John: You are not alone.
Give the folks at Qt some time to enjoy their vacation and when they return, I am sure that they will be able to continue the discussion in a competent manner. As a hedge, I would get the Indie license before Aug 31st. That way you are safe. Obviously, this issue touches a tender spot that is not going to just disappear after August 31. md On 7/10/2015 3:03 PM, John C. Turnbull wrote: > Well you can continue to discredit all my ideas but the point is that if Qt > drops the Indie license and makes single developers, small or moderate sized > businesses pay $350 per month to use Qt, you can pretty much say goodbye to > the majority of Qt developers and cry tears of blood as they flock to > competing products. > > Somehow, all Qt developers need to get access to the particular features and > platforms they need (which may be one or two or every feature, device and > platform) at a price that they can sustainably afford or they simply won't > use it. > > -----Original Message----- > From: interest-bounces+ozemale=ozemail.com...@qt-project.org > [mailto:interest-bounces+ozemale=ozemail.com...@qt-project.org] On Behalf Of > Thiago Macieira > Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2015 6:43 AM > To: interest@qt-project.org > Subject: Re: [Interest] Indie Mobil Program terminated? > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Interest mailing list > Interest@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest > -- No spell checkers were harmed during the creation of this message. _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
