[Interest] Indie Mobil Program terminated?

Mon Jul 6 10:55:51 CEST 2015

I completely agree with Nuno Santos … and I’m very happy that I got an indie license when it got a chance.
I’m regretting my choice to not take one few months ago :-( :-(
I’m very sad because we are a small team, just three people that during the night we are working on a video game for mobile platform. I convinced them to use Qt to have just one code to maintain, of course we don’t have money to pay such a big pricing now.
That means we are dead before to start ! :-( and we wasted months of developing.

I want to be honest. Because we invested so much time on developing with Qt, we are truly considering to submit the app on the store with LGPL licence even if it’s risky and probably illegal … hope to make enough money to buy a Qt (very expensive) license in the future.
This is what Qt wants ? 

I agree with Nuno Santos that the Qt licensing schema is absolutely confusing. You don’t have a very nice and clear pricing table … but also there is nowhere a clear statement of what you get more when you pay. Honestly, do you think that having professional support only justify more than 300$/month ?? Because, I don’t see any other thing respect to LGPL version of Qt.

Please, give the possibility to indie developer to submit mobile app to the stores. We only needs this and nothing else.

Thanks,
Gianluca.

> On 6 Jul 2015, at 09:45, Nuno Santos <nunosantos at imaginando.pt> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> In one year I have never seen such an hot topic in this list.
> 
> One year ago I have founded Imaginando. During the last year I have been telling everyone I know that this could only be possible with Qt. 
> 
> It’s not easy to convince people that they should adopt Qt for iOS and Android development, despite the clear advantages of having a single code base for two or more platforms. Now, with this price tag, it’s clearly impossible!
> 
> If you had this price tag one year ago. All the work I have been developing from one year now, wouldn’t simply exist. I have developed two apps and a half on a single year and i’m just starting. I’m ALONE and i’m surviving from my SALES. I don’t plan to have investment unless I cannot manage to scale my sales in the next 6 months.
> 
> If I wasn’t already a indie developer subscriber, right now, I would be in a very complicated situation.
> 
> I also AGREE with many of the statements already shared in this discussion regarding the website. Qt website is a mess regarding licensing and pricing.
> 
> There SHOULD be an item on the website clearly saying: PRICING 
> 
> This are clear pricing table examples. Qt pricing table is not existent now. The wizard is a complete mess… 
> 
> https://parse.com/plans <https://parse.com/plans>
> https://www.zendesk.com/product/pricing/ <https://www.zendesk.com/product/pricing/>
> https://www.xero.com/pricing/ <https://www.xero.com/pricing/>
> http://mailchimp.com/pricing/ <http://mailchimp.com/pricing/>
> http://www.shopify.com/pricing <http://www.shopify.com/pricing>
> 
> You guys have a GREAT product! You should definitely listen and support your small developers. They are your technology evangelists. Don’t ruin it with awkward pricing strategies. 
> 
> Once again: Qt rocks!
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Nuno Santos
> Founder / CEO / CTO
> www.imaginando.pt <http://www.imaginando.pt/>
> +351 91 621 69 62
> 
>> On 06 Jul 2015, at 09:07, Robert Iakobashvili <coroberti at gmail.com <mailto:coroberti at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear Tuukka,
>> To sell a product, you need to have it.
>> 
>> When you declared the license, your stock was empty
>> since Qt for Android and iOS was too buggy and without many crucial features.
>> 
>> It could be a separate discussion whether Qt for iOS/Android is stable enough
>> for production today, but at least many people have started to develop
>> their apps
>> with a hope that future expected Qt stability and features can deliver
>> stable Qt-based applications for iOS and Android.
>> 
>> Let's say you have this product for 1 month, optimistically for 2-3 months
>> (many developers to say that even today iOS/Android ports stability
>> is not enough to start using it).
>> 
>> Is it enough time to make a judgement?
>> 
>> Qt for Desktop is the best GUI framework for today,
>> and I'm confident that in 2-3 years Qt for Mobile will be as lucrative
>> as for Desktop.
>> 
>> However, this is not the case today and your product for Mobile is too risky,
>> too limited with only enthusiast and early adapters starting to try it.
>> 
>> Even if you restore the Indie license tomorrow, it will take
>> some time to convince developers that Qt for iOS/Android is stable enough,
>> it will take more time for developers to accomplish their applications
>> full of work-arounds
>> around Qt-issues and missed features and to start orders.
>> 
>> Please, let your decision makers to look into this very interesting discussion.
>> 
>> Consider making your Indie for Mobile less restrictive i.e.
>> with higher threshold like 300 000 or 500 000.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Robert
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 7:31 AM, Turunen Tuukka
>> <tuukka.turunen at theqtcompany.com <mailto:tuukka.turunen at theqtcompany.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> We have decided to discontinue that product. Those who have it, can continue just as before. New subscriptions are no longer sold.
>>> 
>>> There was unfortunately too little interest towards this product.
>>> 
>>> We have a new Qt for Application Development product that contains all leading desktop and mobile platforms under commercial license, silver support, as well as all value-add tooling and functionality.
>>> 
>>> Yours,
>>> 
>>>                Tuukka
>>> 
>>>> "md at rpzdesign.com <mailto:md at rpzdesign.com>" <md at rpzdesign.com <mailto:md at rpzdesign.com>> kirjoitti 2.7.2015 kello 2.52:
>>>> 
>>>> Could not find the indie mobile program option with 5.5 release.
>>>> 
>>>> "The Qt Company Introduces a Unified Website and 20€/$25 Monthly Indie
>>>> Mobile Package"
>>>> 
>>>> Where is it?
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Interest mailing list
>>>> Interest at qt-project.org <mailto:Interest at qt-project.org>
>>>> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Interest mailing list
>>> Interest at qt-project.org <mailto:Interest at qt-project.org>
>>> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
>> _______________________________________________
>> Interest mailing list
>> Interest at qt-project.org <mailto: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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/interest/attachments/20150706/5ab18401/attachment.html>