Qt vs Symbian C++
I read on forum nokia discussion forums that the smart installer is currently useful only for deploying Qt apps to a very few Symbian devices. The reason cited was lack of space on c drive on most of the current devices. Is this true ? I have one project I'am planning to do in Qt. If the above is true I have to revert back to native Symbian api.
Smart Installer too installs Qt libraries to C:, so if there is not enough space it cannot get installed.
Here is the best documented list [forum.nokia.com] I could find of the current devices OVI / Smart Installer likes.
best documented list [forum.nokia.com] I could find of the current devices OVI / Smart Installer likes.Here is the
Thanks for the link.
There is a new SmartInstaller v1.1 by the way.
Mandatory as of today but was released last week.
Some stuff may have changed with regards to this topic.
It says it was released on the 24th in the wiki that page links to. Unless you meant when it became mandatory. Date of article was 2nd of December I think. I remember seeing the date before but now that I look, it’s not there :O
By the way, just after this announcement one of my smart installer apps passed QA. So it’s only for new submissions.
Updates: from what I have heard, Nokia no longer will kill the Symbian API. So you can use that until you grow old.
The benefit is that the Smart Installer is not allowed on many operator stores. So Symbian is mandatory with them. Also, distributing QT apps on Ovi still is an unholy mess and the regular runtime changes will wreak havoc in your app.
Other than that, I see little advantages.
But Nokia have stated that all Qt runtimes will be backwards compatible with Qt4.6.3. So not really a mess. The only things that aren’t back compatible are the ‘labs’ that you shouldn’t be using in production app anyway.
Also, they are fixing the Smart Installer thing. You won’t have to say it may download up to 13MB of additional files anymore.
The only markets I wasn’t able to distribute apps using SmartInstaller were Mainland China (without licencing partnership) and Korea (no idea?). But I don’t think those had anything to do with Qt or Symbian C++.
I’m not sure why an operator would restrict Qt. Makes no sense really. Surely the customers would debrand their device or yell at their operator and not come back.
Well it seems absurd.
Right now the application downloads Qt after the store has downloaded the application. So the extra download isn’t related to the store. It’s a one-off from the application. That’s why they require that warning in the application’s description.
What I believed they were doing is having the store host the Qt Installer instead. So you download it off the store. The operator store can have Qt Installer on their domain.
So what’s the problem?
Well. Now I know why I was so glad to be home from Australia many years ago – I have family there.
Jokes aside. Let me explain with fictive names.
Our carrier canaan-banana has a store at canaan-banana.com. The user downloads the smartinstaller enabled app from canaan-banana.com, which is free as canaan-banana.com is set as no bill in the routing system.
The user then starts the smartinstaller, which downloads the Qt libraries from nokia.com.
nokia.com != canaan-banana.com
In order to make the download of the WHOLE app free, they would have to add Nokia.com to the no bill zone.