On 7/14/2015 3:18 AM, Kate Alhola wrote: > I don't see Xamarin more than one competitor on that field. More > serious competition comes from native platforms.
One of the key selling points of Xamarin (like Qt) is that it allows to reuse your technology knowledge (and tooling, let's not forget Visual Studio et al) and has a good transition path for commercial desktop developers. Going native is always an alternative, but then you will need to know and use all the technologies available on all the platforms you want/need to support. As generic, high-performance cross-platform frameworks go, Xamarin is the direct competitor to Qt - the other big guns, Unity and Cordova focus on different aspects of cross-platform development. > I see that power of Qt comes from community, also in mobile. > Community itself does not create huge revenue but a lot of business > grown from community. There is no sense to say NO for indie or small > developers unless intention is kill all mobile Qt. Kate The misunderstanding is more PR I believe. Apparently there was an open door that people did just not go through, and now that the door is closing, there is a sense of panic, but it's still unclear how realistic it is from a commitment perspective, or is it really a "should've would've" proposition. A kickstarter campaign or similar would be telling - say, with the stretch goals being "keep the indie license alive" and similar. Then it would be clear if it's just (sorry to be blunt) moaning or actual interest. PS. And unless indie licensing uses different terms than the commercial ones, you are actually supposed to have it licensed throughout the development cycle, not a in a "well, if it makes serious money, I'll license it" approach, so most of the cases mentioned would be a bit in the grey area license-wise anyway. Attila _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
