[Interest] Indie Mobil Program terminated?

[paulovictor.pinheiro at gmail.com]

On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 2:28 PM, maitai <maitai at virtual-winds.org> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> We are on the same situation as many here as I see. We are about to submit
> our first app to apple store, in a couple of weeks or so... What are we
> supposed to do now?

+1 here
>
> I sincerely hope that the indie license will be restored. At least give us a
> last month so we get a chance to subscribe before it's cut. We are working
> ont this project for free on our spare time for the time being, and there's
> no way we can invest 350$ per month until we know if we are successful or
> not...
>
> Philippe Lelong.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Le 03-07-2015 17:22, Jason H a écrit :
>
> We have a commerical license for Charts on the server side of things. I'll
> probably switch this out to use Chart.js.
>
> We use professional support quite often. This is normally a result of an
> issue with Qt and in most cases a parity issue between mobile platforms. I
> think we should be done using support with 5.5 as our required features are
> finally working on Andriod and iOS.
>
> I don't use any commercial features on our mobile platforms, aside from
> being able to be on the right side of things in the App stores. The
> QtQuickCompiler, which I attempted to use was crashing on Android 5.0 with
> Qt5.4, and I never saw much advantage to it, so I disabled it.
>
> Again, I'd like to reiterate I think it is premature to kill the Indie
> mobile license when the mobile platforms  have __FINALLY__ reached parity.
> And have just added real valuable mobile features like:
> -- BT4.0
> -- Location services
>
>
>
> Sent: Friday, July 03, 2015 at 11:01 AM
> From: Preet <prismatic.project at gmail.com>
> To: "interest at qt-project.org" <interest at qt-project.org>
> Subject: Re: [Interest] Indie Mobil Program terminated?
>>
>> Why Apple and Google give their dev tools free ? They don't make money
>> from long tail either but they
>> know that getting successful apps you need to have this long tail also.
>
>
> To be fair this is because they don't make money from the tools, they get
> money by taking a cut of your sales (so called 'democratization'). These
> probably aren't valid avenues for Qt. I think its difficult to come up with
> a business model to sell software that's good enough to sustain your
> company, especially when your code base is mostly open source under a libre
> license.
> As a side note, I'm kind of curious as to how many people buy a commerical
> license of Qt just to deploy it on platforms where LGPL isn't allowed vs
> people that are just after commercial-only features and support.
> _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list
> Interest at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
>
> _______________________________________________
> Interest mailing list
> Interest at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Interest mailing list
> Interest at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
>