Hi,
I think this is a self goal.
Nicola
> Il giorno 03/lug/2015, alle ore 14:56, Kate Alhola <kate.alh...@gmail.com> ha
> scritto:
>
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Turunen Tuukka
> <tuukka.turu...@theqtcompany.com> wrote:
>>
>> All the current Indie Mobile customers can continue with it under the same
>> terms, we are not offering new any more.
>>
>> This is due to having overall too little interest (i.e. paying customers)
>> for that product.
>>
>> Yours,
>>
>> Tuukka
>
> Even if there is little amount of paying customers, removing Indie
> Mobile possibility makes impossible
> individual developer to make Qt commercial application to appstore.
> Even some ones make a fortune,
> most apps are in long tail where revenue is much, mush less than Qt
> Commercial license cost. I don't
> have exact figures but it may be that 80% apps never make enough money
> to even pay Qt Commercial license.
>
> You can say that Qt Company is not interested because they does not
> make profit with these long tail developers
> but issue is that a lot of winning apps start from small. Always some
> of these long tail apps success. If you cut
> the long tail away, you also cut away all these apps that crow to
> success from long tail.
>
> 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.
>
> I understand that supporting Indie mobile developers was not
> profitable but If there is not any solution
> that allows statically linked Qt apps to appstore then this is killing
> the long tail and harming success of all Qt.
>
> Kate
> _______________________________________________
> 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
