It's a starting point for discussion of a whole new pricing model. The important thing is that everyone should be able to afford to develop with Qt. The Qt Company should benefit if a Qt app makes a million sales and this would be balanced by all those apps which are complete duds.
I know there's more complexity than what I have proposed but as a starting point to a new model where everyone can afford to use Qt will end with a model where developers flock to Qt by the thousands and The Qt Company will remain viable if not extremely successful. -jct > On 10 Jul 2015, at 18:42, Gian Maxera <gmax...@gmail.com> wrote: > > It seems a good idea … but how can you be implemented ? I see big problem of > implementation. > The mobile app world it’s pretty straightforward because the app can be sold > only by Apple or Google Play store … and they can take money directly from > sales. There is no way for cheat. > But how Qt company monitorize the sales and ask a bill about that ? It cannot > take money directly from sales because we don’t sell app passing through Qt. > Also, do not forget that Qt is not only mobile. So, how can this schema be > applied to embedded world, desktop application, industrial applications, and > so on ?? Do not look only at big companies. In the past, I used Qt to create > an application that I sold to a small company and this company embed this > application in their hardware devices and sold to others distribution > companies that they sell to final consumer !! How can you ask me to pay a > percentage of revenue ?? > > Ciao, > Gianluca. > > >> On 10 Jul 2015, at 09:35, John C. Turnbull <ozem...@ozemail.com.au> wrote: >> >> Even better... >> >> Have ONE Qt product which includes all the bells and whistles and all the >> ports but TWO licenses; an in-house license for those who do not sell their >> products and a commercial license for those who do. >> >> The in-house license could be sold for about $50 per month and includes >> support and upgrades. >> >> The commercial license is either free or something nominal like $10 per >> month plus 5% of sales. >> >> That way *everyone* can afford to use Qt, *everyone* has access to all the >> features and platform, *nobody* has to worry about lawyers and The Qt >> Company can make a fortune even if just a few of the resulting apps make it >> in the big time with massive sales. >> >> It's a win-win-win-win situation! >> >> -jct >> >>> On 10 Jul 2015, at 18:13, John C. Turnbull <ozem...@ozemail.com.au> wrote: >>> >>> Here's something out of left field... >>> >>> How about you give everyone access to the full commercial version and >>> license of Qt with all the features and the ability to sell through app >>> stores at no cost and then make your money purely based on a proportion of >>> sales revenue? >>> >>> Something to think about... >>> >>>> On 8 Jul 2015, at 07:47, Nuno Santos <nunosan...@imaginando.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> Agree… >>>> >>>> Nuno Santos >>>> Founder / CEO / CTO >>>> www.imaginando.pt >>>> +351 91 621 69 62 >>>> >>>>> On 07 Jul 2015, at 21:14, m...@rpzdesign.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>> What a perfect example given below by Jason H. >>>>> >>>>> Go ahead and search for a QT competitor product that emphasizes that you >>>>> talk to your lawyer. >>>>> >>>>> http://www.qt.io/faq/ >>>>> >>>>> Again, its really bad optics when the word "lawyer" keeps popping up >>>>> and whacking potential customers in the face. >>>>> >>>>> That is causing LOSS of SALES. >>>>> >>>>> Poor John Turnbull below is now spending his money on his >>>>> lawyer or a competitor instead of sending those dollars to QT. >>>>> >>>>> The horse and water analogy applies here. >>>>> >>>>> md >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On 7/7/2015 1:36 PM, Jason H 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 >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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
