[Interest] Indie Mobil Program terminated?

[Tim O'Neil]

Than don't say that.

On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Jason H <jhihn at gmx.com> wrote:

> I think it is rather obtuse to think that a cross platform toolkit will
> ever beat native. No one comes to Qt for "faster-than-native", which would
> just be silly. Qt is faster than HTML5, phonegap, etc.
> The fact that the backends are all native counts for a lot.
>
>
>  *Sent:* Tuesday, July 07, 2015 at 4:44 PM
> *From:* "Tim O'Neil" <interval1066 at gmail.com>
> *To:* jhihn at gmx.com, interest at qt-project.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Interest] Indie Mobil Program terminated?
>  >>No, Qt performs the best, IMHO.
>
> NO, it does NOT. The only thing Qt has going for it is ability to come
> very close (not quite exactly, but close) to true x-platform compatibility.
> Don't get caught up in some performance thing (did you actually mean
> cross-platform performance?) because YOU WILL LOSE. That's not where you're
> going to hang your hat. And your not sounding all that humble, IMO.
>
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Jason H <jhihn at gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>>  There's some chatter. I don't put much in it.
>> All the key features are there. The feature parity can be rough around
>> the edges.
>> No, Qt performs the best, IMHO. Look and feel is subjective. If you use
>> Qt you problably want to support multiple platforms. And these platforms
>> differ on look & feel (Glaringly, lack of a back button on iOS) There are
>> efforts to use naitive look and feel, but in designing your UI, they will
>> only get so far. I personally like ot be on the side of one app one look
>> for all platforms.
>>
>> Native access is supported on iOS and Android. Their usual caveats apply.
>>
>> Yes, sometimes not at the rate you want. But it's "getting there". It's
>> definately usable. I've published apps in iOS and Android app stores.
>>
>>  *Sent:* Tuesday, July 07, 2015 at 3:53 PM
>> *From:* "John C. Turnbull" <ozemale at ozemail.com.au>
>> *To:* "Jason H" <jhihn at gmx.com>
>> *Cc:* "Ben Lau" <xbenlau at gmail.com>, "interest at qt-project.org" <
>> interest at qt-project.org>
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Interest] Indie Mobil Program terminated?
>>    Thanks.
>>
>> And what's with all this talk that at the moment Qt is not the best
>> library for mobile development? Are there key iOS or Android features not
>> available in Qt? Are there performance issues or look and feel issues? Are
>> there problems with access to native APIs or devices?
>>
>> Are these all being addressed?
>>
>>
>> On 8 Jul 2015, at 05:36, Jason H <jhihn at gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>  1. Consult your laywer.
>> 2. But there is some question if LGPL apps are allowed in the App stores.
>> 3. I'd get the Indie Mobile for $25/25 (I forget) before August 31 and
>> get grandfathered in. This is not advice, but it's what I would do.
>>
>>
>>  *Sent:* Tuesday, July 07, 2015 at 3:11 PM
>> *From:* "John C. Turnbull" <ozemale at ozemail.com.au>
>> *To:* "Ben Lau" <xbenlau at gmail.com>
>> *Cc:* "interest at qt-project.org" <interest at qt-project.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Interest] Indie Mobil Program terminated?
>>  Ok, this is all very confusing for me.  I am just starting out with Qt
>> and am using the LGPL edition.
>>
>> What are my limitations with that? It costs me nothing but do I have to
>> distribute my source code along with the app and am I missing out on
>> features and/or the ability to sell my app on iOS or Android?
>>
>> I simply can't start paying $350 per month when so much is the learning
>> curve at the moment so is it possible to stay on this license until I
>> actually want to sell my app and only miss out on paid support until then?
>> Or is it that there's a whole bunch of features that I can't even use till
>> I fork out that unsustainable amount each month?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -jct
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. Consult your laywer.
>> 2. But there is some question if LGPL apps are allowed in the App stores.
>> 3. I'd get the Indie Mobile for $25/25 (I forget) before August 31 and
>> get grandfathered in. This is not advice, but it's what I would do.
>>
>>
>>  *Sent:* Tuesday, July 07, 2015 at 3:11 PM
>> *From:* "John C. Turnbull" <ozemale at ozemail.com.au>
>> *To:* "Ben Lau" <xbenlau at gmail.com>
>> *Cc:* "interest at qt-project.org" <interest at qt-project.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Interest] Indie Mobil Program terminated?
>>  Ok, this is all very confusing for me.  I am just starting out with Qt
>> and am using the LGPL edition.
>>
>> What are my limitations with that? It costs me nothing but do I have to
>> distribute my source code along with the app and am I missing out on
>> features and/or the ability to sell my app on iOS or Android?
>>
>> I simply can't start paying $350 per month when so much is the learning
>> curve at the moment so is it possible to stay on this license until I
>> actually want to sell my app and only miss out on paid support until then?
>> Or is it that there's a whole bunch of features that I can't even use till
>> I fork out that unsustainable amount each month?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -jct
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7 Jul 2015, at 20:17, Ben Lau <xbenlau at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>  Hi Tuukka,
>>
>> Thanks for listening from us!
>>
>> > we are rather surprised that a product that almost no-one has bought is
>> crucially important to so many.
>>
>> I have already purchased an indie license few month ago. I think I could
>> try to explain why we are very concerned with this issue.
>>
>> I think most of the guy replied in this thread not only an user. But also
>> an evangelist (or just wanna-be) of Qt. We would like to recommend /
>> convince people/company to use Qt. Even we know it is not yet a very good
>> solution for mobile yet. But we wish it will be the best solution, so we
>> are willing to be a pioneer.
>>
>> But if the lowest cost to get Qt run on mobile is USD $350/month, it is
>> really difficult to convince others to get started on a not-yet popular
>> solution.
>>
>> We complain becoz we like Qt. And wish it success.
>>
>>  On 7 July 2015 at 02:23, Turunen Tuukka <tuukka.turunen at theqtcompany.com
>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Mark,
>>>
>>> The reason why Indie Mobile product is to be discontinued is simple:
>>> there has been so few licenses sold that it does not even cover for the
>>> cost of online sales, let alone any cost of packaging, testing,
>>> distributing etc. We do care about indie developers and the community, but
>>> based on the sold Indie Mobile subscriptions it is very clear that there
>>> was no demand to this product.
>>>
>>> As also stated in the blog post of today, we are rather surprised that a
>>> product that almost no-one has bought is crucially important to so many.
>>> For this reason, we decided to have extension until end of August rather
>>> that promise that the product is available indefinitely. It will be
>>> interesting to see how many decide to purchase it now that it is again
>>> available.
>>>
>>> We are continuously thinking of ways to improve our offering and
>>> naturally hope to find products that provide new business. We are also very
>>> happy that we have an active community and customer base. And we are
>>> extremely proud that Qt is a great product, used by a huge number of
>>> developers worldwide.
>>>
>>> Yours,
>>>
>>>                 Tuukka
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________________
>>> Lähettäjä: md at rpzdesign.com <md at rpzdesign.com>
>>> Lähetetty: 6. heinäkuuta 2015 16:39
>>> Vastaanottaja: interest at qt-project.org
>>> Kopio: Knoll Lars; Turunen Tuukka
>>> Aihe: Re: [Interest] Indie Mobil Program terminated?
>>>
>>> Dear Lars & Turunen:
>>>
>>> Qt has been reading their email, but still appear tone deaf:
>>>
>>>  >
>>> http://blog.qt.io/blog/2015/07/06/indie-mobile-available-until-aug-31st/
>>>
>>> There are statements in that blog which strain QT credibility.
>>>
>>> Transparency is only ONE of several significant problems.
>>>
>>> Your feedback loops are apparently broken.
>>>
>>> Community Crisis Response and Pricing Policy VIA BLOG is a
>>> communications disaster.
>>>
>>> You have manufactured haters which will not evangelize QT, further
>>> weakening QT now and in the future.
>>>
>>> Failing to have Qt staff directly and completely address many valid
>>> questions/issues raised in the interest list and blog replies has
>>> consequences, whether obvious or not.
>>>
>>> Stop saying Open Source successfully replaces Indie, until you can
>>> provide an articulate and concise page why instead of sending
>>> all potential Indies to their lawyers to figure it out.  They will not.
>>>
>>> The web site is a confusing MESS. You are LOSING sales because nobody
>>> can clearly see price VS benefits.
>>>
>>> Like Nunos Santos says: QT Rocks.
>>>
>>> Just not enough people have the time (and now the money) to bet on QT to
>>> figure it out.
>>>
>>> They need to see other users succeeding, not users bitching.
>>>
>>> This has been a terrible week for QT.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20150707/ee17408b/attachment.html>