Thanks. And what's with all this talk that at the moment Qt is not the best library for mobile development? Are there key iOS or Android features not available in Qt? Are there performance issues or look and feel issues? Are there problems with access to native APIs or devices?
Are these all being addressed? > On 8 Jul 2015, at 05:36, Jason H <jh...@gmx.com> wrote: > > 1. Consult your laywer. > 2. But there is some question if LGPL apps are allowed in the App stores. > 3. I'd get the Indie Mobile for $25/25 (I forget) before August 31 and get > grandfathered in. This is not advice, but it's what I would do. > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 at 3:11 PM > From: "John C. Turnbull" <ozem...@ozemail.com.au> > To: "Ben Lau" <xben...@gmail.com> > Cc: "interest@qt-project.org" <interest@qt-project.org> > Subject: Re: [Interest] Indie Mobil Program terminated? > Ok, this is all very confusing for me. I am just starting out with Qt and am > using the LGPL edition. > > What are my limitations with that? It costs me nothing but do I have to > distribute my source code along with the app and am I missing out on features > and/or the ability to sell my app on iOS or Android? > > I simply can't start paying $350 per month when so much is the learning curve > at the moment so is it possible to stay on this license until I actually want > to sell my app and only miss out on paid support until then? Or is it that > there's a whole bunch of features that I can't even use till I fork out that > unsustainable amount each month? > > Thanks, > > -jct > > > > 1. Consult your laywer. > 2. But there is some question if LGPL apps are allowed in the App stores. > 3. I'd get the Indie Mobile for $25/25 (I forget) before August 31 and get > grandfathered in. This is not advice, but it's what I would do. > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 at 3:11 PM > From: "John C. Turnbull" <ozem...@ozemail.com.au> > To: "Ben Lau" <xben...@gmail.com> > Cc: "interest@qt-project.org" <interest@qt-project.org> > Subject: Re: [Interest] Indie Mobil Program terminated? > Ok, this is all very confusing for me. I am just starting out with Qt and am > using the LGPL edition. > > What are my limitations with that? It costs me nothing but do I have to > distribute my source code along with the app and am I missing out on features > and/or the ability to sell my app on iOS or Android? > > I simply can't start paying $350 per month when so much is the learning curve > at the moment so is it possible to stay on this license until I actually want > to sell my app and only miss out on paid support until then? Or is it that > there's a whole bunch of features that I can't even use till I fork out that > unsustainable amount each month? > > Thanks, > > -jct > > > > On 7 Jul 2015, at 20:17, Ben Lau <xben...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Tuukka, > > Thanks for listening from us! > > > we are rather surprised that a product that almost no-one has bought is > > crucially important to so many. > > I have already purchased an indie license few month ago. I think I could try > to explain why we are very concerned with this issue. > > I think most of the guy replied in this thread not only an user. But also an > evangelist (or just wanna-be) of Qt. We would like to recommend / convince > people/company to use Qt. Even we know it is not yet a very good solution for > mobile yet. But we wish it will be the best solution, so we are willing to be > a pioneer. > > But if the lowest cost to get Qt run on mobile is USD $350/month, it is > really difficult to convince others to get started on a not-yet popular > solution. > > We complain becoz we like Qt. And wish it success. > >> On 7 July 2015 at 02:23, Turunen Tuukka <tuukka.turu...@theqtcompany.com> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Mark, >> >> The reason why Indie Mobile product is to be discontinued is simple: there >> has been so few licenses sold that it does not even cover for the cost of >> online sales, let alone any cost of packaging, testing, distributing etc. We >> do care about indie developers and the community, but based on the sold >> Indie Mobile subscriptions it is very clear that there was no demand to this >> product. >> >> As also stated in the blog post of today, we are rather surprised that a >> product that almost no-one has bought is crucially important to so many. For >> this reason, we decided to have extension until end of August rather that >> promise that the product is available indefinitely. It will be interesting >> to see how many decide to purchase it now that it is again available. >> >> We are continuously thinking of ways to improve our offering and naturally >> hope to find products that provide new business. We are also very happy that >> we have an active community and customer base. And we are extremely proud >> that Qt is a great product, used by a huge number of developers worldwide. >> >> Yours, >> >> Tuukka >> >> >> >> ________________________________________ >> Lähettäjä: m...@rpzdesign.com <m...@rpzdesign.com> >> Lähetetty: 6. heinäkuuta 2015 16:39 >> Vastaanottaja: interest@qt-project.org >> Kopio: Knoll Lars; Turunen Tuukka >> Aihe: Re: [Interest] Indie Mobil Program terminated? >> >> Dear Lars & Turunen: >> >> Qt has been reading their email, but still appear tone deaf: >> >> > http://blog.qt.io/blog/2015/07/06/indie-mobile-available-until-aug-31st/ >> >> There are statements in that blog which strain QT credibility. >> >> Transparency is only ONE of several significant problems. >> >> Your feedback loops are apparently broken. >> >> Community Crisis Response and Pricing Policy VIA BLOG is a >> communications disaster. >> >> You have manufactured haters which will not evangelize QT, further >> weakening QT now and in the future. >> >> Failing to have Qt staff directly and completely address many valid >> questions/issues raised in the interest list and blog replies has >> consequences, whether obvious or not. >> >> Stop saying Open Source successfully replaces Indie, until you can >> provide an articulate and concise page why instead of sending >> all potential Indies to their lawyers to figure it out. They will not. >> >> The web site is a confusing MESS. You are LOSING sales because nobody >> can clearly see price VS benefits. >> >> Like Nunos Santos says: QT Rocks. >> >> Just not enough people have the time (and now the money) to bet on QT to >> figure it out. >> >> They need to see other users succeeding, not users bitching. >> >> This has been a terrible week for QT. >> >> Mark >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
