I think all the issues discussed so far are closely related so I for one don't feel that bringing in features, performance or competition as being off-topic.
It's all about what it's going to cost people to use Qt and what can be done with it under different licenses and circumstances so I see comparisons with other products being helpful in gauging whether the suggested pricing structures are either appropriate or viable. -----Original Message----- From: interest-bounces+ozemale=ozemail.com...@qt-project.org [mailto:interest-bounces+ozemale=ozemail.com...@qt-project.org] On Behalf Of m...@rpzdesign.com Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 8:41 AM To: interest@qt-project.org Subject: Re: [Interest] Indie Mobil Program terminated? If you guys want to start a different thread, then do so. This thread is about Indie licensing and the apparent deficiency of Qt salesmanship and market optics? md On 7/7/2015 4:24 PM, Tim O'Neil wrote: > Than don't say that. > > On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Jason H <jh...@gmx.com> wrote: > >> I think it is rather obtuse to think that a cross platform toolkit >> will ever beat native. No one comes to Qt for "faster-than-native", >> which would just be silly. Qt is faster than HTML5, phonegap, etc. >> The fact that the backends are all native counts for a lot. >> >> >> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 07, 2015 at 4:44 PM >> *From:* "Tim O'Neil" <interval1...@gmail.com> >> *To:* jh...@gmx.com, interest@qt-project.org >> >> *Subject:* Re: [Interest] Indie Mobil Program terminated? >> >>No, Qt performs the best, IMHO. >> >> NO, it does NOT. The only thing Qt has going for it is ability to >> come very close (not quite exactly, but close) to true x-platform compatibility. >> Don't get caught up in some performance thing (did you actually mean >> cross-platform performance?) because YOU WILL LOSE. That's not where >> you're going to hang your hat. And your not sounding all that humble, IMO. >> >> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Jason H <jh...@gmx.com> wrote: >>> >>> There's some chatter. I don't put much in it. >>> All the key features are there. The feature parity can be rough >>> around the edges. >>> No, Qt performs the best, IMHO. Look and feel is subjective. If you >>> use Qt you problably want to support multiple platforms. And these >>> platforms differ on look & feel (Glaringly, lack of a back button on >>> iOS) There are efforts to use naitive look and feel, but in >>> designing your UI, they will only get so far. I personally like ot >>> be on the side of one app one look for all platforms. >>> >>> Native access is supported on iOS and Android. Their usual caveats apply. >>> >>> Yes, sometimes not at the rate you want. But it's "getting there". >>> It's definately usable. I've published apps in iOS and Android app stores. >>> >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 07, 2015 at 3:53 PM >>> *From:* "John C. Turnbull" <ozem...@ozemail.com.au> >>> *To:* "Jason H" <jh...@gmx.com> >>> *Cc:* "Ben Lau" <xben...@gmail.com>, "interest@qt-project.org" < >>> interest@qt-project.org> >>> >>> *Subject:* Re: [Interest] Indie Mobil Program terminated? >>> Thanks. >>> >>> And what's with all this talk that at the moment Qt is not the best >>> library for mobile development? Are there key iOS or Android >>> features not available in Qt? Are there performance issues or look >>> and feel issues? Are there problems with access to native APIs or devices? >>> >>> Are these all being addressed? >>> >>> >>> On 8 Jul 2015, at 05:36, Jason H <jh...@gmx.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> 1. Consult your laywer. >>> 2. But there is some question if LGPL apps are allowed in the App stores. >>> 3. I'd get the Indie Mobile for $25/25 (I forget) before August 31 >>> and get grandfathered in. This is not advice, but it's what I would do. >>> >>> >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 07, 2015 at 3:11 PM >>> *From:* "John C. Turnbull" <ozem...@ozemail.com.au> >>> *To:* "Ben Lau" <xben...@gmail.com> >>> *Cc:* "interest@qt-project.org" <interest@qt-project.org> >>> *Subject:* Re: [Interest] Indie Mobil Program terminated? >>> Ok, this is all very confusing for me. I am just starting out >>> with Qt and am using the LGPL edition. >>> >>> What are my limitations with that? It costs me nothing but do I have >>> to distribute my source code along with the app and am I missing out >>> on features and/or the ability to sell my app on iOS or Android? >>> >>> I simply can't start paying $350 per month when so much is the >>> learning curve at the moment so is it possible to stay on this >>> license until I actually want to sell my app and only miss out on paid support until then? >>> Or is it that there's a whole bunch of features that I can't even >>> use till I fork out that unsustainable amount each month? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> -jct >>> >>> >>> >>> 1. Consult your laywer. >>> 2. But there is some question if LGPL apps are allowed in the App stores. >>> 3. I'd get the Indie Mobile for $25/25 (I forget) before August 31 >>> and get grandfathered in. This is not advice, but it's what I would do. >>> >>> >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 07, 2015 at 3:11 PM >>> *From:* "John C. Turnbull" <ozem...@ozemail.com.au> >>> *To:* "Ben Lau" <xben...@gmail.com> >>> *Cc:* "interest@qt-project.org" <interest@qt-project.org> >>> *Subject:* Re: [Interest] Indie Mobil Program terminated? >>> Ok, this is all very confusing for me. I am just starting out >>> with Qt and am using the LGPL edition. >>> >>> What are my limitations with that? It costs me nothing but do I have >>> to distribute my source code along with the app and am I missing out >>> on features and/or the ability to sell my app on iOS or Android? >>> >>> I simply can't start paying $350 per month when so much is the >>> learning curve at the moment so is it possible to stay on this >>> license until I actually want to sell my app and only miss out on paid support until then? >>> Or is it that there's a whole bunch of features that I can't even >>> use till I fork out that unsustainable amount each month? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> -jct >>> >>> >>> >>> On 7 Jul 2015, at 20:17, Ben Lau <xben...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hi Tuukka, >>> >>> Thanks for listening from us! >>> >>>> we are rather surprised that a product that almost no-one has >>>> bought is >>> crucially important to so many. >>> >>> I have already purchased an indie license few month ago. I think I >>> could try to explain why we are very concerned with this issue. >>> >>> I think most of the guy replied in this thread not only an user. But >>> also an evangelist (or just wanna-be) of Qt. We would like to >>> recommend / convince people/company to use Qt. Even we know it is >>> not yet a very good solution for mobile yet. But we wish it will be >>> the best solution, so we are willing to be a pioneer. >>> >>> But if the lowest cost to get Qt run on mobile is USD $350/month, it >>> is really difficult to convince others to get started on a not-yet >>> popular solution. >>> >>> We complain becoz we like Qt. And wish it success. >>> >>> On 7 July 2015 at 02:23, Turunen Tuukka >>> <tuukka.turu...@theqtcompany.com >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Mark, >>>> >>>> The reason why Indie Mobile product is to be discontinued is simple: >>>> there has been so few licenses sold that it does not even cover for >>>> the cost of online sales, let alone any cost of packaging, testing, >>>> distributing etc. We do care about indie developers and the >>>> community, but based on the sold Indie Mobile subscriptions it is >>>> very clear that there was no demand to this product. >>>> >>>> As also stated in the blog post of today, we are rather surprised >>>> that a product that almost no-one has bought is crucially important to so many. >>>> For this reason, we decided to have extension until end of August >>>> rather that promise that the product is available indefinitely. It >>>> will be interesting to see how many decide to purchase it now that >>>> it is again available. >>>> >>>> We are continuously thinking of ways to improve our offering and >>>> naturally hope to find products that provide new business. We are >>>> also very happy that we have an active community and customer base. >>>> And we are extremely proud that Qt is a great product, used by a >>>> huge number of developers worldwide. >>>> >>>> Yours, >>>> >>>> Tuukka >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> Lähettäjä: m...@rpzdesign.com <m...@rpzdesign.com> >>>> Lähetetty: 6. heinäkuuta 2015 16:39 >>>> Vastaanottaja: interest@qt-project.org >>>> Kopio: Knoll Lars; Turunen Tuukka >>>> Aihe: Re: [Interest] Indie Mobil Program terminated? >>>> >>>> Dear Lars & Turunen: >>>> >>>> Qt has been reading their email, but still appear tone deaf: >>>> >>>> > >>>> http://blog.qt.io/blog/2015/07/06/indie-mobile-available-until-aug- >>>> 31st/ >>>> >>>> There are statements in that blog which strain QT credibility. >>>> >>>> Transparency is only ONE of several significant problems. >>>> >>>> Your feedback loops are apparently broken. >>>> >>>> Community Crisis Response and Pricing Policy VIA BLOG is a >>>> communications disaster. >>>> >>>> You have manufactured haters which will not evangelize QT, further >>>> weakening QT now and in the future. >>>> >>>> Failing to have Qt staff directly and completely address many valid >>>> questions/issues raised in the interest list and blog replies has >>>> consequences, whether obvious or not. >>>> >>>> Stop saying Open Source successfully replaces Indie, until you can >>>> provide an articulate and concise page why instead of sending all >>>> potential Indies to their lawyers to figure it out. They will not. >>>> >>>> The web site is a confusing MESS. You are LOSING sales because >>>> nobody can clearly see price VS benefits. >>>> >>>> Like Nunos Santos says: QT Rocks. >>>> >>>> Just not enough people have the time (and now the money) to bet on >>>> QT to figure it out. >>>> >>>> They need to see other users succeeding, not users bitching. >>>> >>>> This has been a terrible week for QT. >>>> >>>> Mark >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Interest mailing list >>>> Interest@qt-project.org >>>> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Interest mailing list >>> Interest@qt-project.org >>> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest >>> >>> _______________________________________________ Interest mailing >>> list Interest@qt-project.org >>> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Interest mailing list >>> Interest@qt-project.org >>> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest >>> >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Interest mailing list > Interest@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@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
