(ps. Most people lamenting the price of Qt have no need for Qt, should not buy Qt. If you have never heard about Kanzi or Telerik, you are not in the market)
Kanzi is a cosmic horror in comparison to Qt in terms of low level bugs, which you cannot do anything about.
Kanzi tries to differentiate as a purpose built built HMI environment where you get UI+hardware IO+readymade apps, but sucks greatly at being it. Hardware support is where you don't even try using anything, but reference hardware.
I know nothing of the product but investment analysts say it's the only competitor in embedded.
I said __embedded__
[1] https://github.com/flutter/engine/blob/080fbcb1759e5916f0d6c...
I'm an entrepreneur with 6 guys working for me. 4 of them write embedded software, 1 uses Qt. I pay for Qt because cost/value is right. I don't develop any more software than I have to. I get a product, I can buy consulting with reasonable price.
Currently, you're exactly right. Google is using Flutter for some of their embedded products, but it's going to be a long time before it's anywhere near as plug-and-play as Qt for the average developer.
The future of Flutter is looking quite promising, though. It's worth keeping an eye on.
Aren't this paid for by the customer which might be priced into the product or for your consulting services?
Maturity and the breadth of the surrounding ecosystem, for one. Flutter is looking very promising long-term, but it's going to take some time to evolve past a mobile app framework.
Qt is most widely known for the UI framework, but it actually has far more functionality under the hood. Qt's core target audience values those features. Most of the people who see Qt as a simple UI framework don't.
Like the parent comment said, most of the people who are complaining about the licensing costs are on the wrong side of the Qt value proposition. They should use simpler, freely available tools like Flutter or Electron.