True, but bear in mind that third-party apps still have limitations such as no JIT compilation, that hurt the JS performance of third-party browsers. Safari does not have this limitation which gives it an unfair advantage.
It's also worth to note that the EU is checking into Windows 8 RT concerning no JIT access for other browsers as an extension of their Windows 7 agreement [1].
Considering Windows RT will be a minority player in the marketplace, with Apple the dominant player, one would think that Apple would face equal attention from the EU.
Qt 5 work on Android looks to be highly experimental at this stage. You should look at Necessitas project. Qt 4.8 works fine for the most part, though apps that do 3D work through OpenGL don't always work due to limitations in Android GL stack. Non-OpenGL apps should work fine with several Qt apps that I know of in Google Play already.
Qt (especially Qt 5) is one of the most portable toolkits out there, its almost like Webkit in that respect. Lot of excellent work has been done in Qt 5 (and Qt 4.8) to make it easy to port to any platform with minimal dependencies. It already works on Windows (albeit Win32, not WinRT), Linux (X11, Wayland as well as almost pure Qt), OSX, QNX.
Sure, it is still not a one-click task, but that can never be the case. I think Qt has a bright future simply because it is essentially unkillable at this point. (Open-source licensing, open governance already in place, highly portable).
Much respect to JWZ, but I don't agree here. I am not even sure what to say, except that he is wrong, so I will just leave it there. And no, I was not involved in anyway with GL ES specification.
I wonder if it is true only in geographies like the USA or Canada, or whether it holds true in countries like India which have a much younger population?
As a sidenote, all the cheering and celebration that goes on in the techpress when a company dies is somewhat disgusting. I don't understand why a large section of tech industry wants RIM or Nokia etc to fail. I would rather them see them succeed, see them build something cool and have more and fun things to play with.
edit: I think we can safely conclude that hackers are about as human and as fallible as any other group. We have our own fashions and our own tabloids.
Probably because this proves them right and the companies wrong, at the time when they refused to believe that iPhone or Android are threats to them. RIM has been very defiant about beliving that especially, but also Nokia for as long as they had their former CEO (about 4 years). "Finally failing" means that the companies were wrong, and the tech press was right all along about them, but the companies were too arrogant to admit it at the time, and now they suffer for it.
Having worked for a large "dead, but didn't know it yet" company in the past: Yup. In the later layoffs, when they had run out of dead wood and were cutting into great, productive workers, it was entirely unclear who the lucky people were. I heard of people getting axed on a thursday who were working at a new place the next week, with higher pay.
Сompanies have their reign and they die; it's inevitable. (But CocaCola didn't yet die). The problem seems to be that people's fate are too much tied to the fate of their company. Each company can be seen as trial of a business model or product idea; they monetize the idea to the full limit and then they go down.
And each death seems to be a birth for another company; look at Apple's profits and Samsungs growth.
It's also a good thing to have a company finally fail rather than just not quite die perpetually. It frees up their engineers and other talented people to go pursue a company with maybe a bigger or more contemporary vision for adding value to the world
Ie, let's take these resources away from those bad managers.
Sucks for the employees short term, but no doubt they'll be happier in the long run
