Hacker News Reader

Comment by fuzzythinker | Hacker News Reader

$149/mo to develop on desktop OSes, that is too steep. It pretty much rules out all but big publishers.

EDIT: Downvoters, please read and answer my replies below before doing so.

Except you don't have to pay anything if you don't plan to modify Qt itself, which you most likely don't need to do, and even then you just have to release the source to your modification to comply with LGPL.

Not if I want to publish to app stores, as stated in the pricing table that I can't via the LGPL option.

You can use Ministro. See here: http://qt-project.org/doc/qtcreator-3.0/creator-deploying-an...

It is basically an external app dependency that carries the qt libraries.

you mentioned desktop platforms in your OP, so I assumed non-appstore platforms.

Both OSX and Win8 have app stores now.

It's actually $215 for 1 platform, $295 for all 3. Per developer.

That's low compared to the old one which was something like $3k for one platform, $5k for multiple.

If you cannot make $215/month with your software, how can you pay anyone a salary?

If you are non-professional, why not use the open source edition and add value with support?

Why do you assume I'm paying someone a salary? I don't even make enough to cover my expenses (just started going indie). For someone like me, $149/mo is way too steep no matter what other options are. It just tells me qt is not an option for me.

As stated in other reply, open source option not an option as it states I can't publish it in app stores.

I'm pretty sure that's just a consequence of the LGPL, static linking and how 'app stores' choose to distribute software. If don't want to share your code in a format that allows it to be linked to other versions of Qt, you can't distribute your binaries statically linked to Qt (without paying.)

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10130143/gpl-lgpl-and-sta...

You can almost certainly just use the LGPL/free version with whatever you are doing on the desktop. So I would say it's still an option.

You would mostly need the commercial version only for mobile deployment due to LGPL having issues with static linking. Support for natively compiled Qt Quick is also a bonus.

You could use the LGPL version during development and only switch to the commercial license once you go live.

Has the commercial agreement been changed? The terms of the commercial license specifically prohibited that.

It does? But I thought it is possible to use the LGPL version to develop apps. It is just not possible to distribute them through the app stores because of the app stores, not because of Qt. You don't use the app store to deploy the development version of your app onto you development device.

That's all true. However, the commercial license included this:

"You must purchase a Qt Commercial Developer License from us or from one of our authorized resellers before you start developing commercial software. The Qt Commercial Developer License does not allow the incorporation of code developed with the Qt GNU LGPL v. 2.1 or GNU GPL v. 3.0 license versions into a commercial product."

Basically, you have to choose LGPL or commercial before you start your project. You can only transition from commercial to LGPL, not LGPL to commercial.

They do that to prevent specifically the thing you're suggesting, though they're probably aiming it more at large companies with many developers, so those guys don't just buy 1 license.

Ah, I see.

> If you are non-professional, why not use the open source edition and add value with support?

It might be me as I am not a native English speaker but I think "non-commercial" is more accurate than "non-professional" as people can write free software rather professionally and they often do.

Personally, I'd prefer a one and done purchase. This pay-by-the month crap is getting out of hand.

Sure, the monthly rent goes to paying for bug-fixes, etc., but those should be in there anyway. It's like buying a car then finding out it still needs an engine tuning and the right wheels to run properly, when they should have shipped with the car.

It would be nice if they had an option for startups, a la MS & BizSpark.

That's within the same price point as other leading IDEs.

Plus, as a commercial company you can still use it for free provided that you abide by the LGPL.

However, I am not able to distribute my apps through public application stores, as marked in the pricing table. Which makes that not really an option.

Also, that pricing tables states only "Mobile application stores". There should be another row for "Desktop application stores" that covers desktop applications, no?

FYI:

Minor site styling bug: http://www.qt.io/download/ 's "Search" bar is too low when scrolled.

Footer text is way too dark to be readable. Default text color should be current highlighted color, while hover should be whiter.

It's LGPL as well.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com