[Interest] Indie Mobil Program terminated?

Sat Jul 18 17:17:55 CEST 2015

The thing is, for me at least who is just at the stage of starting with Qt, I am only looking to the future, not the past. So whether my app runs on anything earlier than Win7 for example is irrelevant.

But I feel that very soon, *all* OSs will only allow you to purchase modern apps that utilise all the current features through some kind of App Store. There are several reasons why an OS vendor would do this but of course money is always the greatest motivator.

Therefore, using the Indie License as is (I.e. Only for mobiles) would not allow me to develop desktop apps at all, or at least not to sell them.

While mobile platforms are without doubt the most important platforms for most new app development, I don't want to close the door on desktop apps altogether given, as I said, that there will be always be a large market for certain  types of apps for which the desktop is the only sensible platform.

So, if I am really only interested in or limited to mobile apps and those mobile apps produced by Qt are not on a par with native offerings, why would I use Qt at all?

-jct

> On 19 Jul 2015, at 00:01, "md at rpzdesign.com" <md at rpzdesign.com> wrote:
> 
> John:
> 
> I was sharing with the list a different way
> to look at things, sharing our observations in contrast with yours.
> 
> We draw all the screen shots for all platforms: Desktop (Win/OSX) -> Tablet (7 inch diagonal+) -> Smartphone (less than 7 inch diagonal) on the first day before ANY code is written.
> 
> Only under obvious situations would we drop the smartphone from included platforms.
> 
> Most of the alpha testing occurs on OSX internally.  All of the beta testing occurs on tablets and smartphones with real users.
> 
> Any/All automated testing on Desktop immediately applies to mobile.
> 
> So the HUGE unstated strength is that the same code is constantly being tested on all platforms all the time.
> 
> We are in agreement that the Indie licensing financial flexibility could be improved.
> 
> But there is safe haven in the current Indie license and that is where I have chosen to hide.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> md
> 
>> On 7/17/2015 10:55 PM, John C. Turnbull wrote:
>> Dear md,
>> 
>> That's all well and good re using native compilers but (from what I hear),
>> Qt apps on iOS and Android are buggy, lacking features, big, slow and often
>> "appear" foreign to that OS.
>> 
>> I will admit that this is just what I have read but I have read it many
>> times.
>> 
>> Further, I dispute your assertion that you can get most of the development
>> work for a desktop app done on a mobile platform. These platforms have
>> several fundamentally different characteristics and I would assume it is
>> more common for developers to start with a desktop version of their app and
>> then "mobilise" it.  Whether that is the best approach, I am not entirely
>> sure.
>> 
>> And your comment that most people believe iOS/Android are the most important
>> platforms is a little silly when you consider the extremely broad range of
>> applications in the real world and indeed the range that can be developed
>> using Qt.
>> 
>> I am fairly sure that someone developing a large application like a graphics
>> or video editor, a spreadsheet styled application, most in-house financial
>> and business apps or even development tools themselves would look at mobile
>> *last* (if at all).
>> 
>> -jct
>> 
>> -----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: Saturday, July 18, 2015 2:35 PM
>> To: interest at qt-project.org
>> Subject: Re: [Interest] Indie Mobil Program terminated?
>> 
>> Dear Mr Turnbull:
>> 
>> I would like to add some color to your assertion that "mobile" support is
>> "embryonic" at best.
>> 
>> The compilers used by Qt are the NATIVE compilers for
>> IOS/OSX/Android/Windows/Tizen/Linux/NaCL/embedded/etc/etc/etc
>> 
>> There can be nothing more ROCK solid than using the manufacturers command
>> line tools to create solid binaries for their own hardware.
>> 
>> Companies like embarcadero (maybe xamarin) have created their own compilers
>> and will forever be behind the curve.
>> 
>> As for desktop, when the customers ask for Desktop in Win/OSX stores, I will
>> just charge them $350/month for the months that it takes to debug them
>> (already debugged on IOS/ANDROID) and put them on the store.
>> 
>> So Indie still allows you to get the most important work done and the add
>> commercial desktop if needed.  Very few customers think OSX/Windows is nice
>> to have, but IOS/Android is of utmost priority.
>> 
>> Woe unto those that discover Qt too late to buy into Indie.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> md
>> 
>>> On 7/17/2015 9:04 PM, John C. Turnbull wrote:
>>> The problem even with this extension for the Indie Program is that it
>>> *only* allows you to use Qt to develop *mobile* apps.  The appeal of
>>> Qt is its cross-platform ability but if you are using it *just* for
>>> mobiles then you will get a better result with a framework designed
>>> specifically for mobiles or the actual native tools for each mobile
>>> OS, especially when many consider Qt's current mobile support to be
>> embryonic at best...
>>> 
>>> -----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 Bob Hood
>>> Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2015 9:05 AM
>>> To: Nicola De Filippo
>>> Cc: interest at qt-project.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Interest] Indie Mobil Program terminated?
>>> 
>>>> On 7/17/2015 4:56 PM, Nicola De Filippo wrote:
>>>> yes, but i think if he wants update the app in the future he need
>>>> other month/license. N.
>>> 
>>> I could be wrong, but that is not the impression I got.  I understood
>>> that purchasing before the end of August means you have the license
>>> until you stop paying for it, through future Qt releases.  Somebody
>>> feel free to correct me here if I'm misinterpreting.
>>> 
>>> Still, trying to sell a program to somebody that has a known
>>> cancellation date will probably not be an easy thing to do.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
> 
> -- 
> No spell checkers were harmed during the creation of this message.