On Thursday 02 July 2015 10:37:17 Bob Hood wrote: > On 7/2/2015 10:13 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > On Thursday 02 July 2015 09:07:49 Bob Hood wrote: > >> Could somebody > >> > >> explain the rationale for that one? > > > > Tuukka has, twice. > > I see. So, "lack of licenses" is the sum total of the basis for the > decision. Look, I'm no marketer, but withdrawing from that price point > without asking "/Why/ are there not more subscriptions?" indicates (to me) a > lack of support and conviction for it. > > I understand, though, that investing additional resources trying to > understand its failure may not have been cost effective for the Qt Company.
And remember that running a programme has a non-zero cost, so it's entirely possible that the total revenue obtained with this programme is less than the cost of running it. In other words, it may have been a money-losing proposition. Even if that were not the case, there's cost of opportunity. Could the resources (people) allocated to the indie programme bring more revenue to the company if they focused on higher-paying licences? On the other hand, you're right that this licence was a source for the multiplier effect. Without a low-enough barrier, people won't choose Qt for certain segments. I don't have an answer for those questions. Disclaimer: I don't work for The Qt Company; I just have a lot of good friends there. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
