On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 2:28 PM, maitai <mai...@virtual-winds.org> wrote: > Hello all, > > We are on the same situation as many here as I see. We are about to submit > our first app to apple store, in a couple of weeks or so... What are we > supposed to do now?
+1 here > > I sincerely hope that the indie license will be restored. At least give us a > last month so we get a chance to subscribe before it's cut. We are working > ont this project for free on our spare time for the time being, and there's > no way we can invest 350$ per month until we know if we are successful or > not... > > Philippe Lelong. > > > > > > > > Le 03-07-2015 17:22, Jason H a écrit : > > We have a commerical license for Charts on the server side of things. I'll > probably switch this out to use Chart.js. > > We use professional support quite often. This is normally a result of an > issue with Qt and in most cases a parity issue between mobile platforms. I > think we should be done using support with 5.5 as our required features are > finally working on Andriod and iOS. > > I don't use any commercial features on our mobile platforms, aside from > being able to be on the right side of things in the App stores. The > QtQuickCompiler, which I attempted to use was crashing on Android 5.0 with > Qt5.4, and I never saw much advantage to it, so I disabled it. > > Again, I'd like to reiterate I think it is premature to kill the Indie > mobile license when the mobile platforms have __FINALLY__ reached parity. > And have just added real valuable mobile features like: > -- BT4.0 > -- Location services > > > > Sent: Friday, July 03, 2015 at 11:01 AM > From: Preet <prismatic.proj...@gmail.com> > To: "interest@qt-project.org" <interest@qt-project.org> > Subject: Re: [Interest] Indie Mobil Program terminated? >> >> Why Apple and Google give their dev tools free ? They don't make money >> from long tail either but they >> know that getting successful apps you need to have this long tail also. > > > To be fair this is because they don't make money from the tools, they get > money by taking a cut of your sales (so called 'democratization'). These > probably aren't valid avenues for Qt. I think its difficult to come up with > a business model to sell software that's good enough to sustain your > company, especially when your code base is mostly open source under a libre > license. > As a side note, I'm kind of curious as to how many people buy a commerical > license of Qt just to deploy it on platforms where LGPL isn't allowed vs > people that are just after commercial-only features and support. > _______________________________________________ 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
