On Saturday 11 July 2015 05:58:19 John C. Turnbull wrote: > That's why you don't charge anywhere near $350/month/developer. That's the > whole problem I am trying to solve. Most indie, small and moderate > businesses simply can't afford that.
But you're not only not solving it, you're making the problem worse by including the commercial licence that big companies would use in the mix. The price of $350/month/developer is not accidental. There's a huge cost in supporting the Qt development and support engineers working for an entire year in high cost countries like Germany and Norway. > But if you charge them something much, much less for a commercial license > and then Qt recoups its costs from a small slice of royalties, everyone is > happy! Trust me, it's been tried. Big companies like royalties even less than large price tags. An upfront cost is something you can budget for. A cost that you won't know until you actually ship devices because it depends on a number you don't know (the shipment volume) is hard to model. > The in-house license would be more expensive per month but would mostly be > used by larger corporations. Except the larger ones that actually sell software or devices. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
