25 ms·
The article does seem to ignore the licensing side of things, where QT is more expensive/restrictive if you're not developing open source projects.
by kabes 9y ago
The article does seem to ignore the licensing side of things, where QT is more expensive/restrictive if you're not developing open source projects.
- bb88 9y agoThe software is going to be cheaper than the hardware for any company producing quantity of hardware >1000.
- ahartmetz 9y agoFor all of the hardware, yes. For the incremental cost of better hardware versus development cost, it makes sense to spend more on development to save hardware between 10k and 100k units. I have worked on embedded projects for extremely expensive hardware selling in moderate numbers with underpowered SOCs that could not produce smooth UIs. Bad hardware decisions.
- abetusk 9y agoYou mean if they don't comply with the GPL3.0 portion of their licensing [1]. It's pretty disingenuous to say that complying with the GPL is more expensive and restrictive. Purchasing a comparable closed source software suite, or developing it in house, might be less feature complete and more expensive. It's "restrictive" in the sense you need to comply with the GPL which probably gives much more freedom than most closed source licensing terms [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt_(software)#Licensing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt_(software)#Licensing [2] http://www.binpress.com/page/licensing http://www.binpress.com/page/licensing