At the bottom of the page it says "Kuesa 3D Runtime may be used as a tool in the creation of applications. To incorporate it as a library into an application and sell on as a commercial application, ask us for Kuesa 3D Studio. Read the complete EULA."
What am I buying? Am I just buying the privilege to be able to develop with their proprietary software but I can't actually distribute it? Also, why is there a link to github. Is this open source? I'm so confused. I shouldn't have to read a complete EULA to get a basic understanding and I shouldn't have to already know what something is to purchase it in a marketplace. Marketplaces are for discoverability.
Frontend developers have at their disposal template stores where they can purchase ready-made components and templates to include in their projects.
The rationale is that buying specialized web components saves development time and budget.
This isn't any different.
I don’t do anything even close to this space, but I found https://www.kdab.com/kuesa/ was a fairly good overview of their offering, as far as these pages typically go.
That's the initial problem they clearly have (aside from it being fairly bare-bones design and feature-wise): The big players in the ecosystem have their own sales systems, often quite specialized products and thus only a nominal presence in the store pointing you to them: E.g. Felgo has the closest to a commercial component library, but they don't sell that through the store but just have the free level there and a pointer to their own site. Kuesa seems complex enough that you'd probably contact them for a demo and a more conventional enterprise sales process anyways. Or maybe someone who wouldn't do that might actually buy it there.
The small ones that probably would like a store don't have products yet because there wasn't a store until now. Or maybe didn't have access to Qt-the-company to get into the launch. I assume that's why they've seeded it with a bunch of Open-Source libraries too, to at least give it some discovery value.
A store has been asked for a bunch, and it's not as weird as GP makes it out (tons of sites sell HTML/JS components, game engines have stores for assets/scripts, ...), we'll see if it actually works out.
Qt has been used to build multiple OS userspaces - LG WebOS (https://github.com/webosose/luna-surfacemanager/blob/08a73ac...), Jolla, Ubuntu Phone, Plasma Mobile, AsteroidOS... and a damn high amount of embedded devices.
It's a bit more than a "GUI library"
Key things are clearly missing, the description of what components do (you get a logo and a name) or their license is not forefront. A lot of KDE stuff is in there which really doesn't fit well, KDE Icons were not high on anybody's list. If I am in the 2D space, I'd want to browse 2D libraries and tools. The tag cloud at the bottom is a massive blob of un-curated words:
Oh, lets pick the doxygen plugin for QtCreator and click 'Get Extension' . hmmm I have to compile it myself!
This is little more that a collection of links to the real products. Often you are better going to the original source to find details of what you need. Browsing this site adds little value.
When I first hear about Qt Marketplace, I (wrongly) assumed they were going to solve package management for Qt development which would be game changing. Instead we get a wiki linking out to existing libraries which you have to take care of yourself.
Cross-platform C++ package management would be a breakthrough and I was expecting Qt to hook up with conan and a build farm. That would be a game changer.
The dev team did a good job but the stakeholders and the product management need to really reflect on what value they added to the lives of their target users. If this thing cost £50k to produce then I don't see it making that money back for the Qt company in the next 12 months.
I think platform companies, like Apple and Qt, should not be able to impose such a high percentage as gatekeepers.
> Either for free or for a price.
Also, there's stuff from KDE in the marketplace too:
It seems like they don't host the binaries for free projects, but instead you provide a markdown file with installation instructions, like this:
And when a user clicks "Get Extension", they are sent to this page.
The next paragraph has We, of course, promote the individual developers and companies to use standard “copy-lefts” ranging from GPL to MIT especially for free extensions.
TLDR: For now, individuals can _only_ publish free extensions. Companies can publish either free or commercial extensions.
I don't understand your complain. So there was no service available to the public, and people at Qt decided to invest their time and resources to provide a service where there was zero. Do they deserve criticism for doing something?
Now, to put up a straw-man against that, why not wait to see, usually these platforms fail pretty quickly anyhow?
Well, if the outcome is either failure of the platform, or success of the platform by capturing (nearly) all of the market, then why no regulate it?
Obviously it needs Incredibuild server and license, but the plugin is distributed via Qt Marketplace free of charge.
Except they won't market your products, they will market the App Store and if you happen to be buried under a million other listings then tough luck.
When app stores launch they start with a handful, it makes sense to jump on early.
Also, if limiting the high percentage does end up being the plan of attack, who exactly is in charge of that?
a regulatory agency. Credit Card transactions in the EU, for example, are capped at a fraction of a per cent and they still make plenty of cash. Infrastructure providers are essentially just glorified landlords and should not be allowed to extract economic rents from market participants.
This is becoming a very blatant and obvious problem on a largely privatized internet. Enforcing low margin incentivises the correct behaviour which is openness and continued innovation. If steam would be forced to build new products rather than sitting on their platform we'd probably have had Half Life 3 a bunch of years ago.
Steam is a terrible example for this.
First of all, Steam isn't a company, it's a product. Valve is the company. Second of all, unlike the App Store or other similar infrastructure, it's not like you're locked into Steam, so they're not really rent-seeking. Steam has had plenty of competitors over the years(Direct2Drive, Games for Windows Live, that garbage GameStop store), they all sucked, and as far as I know there's nothing stopping me from publishing on multiple stores & ignoring Steam. Third, Valve hasn't exactly been doing nothing - they've done more than any other company to the gaming experience under Linux & have pioneered VR. Odds are good they wouldn't have taken those risks had it not been subsidized with comfortable margins they got from Steam.
If you had cited, say, the App Store, or something that has actual monopoly power in terms of infrastructure (like our good friends at Comcast) it would have been a much stronger argument.
rent-seeking and monopolistic behaviour aren't the same things. Rent-seeking is the extraction of economic rent without providing new wealth with one prominent example being someone putting a chain across a private plot of land and charging you every time you want to cross over. Whether you've five guys doing that or one isn't particularly relevant.
So while competition ameliorates the negative effects of these private platforms slightly the more fundamental broken part is really that they should not be allowed to exist in the first place. What is economically desirable is competition between developers and service providers on a common and open infrastructure with ideally all reimbursements beyond maintaining the platform going to the content creators.
In fact, competition among platform owners in many ways makes the system worse because it incentivises walled gardens. This is starting to become obvious in the streaming world with Netflix gaining competition and as a result, platform-exclusive content becoming more important, or companies like Spotify or Stitcher enclosing the podcast ecosystem which used to be a prime example of openness.
Smartphone OS vendors make it hard to venture outside their walled gardens, not Steam. There are no exclusivity deals (afaik), no all-encompassing SDK developers are incentivized to integrate with (Google Play services), even SteamOS doesn't lock users down.
I assume what you mean is "providing new value"? Regardless, Steam doesn't fit this description at all:
- Valve doesn't own the vast majority of games on Steam (i.e. they aren't just buying IP and "rent-seeking" using it)
- Steam adds value that consumers want, which is why it is so popular (friends, achievements, marketplace, workshop, etc)
- Even ignoring the previous point, the basic premise of a game store isn't rent-seeking, because download bandwidth and easy installation are added value by themselves
- Steam isn't a walled garden: they do not prevent you from selling on other stores or pay for exclusives or other similar behavior - Steam wins by out-competing the competition, it doesn't create artificial advantages for itself
Choice is why Apple isn't gouging developers with 100 dollar service subscriptions just to sign packages right?
I don't think Qt really can... Feels like they're charging way too much, there's not much content and Qt itself is not exactly "hot stuff" right now. (Compared to, say, Apple as the % is same)
They tried that a couple of years ago, only to find out most weren't willing to pay jumping into Xamarin, while their license was even cheaper vs the Xamarin one.
They now care about enterprise and specialized embedded markets.
For me it looks more like a nice to have than anything else.
What are you thoughts about this Marketplace and it's future potential impact ? Is it gonna promote the open source and "plugin" community around Qt/QML ? It seems pretty "company" oriented.