> On 04 Jul 2015, at 20:14, Bob Hood <bho...@comcast.net> wrote: > >> On 7/4/2015 10:53 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote: >>> On Saturday 04 July 2015 18:33:50 Harri Pasanen wrote: >>>> On 04/07/2015 14:51, Kate Alhola wrote: >>>> allow sales in appstore for this 10000€/month with OSS version before >>>> professional licence is needed. >>> I think this would be a good strategy. >> Provided it doesn't cost more to run the programme (including cost of >> opportunity) than it brings in revenue. > > IMO, that seems like a sure formula for failure to me. If you want success, > you have to look beyond today. It may cost you initially, as long as you can > forecast an ROI that exceeds today's investment. It's true that some > start-up > businesses can function with no capital investment, but they are fairly rare. > > Most successful businesses have to have that injection of funds (a.k.a., > resources) to get going, with the calculated risk that it will be returned > manyfold as time passes.
Be realistic. It is true that having resources improves your possibility to success but in reality, there is about nill possibility to get investment money if only thing you have is idea and pitch speak. Competition about startup investemt is so hard that you must have a strong proof that you can do it and that your idea will succeed. To get this investment, founders may need to work without money and without salary long period and make proof that their product is worth of investment. I have been there and have seen many startups. I rather say that it is magnitudes better possibility to success making first product than first begging money without anything to show. I have seen so many successfull apps that started small but i have not seen anyone getting investment without having proof. > > I understand that resources may not be available within the Qt Company to > support this programme. However, if the general attitude toward it is that > it > has to pay for itself on day one, or that it should build momentum entirely > on > its own, then I think it would be best just to end it. There would always be > that potential hanging over it that somebody at the Qt Company would one day > just decide it has exceeded some cost threshold, and summarily cancel it. > This in itself will provide a self-fulfilling prophecy, and people would not > sign up for fear of it being pulled out from under them. I understand that Qt company is not interested to run programme that is not profittable But i proposed alternative that does not cost anything but may bring a lot of profits later. Once again, let's be realistic. It is hard to sell mobile Qt to companies that already have a lot of native Android and IOS software assets. Easiest it is to sell small startups where is no existing native code and where write once, run all platforms means saving costs and time. Or other words, when you get first invetment money in, you will already have several workyears of software assets, if they are native you are unlikely to switch Qt. We started in company where i work now, we selected Qt because we wanted to use same code in Android and IOS. In that time, time of Qt4.8 and Necessitas , Qt was still very immatue and it was a risk game. When we got investor money we purchased professional licences. 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
