> What is Flutter missing, in your opinion, for it to be a viable competitor?
Maturity and the breadth of the surrounding ecosystem, for one. Flutter is looking very promising long-term, but it's going to take some time to evolve past a mobile app framework.
Qt is most widely known for the UI framework, but it actually has far more functionality under the hood. Qt's core target audience values those features. Most of the people who see Qt as a simple UI framework don't.
Like the parent comment said, most of the people who are complaining about the licensing costs are on the wrong side of the Qt value proposition. They should use simpler, freely available tools like Flutter or Electron.
The Flutter engine API has no platform specific dependencies, has a stable ABI and is available in its entirety in a single C header file [1]. It's ideal for embedding.
I just can't imagine scenario where it's cheaper to use something like Flutter and port, test, debug and maintain it in operating systems and devices myself or find consults to do it to me.
I'm an entrepreneur with 6 guys working for me. 4 of them write embedded software, 1 uses Qt. I pay for Qt because cost/value is right. I don't develop any more software than I have to. I get a product, I can buy consulting with reasonable price.
> I just can't imagine scenario where it's cheaper to use something like Flutter and port, test, debug and maintain it in operating systems and devices myself or find consults to do it to me.
Currently, you're exactly right. Google is using Flutter for some of their embedded products, but it's going to be a long time before it's anywhere near as plug-and-play as Qt for the average developer.
The future of Flutter is looking quite promising, though. It's worth keeping an eye on.
