Here are some iOS apps that we've done.
http://www.risingsoftware.com/mobile/
Regards,
Peter Lee
On 11/07/2015 12:21 PM, John C. Turnbull wrote:
Amongst all the debate around the Indie license, some mention was made of Qt Mobile not
quite "being ready yet".
So, for someone considering Qt fo
On 11 July 2015 at 10:21, John C. Turnbull wrote:
> Amongst all the debate around the Indie license, some mention was made of
> Qt Mobile not quite "being ready yet".
>
> So, for someone considering Qt for lots of things including mobile, could
> someone please answer these questions for me:
>
>
John, if there are good examples of mobile applications, I believe they
should be listed here: http://showroom.qt.io
On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 5:21 AM, John C. Turnbull
wrote:
> Amongst all the debate around the Indie license, some mention was made of
> Qt Mobile not quite "being ready yet".
>
> S
Amongst all the debate around the Indie license, some mention was made of Qt
Mobile not quite "being ready yet".
So, for someone considering Qt for lots of things including mobile, could
someone please answer these questions for me:
1. Which Qt features do not currently work on iOS or Android?
On Friday 10 July 2015 22:36:39 Nuno Santos wrote:
> Thiago,
>
> This seems like black magic.
So why won't you do the qmake -d -d that I asked for?
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
On Saturday 11 July 2015 07:03:30 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
On 10 Jul 2015, at 20:09, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
>> On Saturday 11 July 2015 03:03:16 John C. Turnbull wrote:
>> Yeah but I am adding royalties.
>
> Ignoring the fact that it's difficult to monitor this and would generate even
> more cost, at a 5% cut that would require your application to se
Thiago,
This seems like black magic.
I have created a new project and tried to simply do in the .pro file:
LIBS += -framework Parse
It works. It just builds.
On the other hand, I have started commenting every single line on the pro file
of my project until having just exactly the same as the
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 touc
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
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
Thiago,
You are right only if every app sold on an app store is developed with Qt
with a commercial $350/month license. At that price, many people will look
for other solutions. It's the usual "every pirated movie is a lost DVD
sale" argument, which we all know it's not true.
The main problem I s
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 if you charge them something much, much less for a commercial license
and then Qt recoups its costs from a small
This reminds me of
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/CamelsandRubberDuckies.html
Still fun to read after all these years & highly recommended to everyone who
thinks setting prices is simple :)
Regards
Kai
Von: interest-bounces+kai.koehne=theqtcomp
On Saturday 11 July 2015 03:12:05 John C. Turnbull wrote:
> But you're just focusing on the indie license. I am not even talking about
> an indie license, just an in-house license and a commercial license.
That makes it even worse. The price of a commercial licence is
$350/month/developer. At a 5
Hi,
is this the opensource or enterprise installer?
In any case, please open a bug report, or ask Qt Support. Please also start the
maintenance tool with --verbose and attach the output.
Regards
Kai Koehne
Von: interest-bounces+kai.koehne=theqtcompany
But you're just focusing on the indie license. I am not even talking about an
indie license, just an in-house license and a commercial license.
> On 11 Jul 2015, at 03:09, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
>> On Saturday 11 July 2015 03:03:16 John C. Turnbull wrote:
>> Yeah but I am adding royalties.
On Saturday 11 July 2015 03:03:16 John C. Turnbull wrote:
> Yeah but I am adding royalties.
Ignoring the fact that it's difficult to monitor this and would generate even
more cost, at a 5% cut that would require your application to sell at least
$300 a month to break even with the current struct
On Friday 10 July 2015 12:57:53 maitai wrote:
> Ok then, I have read that on several places and took it for granted... happy
> to be wrong
The open source version does not include it.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
On Friday 10 July 2015 07:55:55 Nuno Santos wrote:
> Curiously, it seems that qmake whipes the reference to Parse framework.
> Whenever -framework Parse is referenced, it removes Parse.
The test I suggested would have found where "Parse" got removed.
You probably have LIBS -= -framework Parse or
Yeah but I am adding royalties.
> On 11 Jul 2015, at 03:00, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
>> On Friday 10 July 2015 18:35:24 John C. Turnbull wrote:
>> 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
Read my modified suggestion. Qt makes money out of everyone regardless of sales
but the point is that everyone can afford to use it.
> On 11 Jul 2015, at 02:58, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
>> On Friday 10 July 2015 18:13:59 John C. Turnbull wrote:
>> How about you give everyone access to the ful
On Friday 10 July 2015 18:35:24 John C. Turnbull wrote:
> 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
On Friday 10 July 2015 18:13:59 John C. Turnbull wrote:
> 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?
>
On Friday 10 July 2015 08:02:46 Jan Imrich wrote:
> /home/imrija/qtpi/gcc-4.7-linaro-rpi-gnueabihf/bin/../lib/gcc/arm-linux-gnue
> abihf/4.7.2/../../../../arm-linux-gnueabihf/bin/ld:
> /mnt/rasp-pi-rootfs/usr/lib/arm-linux-gnueabihf/libglib-2.0.a(libglib_2_0_l
> a-gregex.o): undefined reference to
Hello,
I got this message when I try to update my Qt to version 5.5
How can I solve it ?
Ciao,
Gianluca.
___
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
>
> I am not sure how your initial project looks, but for the code you sent, I
> would suggest a different approach:
>
Yes, I know about this approach, but unfortunately I can not use it - at
least I see no chance in my setting.
To elaborate a little: In reality Worker has a database connection w
On 10 Jul 2015, at 14:41, Rogerio Nicolau wrote:
> I have the Canvas larger than the screen actually, it's inside a ScrollView
> so the user can scroll if needed. I did try reducing it to an area smaller
> than the screen size, but that does not change the behaviour.
Sounds like a different b
(TOFU to keep full version of original solution without hiding my reply)
I am not sure how your initial project looks, but for the code you sent,
I would suggest a different approach:
class Worker
{
public:
int doHeavyStuff()
{
return 42;
}
};
class Handler
{
public:
I have the Canvas larger than the screen actually, it's inside a
ScrollView so the user can scroll if needed. I did try reducing it to an
area smaller than the screen size, but that does not change the behaviour.
On 10/07/2015 12:07, Rutledge Shawn wrote:
> On 10 Jul 2015, at 12:50, Rogerio Nic
On 10 Jul 2015, at 12:50, Rogerio Nicolau wrote:
> Hi
>
> This is a hardware specific issue and I suspect a problem in a lower
> layer than Qt, but I wanted to check if anyone might have some other idea.
>
> The problem happens on a Tegra Note Android tablet, other
> hardware/platforms work
Ok then, I have read that on several places and took it for granted... happy to
be wrong :)
Message d'origine
De : Nuno Santos
Date : 10/07/2015 12:38 (GMT+01:00)
À : maitai
Cc : interest , derrick.hes...@theqtcompany.com, Nuno
Santos
Objet : Re: [Interest] Indie Mobil
Hi,
I try to use QFuture/QFutureWatcher for my own project. So far I have this
simplified setting, in which Handler is living in the GUI thread:
class Worker : public QObject
{
Q_OBJECT
public slots:
void doHeavyStuff(QFutureInterface inter) {
inter.reportResult(42);
inter.re
Hi
This is a hardware specific issue and I suspect a problem in a lower
layer than Qt, but I wanted to check if anyone might have some other idea.
The problem happens on a Tegra Note Android tablet, other
hardware/platforms work fine. When I set a Canvas object's renderTarget
to Canvas.Framebu
That is not true. Qt Indie Developer License HAS in-app purchase support for
both iOS and Android.
Nuno Santos
Founder / CEO / CTO
www.imaginando.pt
+351 91 621 69 62
> On 10 Jul 2015, at 10:53, maitai wrote:
>
> What is really strange to me is that the indie license specifically targetted
>
10.07.2015, 11:35, "John C. Turnbull" :
> 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 cou
I thought it was not. I will be very happy if this is the case...
Message d'origine
De : Daniel França
Date : 10/07/2015 12:02 (GMT+01:00)
À : maitai , interest
Cc : derrick.hes...@theqtcompany.com, Nuno Santos
Objet : Re: [Interest] RE : Re: Indie Mobil Program termina
I was pretty sure that it include the in-app purchase !
When three month ago was near to buy the indie license the big motivation was
because it was included the in-app purchase.
They removed now ?
> On 10 Jul 2015, at 10:53, maitai wrote:
>
> What is really strange to me is that the indie li
IIRC the indie license was including Qt Purchasing (at least in its last
months), and it was one of the main reasons that made me buy a license.
Em sex, 10 de jul de 2015 às 11:53, maitai
escreveu:
> What is really strange to me is that the indie license specifically
> targetted on android and i
What is really strange to me is that the indie license specifically targetted
on android and ios stores does not include in-app purchases api from qt... we
are supposed to do it ourselves and reinvent the wheel on our side.
Maybe we should decide to share that kind of stuff between us outside of
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
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:13 AM, John C. Turnbull
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
A percentage over the revenue is a royalty. I have already a royalty of 30% to
App Store and iOS store.
An hammer is an hammer and it shouldn’t cost more just because you know to make
good use of it with your work and sweat.
5% of 1000 euros = 50
5% of 1 euros = 500
5% of 2 euros = 100
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 compan
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 suppor
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.
Two more small experiments.
- Exchanging Parse to Parse1 leads to a “Couldn’t find framework”, but it
doesn’t convert into -> -framework “”
- A new Qt project doesn’t have the same problem...
I have already been looking for typos on the qmake but couldn’t find any.
This is the qmake file withou
47 matches
Mail list logo
