[Interest] Indie Mobil Program terminated?

John C. Turnbull ozemale at ozemail.com.au
Wed Jul 8 01:52:27 CEST 2015 

I think all the issues discussed so far are closely related so I for one
don't feel that bringing in features, performance or competition as being
off-topic.

It's all about what it's going to cost people to use Qt and what can be done
with it under different licenses and circumstances so I see comparisons with
other products being helpful in gauging whether the suggested pricing
structures are either appropriate or viable.

-----Original Message-----
From: interest-bounces+ozemale=ozemail.com.au at qt-project.org
[mailto:interest-bounces+ozemale=ozemail.com.au at qt-project.org] On Behalf Of
md at rpzdesign.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 8:41 AM
To: interest at qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Interest] Indie Mobil Program terminated?

If you guys want to start a different thread, then do so.

This thread is about Indie licensing and the apparent deficiency of Qt
salesmanship and market optics?

md

On 7/7/2015 4:24 PM, Tim O'Neil wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Interest mailing list
> Interest at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
>

--
No spell checkers were harmed during the creation of this message.
_______________________________________________
Interest mailing list
Interest at qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest

More information about the Interest mailing list