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

[Vlad Stelmahovsky]

@ekke thanks for sharing! still not clear what
>
> *With this in mind, we have leveled out the playing field for small teams
> and growing businesses by providing an extended evaluation period of Qt for
> up to 3 named developers.*

really means?

On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 6:42 AM, ekke <ekke at ekkes-corner.org> wrote:

> 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>
> 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> 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> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 28 May 2018 at 16:21, René Hansen <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
>>>> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
>>>>
>>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Interest mailing listInterest at qt-project.orghttp://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Interest mailing list
> Interest at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
>
>


-- 
Best regards,
Vlad
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/interest/attachments/20180529/f980d1e0/attachment.html>