[kde-promo] Re: start of elevator pitch for plasma on devices

[Aaron J. Seigo]

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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/plasma-devel/attachments/20101118/3a3bc634/attachment.sig