[Interest] Indie Mobil Program terminated?

[Nicola De Filippo]

Hi,

> 
> 
> Mobile never was a core area for Qt in the post-Nokia period, and while 
> there are good intentions, I'm sure there is a line after which the 
> return on investment is really low from a commercial license business 
> perspective. Simply put, the core philosophies of Qt are not exactly 
> mobile-friendly, and every effort there is an uphill battle (for which 
> they are apparently not getting paid enough).
> 

if it’s the status quo, maybe is better that the Qt company leave the mobile market and work only for embedded or desktop market.
So we old qt developer can see for other tools and the Qt company spend all the energy for other market. I think that here all want the better for Qt, i hope.

     Nicola

> 
> On 7/10/2015 10:03 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Interest mailing list
> Interest at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest