second every letter that Will wrote here. I drove alot of license > sales. In a flash that dried up. > The point is that QT is a means > to an end for Nokia. If the mood changes, QT is done. IT won't matter > how much passion you have for the product. If Trolltech ever stops developing Qt, it will revert to a BSD license. It will never be done. KDE will most likely have a vested interest to keep developing it then. -- [ signature omitted ]
On Feb 1, 2008 4:12 PM, Lorn Potter <lpotter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Michael Simpson wrote: > > I second every letter that Will wrote here. I drove alot of license > > sales. In a flash that dried up. > > > The point is that QT is a means > > to an end for Nokia. If the mood changes, QT is done. IT won't matter > > how much passion you have for the product. > > If Trolltech ever stops developing Qt, it will revert to a BSD license. > It will never be done. KDE will most likely have a vested interest to > keep developing it then. IANAL, but it looks like the agreement (http://www.kde.org/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation.php, http://www.kde.org/whatiskde/images/agreement3.png) takes effect only if the Qt Free Edition is no longer released. So Nokia could conceivably leave commercial developers out in the cold by dropping the Commercial Edition but continuing the Free Edition. Not that they necessarily would, but it looks possible. -- [ signature omitted ]
Andrew Medico wrote: >So Nokia could >conceivably leave commercial developers out in the cold by dropping >the Commercial Edition but continuing the Free Edition. Not that they >necessarily would, but it looks possible. The question is not what it's possible. What matters is what is likely. Do you think a company would shut down a profitable revenue stream? If so, why? -- [ signature omitted ]
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Thiago Macieira wrote: > Do you think a company would shut down a profitable revenue stream? If so, why Just a hypothetical: Step 1: A higher up in Nokia decides he's tired of dealing with Trolltech because it makes his brain hurt or some more legitimate reason like their hardware platforms have gone in a new direction. Besides, Trolltech accounts for like 0.001% of Nokia's revenue, so it won't be missed. Step 2: Creative accounting to make Trolltech appear unprofitable. Step 3: Bye? --Dave -- [ signature omitted ]
LOL. Dave Smith reads Slashdot. You forgot "Profit" On Feb 1, 2008, at 4:27 PM, Dave Smith wrote: > Thiago Macieira wrote: >> Do you think a company would shut down a profitable revenue stream? >> If so, why > > Just a hypothetical: > > Step 1: A higher up in Nokia decides he's tired of dealing with > Trolltech because it makes his brain hurt or some more legitimate > reason like their hardware platforms have gone in a new direction. > Besides, Trolltech accounts for like 0.001% of Nokia's revenue, so > it won't be missed. > > Step 2: Creative accounting to make Trolltech appear unprofitable. > > Step 3: Bye? > > --Dave > > -- > To unsubscribe - send a mail to qt-interest-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > with "unsubscribe" in the subject or the body. > List archive and information: http://lists.trolltech.com/qt-interest/ > -- [ signature omitted ]
Actually... shutting down profitable revenue streams happens by BoD's all the time... Sometimes, in the desire to build a different business you have to scuttle exiting ones. After all isn't TrollTechs BoD shutting down its current business to sell it... True its still operational, but its not going to be the same.. the original will be gone, the new Nokia own Trolltech will now exist.. That said, a lot will be determined based on who the new company exists... Is it a division of Nokia? A wholly owned subsidiary? A majority owned sub? A project? Do they have multiple division heads? Do you still get to have your own marketing group? Sales force? All these things will dramatically effect how it turns out... Until the public knows these things, those of us who have survived multiple acquisitions in our life... will be VERY worried for the outcome. An BTW... based on the last pubic statement... you were not profitable... you lost 4.6 Million NOK before taxis in Q3 07... Maybe that's why this sale happened... You bring in 60.7MNok and your op costs alone are 60.4.... Scott > -----Original Message----- > From: Thiago Macieira [mailto:thiago.macieira@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 7:06 PM > To: qt-interest@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: AW: Nokia to acquire Trolltech > > Andrew Medico wrote: > >So Nokia could > >conceivably leave commercial developers out in the cold by dropping > >the Commercial Edition but continuing the Free Edition. Not that they > >necessarily would, but it looks possible. > > The question is not what it's possible. > > What matters is what is likely. Do you think a company would shut down a > profitable revenue stream? If so, why? > > -- > Thiago José Macieira - thiago.macieira AT trolltech.com > Trolltech ASA - Sandakerveien 116, NO-0402 Oslo, Norway -- [ signature omitted ]
On Sat, 2008-02-02 at 01:05 +0100, Thiago Macieira wrote: > Andrew Medico wrote: > >So Nokia could > >conceivably leave commercial developers out in the cold by dropping > >the Commercial Edition but continuing the Free Edition. Not that they > >necessarily would, but it looks possible. > > The question is not what it's possible. > > What matters is what is likely. Do you think a company would shut down a > profitable revenue stream? If so, why? Both matters. It matters both what is likely and what is possible. See, there is a distinct difference to me as a developer if I deal with Nokia or with Trolltech. There is a mutual relationship between developers and Trolltech. Trolltech needs the revenue from the Developers, the Developers need the library Trolltech provides. Everyone walks home happy. There is no such relationship between me and Nokia. Nokia does not need my money. The revenue trolltech generates, as great as it may be, is spare change to a company the size of Nokia. It's a one-sided relationship and that is very bad. Now, when I as a developer choose a 3rd party library to base my work on I take a major risk. If this library ceases to exists or ceases to be developed I'm going to have a major problem. That's of course liable to happen in any scenario, but what matters here is, how likely is this to happen? In the first case outlined above, Trolltech would have to completely shut down for this to happen. A very significant amount of developers would have to stop using the library which would mean there probably is a reason and I probably wouldn't want to continue using the library anyway in such a scenario. In the second Nokia case however, the only thing that has to happen is if a higher up enough Manager has a bad day and Trolltech is no longer needed or nokia decides to go a different direction technology wise. The chances of a Nokia owned QT causing me grief are by magnitudes higher than a Trolltech owned QT. Trolltech *needs* my sale, Nokia does not. So then the question becomes this: When starting a project such as the one just started a week ago, what do I use? Do I use QT or do I go to something else? Honestly I have to tell you, if I had a reliable alternative choice right now, I'd be using that. I threw wxWidgets into the corner though after 5 minutes so I'm currently sticking with QT and crossing my fingers. However, the application I'm working on right now is going to be managing the companies entire business. Everything will be done through it. It is filled with almost nothing but QT based UI code that would be extremely difficult if not nearly impossible (in any decent manner / timeframe) to port to another API. So which API I use is a very significant decision that can't just be lightly changed a year down the road. The risk I take choosing QT is extremely greater if it's Nokia owned than Trolltech owned. As I've said, Trolltech owned I mostly only need to worry about Trolltech going down which is unlikely to happen as long as Trolltech continues to produce a good product. Nokia owned, there are infinitely more variables...many of which can't be predicted and any of which can happen at *any* point in time that could seriously ruin my day. The risk is great enough that simply the news of the possibility of Nokia taking over Trolltech is enough to where I'd be using a competitors product right now if only there was one that was comparable. I'm actually finding myself wishing for that right now. Stephan -- [ signature omitted ]
> The risk is great enough that simply the news of the possibility of > Nokia taking over Trolltech is enough to where I'd be using a > competitors product right now if only there was one that was comparable. > I'm actually finding myself wishing for that right now. > > Qt is so much better than the alternatives; I can't imagine working with any other toolkit. Last I checked, the deal with Nokia will not suddenly cause all my code to stop working, or my copy of the Qt sources to disappear. As a commercial customer with several applications based largely on Qt, I'm not worried. I have the code. The features I need for my applications are already implemented. Nothing is preventing me from starting new projects with the code either. And nothing would prevent commercial licensees from sharing their changes to the Qt codebase. I think some perspective is needed to go with all the fear mongering. -- [ signature omitted ]
On Saturday 02 February 2008 14:34:13 Paul Miller wrote: > > The risk is great enough that simply the news of the possibility of > > Nokia taking over Trolltech is enough to where I'd be using a > > competitors product right now if only there was one that was comparable. > > I'm actually finding myself wishing for that right now. > > Qt is so much better than the alternatives; I can't imagine working with > any other toolkit. > > Last I checked, the deal with Nokia will not suddenly cause all my code > to stop working, or my copy of the Qt sources to disappear. As a > commercial customer with several applications based largely on Qt, I'm > not worried. I have the code. The features I need for my applications > are already implemented. Nothing is preventing me from starting new > projects with the code either. And nothing would prevent commercial > licensees from sharing their changes to the Qt codebase. > > I think some perspective is needed to go with all the fear mongering. Well I thought it was only me, but I'm glad someone out there actually has the same ideas. People: even if Trolltech would be killed off two months from now, your code is still going to compile and it will continue to run! Your programs are not going to start up, connect to the internet, start browsing the latest new feeds and suddenly go like 'Oh, trolltech went out of business, I can't start up anymore!'. I've been using MFC professionally for ages now, and although we get compiler upgrades every 2 years or so,but MFC itself has not changed a bit. And guess what? Nobody out there decides to stop using it because there are no new releases: if at all, they prefer to stop using it because it's too hard to use and there are better alternatives. (Easily resizing windows? Anyone?) Same goes for QT. You can still create new software with the current release 20 years from now if you'd like to. You don't need Trolltech to even exist in order to do that! Furthermore: if being taken over by nokia means Trolltech stays in business for another couple of years, when not being taken over might mean they'll be out of business in 2009, I'm certainly all in favour of it. I'm not aware of the current financial situation of TT, but the mere fact they let themselves be bought... Let's take the hint ;-) And finally: if these guys are smart enough to create something like QT, wouldn't you at least give them the benefit of the doubt that they are smart enough to make sure there are some legal clauses in the contract to prevent just what you're all afraid of? Well, just my 2 cents worth, but not really worried here, people :) Happy coding, Eric > > -- > To unsubscribe - send a mail to qt-interest-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with > "unsubscribe" in the subject or the body. List archive and information: > http://lists.trolltech.com/qt-interest/ -- [ signature omitted ]
QT would remain usable for quite a while, but OSes change and as they do, your code would fall out of date. This used to be the premier framework. http://developer.apple.com/tools/macapp/ I loved that Framework. QT is better. But it took 15 years for something better than MacApp to arrive on the scene. If Nokia ruins QT, it will last for a while, but then it starts to lag.... M On Feb 2, 2008, at 5:13 PM, Eric Methorst wrote: > On Saturday 02 February 2008 14:34:13 Paul Miller wrote: >>> The risk is great enough that simply the news of the possibility of >>> Nokia taking over Trolltech is enough to where I'd be using a >>> competitors product right now if only there was one that was >>> comparable. >>> I'm actually finding myself wishing for that right now. >> >> Qt is so much better than the alternatives; I can't imagine working >> with >> any other toolkit. >> >> Last I checked, the deal with Nokia will not suddenly cause all my >> code >> to stop working, or my copy of the Qt sources to disappear. As a >> commercial customer with several applications based largely on Qt, >> I'm >> not worried. I have the code. The features I need for my applications >> are already implemented. Nothing is preventing me from starting new >> projects with the code either. And nothing would prevent commercial >> licensees from sharing their changes to the Qt codebase. >> >> I think some perspective is needed to go with all the fear mongering. > Well I thought it was only me, but I'm glad someone out there > actually has the > same ideas. People: even if Trolltech would be killed off two months > from > now, your code is still going to compile and it will continue to > run! Your > programs are not going to start up, connect to the internet, start > browsing > the latest new feeds and suddenly go like 'Oh, trolltech went out of > business, I can't start up anymore!'. > I've been using MFC professionally for ages now, and although we get > compiler > upgrades every 2 years or so,but MFC itself has not changed a bit. > And guess > what? Nobody out there decides to stop using it because there are no > new > releases: if at all, they prefer to stop using it because it's too > hard to > use and there are better alternatives. (Easily resizing windows? > Anyone?) > Same goes for QT. You can still create new software with the current > release > 20 years from now if you'd like to. You don't need Trolltech to even > exist in > order to do that! > Happy coding, > Eric >> >> -- >> To unsubscribe - send a mail to qt-interest-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >> with >> "unsubscribe" in the subject or the body. List archive and >> information: >> http://lists.trolltech.com/qt-interest/ > > > -- > To unsubscribe - send a mail to qt-interest-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > with "unsubscribe" in the subject or the body. > List archive and information: http://lists.trolltech.com/qt-interest/ > -- [ signature omitted ]
Michael Simpson wrote: > QT would remain usable for quite a while, but OSes change and as they > do, your code would fall out of date. > > This used to be the premier framework. > http://developer.apple.com/tools/macapp/ > > I loved that Framework. QT is better. But it took 15 years for > something better than MacApp to arrive on the scene. If Nokia ruins QT, > it will last for a while, but then it starts to lag.... MacApp was a bloated mess that ran on 3% of the worlds computers. I'm betting Qt is a bit more widely used. -- [ signature omitted ]