[Interest] Indie Mobil Program terminated?

[md at rpzdesign.com]

John:

You are not alone.

Give the folks at Qt some time to enjoy their vacation and when they 
return, I am sure that they will be able to continue the discussion
in a competent manner.

As a hedge, I would get the Indie license before Aug 31st.

That way you are safe.

Obviously, this issue touches a tender spot that is not going to just
disappear after August 31.

md

On 7/10/2015 3:03 PM, John C. Turnbull wrote:
> Well you can continue to discredit all my ideas but the point is that if Qt
> drops the Indie license and makes single developers, small or moderate sized
> businesses pay $350 per month to use Qt, you can pretty much say goodbye to
> the majority of Qt developers and cry tears of blood as they flock to
> competing products.
>
> Somehow, all Qt developers need to get access to the particular features and
> platforms they need (which may be one or two or every feature, device and
> platform) at a price that they can sustainably afford or they simply won't
> use it.
>
> -----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
> Thiago Macieira
> Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2015 6:43 AM
> To: interest at qt-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Interest] Indie Mobil Program terminated?
>
> On Saturday 11 July 2015 05:58:19 John C. Turnbull wrote:
>> That's why you don't charge anywhere near $350/month/developer.
>> That's the whole problem I am trying to solve.  Most indie, small and
>> moderate businesses simply can't afford that.
>
> But you're not only not solving it, you're making the problem worse by
> including the commercial licence that big companies would use in the mix.
> The price of $350/month/developer is not accidental. There's a huge cost in
> supporting the Qt development and support engineers working for an entire
> year in high cost countries like Germany and Norway.
>
>> But if you charge them something much, much less for a commercial
>> license and then Qt recoups its costs from a small slice of royalties,
>> everyone is happy!
>
> Trust me, it's been tried. Big companies like royalties even less than large
> price tags. An upfront cost is something you can budget for. A cost that you
> won't know until you actually ship devices because it depends on a number
> you don't know (the shipment volume) is hard to model.
>
>> The in-house license would be more expensive per month but would
>> mostly be used by larger corporations.
>
> Except the larger ones that actually sell software or devices.
>
> --
> Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
>    Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.