[Interest] QtQuick for mobile - any experience to share?

[ekke]

for iOS I found this:
https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/6463/in-2018-if-i-use-c-qt-5-10-0-to-build-a-closed-source-application-requires-ope/6495#6495

but sounds complicated for me as a mobile business app developer

really sorry that there is no Indie mobile dev license from Qt

I asked and got answer that they have tried this some years ago with no
success
Some years ago I moved from BlackBerryOS7 (JavaME) to BlackBerry10
(Cascades/Qt 4.8)
This was first time I had to develop in C++ / Qt. BB10 Cascades was
great UX and performance.
So I also tried Qt itself, but performance of QQC1 was poor and I stopped.
Later BB10 died and I tried again to develop mobile apps with Qt. At
that time just first preview of QQC2 came out and I was impressed by UX
and performance.
So I started  to develop mobille Apps using QQC2 and in the meantime my
apps have native speed.

Also had some sessions at dev conferences where I talked about Qt for
Mobile.
Always same feedback from devs: looks great, but the costs ...

so now with QQC2 Qt is a great solution for mobile, but many devs cannot
use it because of license - very sorry about that

I'm using the startup license - but even the startup license info is
hidden at Qt's web sites. If you don't know about and search explicitely
for 'Qt start-up' you won't found https://www1.qt.io/start-up-plan/

Qt really has the potential to become a great player for mobile apps if
license model would be changed.


ekke

Am 29.05.18 um 00:39 schrieb René Hansen:
> I can't speak for IOS, but at least on Android, all Qt libraries are
> packed inside the application apk as .so files, so no static linking
> there.
>
> It seems the "go-to" reply on the list and from Qt in general is,
> "just buy the license". Somewhat shortsighted, but understandable as
> it is, Qt is a business, out to make a profit. However, and as I'm
> surely not alone in thinking, I really don't get this approach towards
> small-timers. The license cost just isn't feasible for a lone couch
> coder with a pet project, who just want to put a $1 proprietary app on
> the store. Most those kinds of apps never make much sales anyway and
> Qt is quickly excluded from the list of candidate frameworks, due to
> this perceived upfront cost.
>
> The side effect of supporting indie devs and tinkerers are a lot more
> profound though. That is where the ecosystem grows. Bigger ecosystem =
> more growth opportunity for the "business" down the line.
>
> It's a shame that many devs are left with the same impression as
> yourself, and easily jump ship to React Native or similar. Qt could
> easily be the defacto standard for mobile app development. It's just
> not the narrative being supported by the Qt corp. Hence, you won't
> find any official guide or writeup on how to publish a closed source
> LGPL paid app on the app store.
>
> As far as I can tell though, there's really no reason why you can't
> publish a paid app, which is still compliant.
>
> You need to let people relink against other versions of Qt, but that
> simply entails making object files available on request. If ever one
> is made...
>
>
> /René
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 28 May 2018 at 20:08 Sylvain Pointeau
> <sylvain.pointeau at gmail.com <mailto:sylvain.pointeau at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     My mistake, I understood the question was about to make my app GPL
>     compliant.
>     I would agree with you for the desktop version but I don't think
>     that it is feasible for a mobile app (is it not statically linked
>     BTW?)
>     and I also understood the app store was not GPL friendly, but
>     maybe my knowledge is outdated.
>
>     Best regards,
>     Sylvain
>
>     Le lun. 28 mai 2018 à 19:37, Jean-Michaël Celerier
>     <jeanmichael.celerier at gmail.com
>     <mailto:jeanmichael.celerier at gmail.com>> a écrit :
>
>         > I thought about it but that does not work for all projects,
>         and I don’t see the business model in that case for my app.
>
>         in which case would using Qt under the LGPL affect your
>         business model ? You don't have to publish your sources, only
>         under the GPL.
>
>
>
>
>         -------
>         Jean-Michaël Celerier
>         http://www.jcelerier.name
>
>         On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 4:32 PM, Sylvain Pointeau
>         <sylvain.pointeau at gmail.com
>         <mailto:sylvain.pointeau at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>             On Mon, 28 May 2018 at 16:21, René Hansen
>             <renehh at gmail.com <mailto:renehh at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>                 Or...
>
>                 Just make your app LGPL compliant and use Qt anyway.
>
>
>             I thought about it but that does not work for all
>             projects, and I don’t see the business model in that case
>             for my app.
>
>             _______________________________________________
>             Interest mailing list
>             Interest at qt-project.org <mailto: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/20180529/a612dd12/attachment.html>