Than don't say that. On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Jason H <jh...@gmx.com> wrote:
> I think it is rather obtuse to think that a cross platform toolkit will > ever beat native. No one comes to Qt for "faster-than-native", which would > just be silly. Qt is faster than HTML5, phonegap, etc. > The fact that the backends are all native counts for a lot. > > > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 07, 2015 at 4:44 PM > *From:* "Tim O'Neil" <interval1...@gmail.com> > *To:* jh...@gmx.com, interest@qt-project.org > > *Subject:* Re: [Interest] Indie Mobil Program terminated? > >>No, Qt performs the best, IMHO. > > NO, it does NOT. The only thing Qt has going for it is ability to come > very close (not quite exactly, but close) to true x-platform compatibility. > Don't get caught up in some performance thing (did you actually mean > cross-platform performance?) because YOU WILL LOSE. That's not where you're > going to hang your hat. And your not sounding all that humble, IMO. > > On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Jason H <jh...@gmx.com> wrote: >> >> There's some chatter. I don't put much in it. >> All the key features are there. The feature parity can be rough around >> the edges. >> No, Qt performs the best, IMHO. Look and feel is subjective. If you use >> Qt you problably want to support multiple platforms. And these platforms >> differ on look & feel (Glaringly, lack of a back button on iOS) There are >> efforts to use naitive look and feel, but in designing your UI, they will >> only get so far. I personally like ot be on the side of one app one look >> for all platforms. >> >> Native access is supported on iOS and Android. Their usual caveats apply. >> >> Yes, sometimes not at the rate you want. But it's "getting there". It's >> definately usable. I've published apps in iOS and Android app stores. >> >> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 07, 2015 at 3:53 PM >> *From:* "John C. Turnbull" <ozem...@ozemail.com.au> >> *To:* "Jason H" <jh...@gmx.com> >> *Cc:* "Ben Lau" <xben...@gmail.com>, "interest@qt-project.org" < >> interest@qt-project.org> >> >> *Subject:* Re: [Interest] Indie Mobil Program terminated? >> 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 >> > >
_______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
