+1 > Il giorno 04/lug/2015, alle ore 20:36, Kate Alhola <kate.alh...@gmail.com> ha > scritto: > > >> 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
_______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
