Carl Thompson wrote:
> John Allen wrote:
>
> > ...
>
> > I investigated the Qt license previously for a commercial product, and
> > believe me their pricing is anything but horrendous, especially
> > considering that their aren't any runtime royalties.
>
> What pipe are you smoking? You don't think that paying > $1,000 per
> developer is excessive?
>
No, not for a commercial development company. Having run a commercial
development company, a $1000 per developer pales in comparison to the
other costs, such as hardware, salary, office space etc....
Not that I'm saying I'd not prefer to pay nothing, but Troll Tech have a small
market, and they have to make a living. They'd be better off getting out of TT
and going contracting, probably triple their salaries, believe me they are
making their livings the hard way.
>
> By comparison, if I want to use Microsoft's Windows GUI API, it only costs
> me $0. If I want to use their MFC, it costs me $99 for a copy of VC++. I
> get 10 times more with MFC but it costs 10 times less. I don't have to pay
> royalties. And this is from Microsoft.
>
Yes from Microsoft, with literally hundreds of thousands of developers
worldwide, can afford to cut prices.
PS: Where do you get VC++ for $99
>
> Qt does cost a little less than Visix's Galaxy did, but then Visix is out of
> business now, aren't they?
>
> > ...
>
> > All what money. If I develop a commercial application that say for the
> > sake of argument nets me $20,000 per year, I pay TT a once off payment of
> > what $1500. I need never pay them another penny.
>
> Unless, of course you want to use the latest version of Qt next year and
> beyond. In that case, you'll pay ~$300 per developer per year forever.
>
>
Ok so if you want the latest and greatest Qt, you have to pay for upgrades,
VC++ upgrades ain't free either.
> Also, what if I want to sell a $5 program from which I might make only $500?
>
> > ...
>
> If you are going to make an argument, at least make an accurate and
> realistic one.
>
Perhaps you should apply that to your arguments also, any so called
commercial developer who is selling their software for $5 a copy,
isn't a commercial developer.
>
> Carl Thompson
BTW, my argument still stands, its the distro makers who are making
virtually all the money out of Linux.
--
John Allen email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MAO Technologies LLC. www: http://www.maotech.ie
Creators of LinuxMT phone: intl+353-862315986
