4 ms·

For companies earning under $100000 a year. That's pretty meager for a company employing up to 5 people. Qt is a great environment, but it is still ridiculous

by gloggy 7y ago

For companies earning under $100000 a year. That's pretty meager for a company employing up to 5 people. Qt is a great environment, but it is still ridiculously expensive for small companies.

swypych 7y ago
For what it does, I don't think so, seems like a bargain.
- nottorp 7y ago
  If you have more than 5 employees or make more than $100k/year (i.e. even in a low wages section of the US, you pay more than one developer) - it's the old price of $5500/year/developer.
  - Ididntdothis 7y ago
    That's lot of money per dev.
penagwin 7y ago
Yeah wait a minute - 100k USD a year is barely one developer (Especially after benefit costs, etc) - and they say revenue too. So basically if you're a one man shop it's an improvement I guess?
- Tom4hawk 7y ago
  Not everyone lives in USA.
  - penagwin 7y ago
    That's definitely true, but even outside the US, that's not much money. Keep in mind they're counting revenue, and employees are more expensive than their salary (Even if your salary is 50k you can still cost 70k or more).
- johannes1234321 7y ago
  According to their 2018 report they have 45.6M EUR in sales and loss of 2322 Euro. No idea where the 100k ist coming from. https://mb.cision.com/Main/14183/2742082/991814.pdf https://mb.cision.com/Main/14183/2742082/991814.pdf (host blocked by uBlock for me)
  - SyneRyder 7y ago
    They were referring to the new Qt license. Companies with less than $100k in revenue and less than five employees now only have to pay $499/year for a Qt commercial license.
jschwartzi 7y ago
It's basically a license for a tiny hardware startup to do Qt development with some limited support. It's not a very good license to sell product with, since any hardware startup that intends to use Qt in a product will pre-negotiate the distribution licenses up-front to capture the cost in the BOM for a unit. The only thing this does is allows you to ramp your commercial license costs as you get closer to profitability. Basically if I'm a hardware company A, and I want to build a device that uses Qt5, originally I would buy a commercial license up-front for like 5 figures. If I'm building this product using my own personal funds and not VC-funding then this represents a huge outlay to get commercial support. What this $500 fee does is allows me to do commercial-licensed development out of the gate but without any support resources beyond installation(which was easy). Then, when I start doing design verification and am fixing bugs in the product I can start paying for a full commercial license and get support if I discover an issue with the graphics engine. Getting Qt up and running can be difficult if you've never done any open-source or Linux development before. And for some systems, having installation support is paramount because the build systems are not tightly integrated with Qt's build system(EG QNX). So it can ease some difficulties in using Qt. I think this is a pretty good offering for a niche of users who would otherwise avoid all the GPLv3 code and stick to Qt core, develop alternatives to all the good Qt modules like the virtual keyboards and stuff, and then determine they don't need to pay for a full commercial license once they get up and running. This provides an alternative path for those users where they can feel comfortable just using Qt's version of certain things. And it's probably a big win for them.
- Data_Junkie 7y ago
  Not a win for them at all. Still have to do a legal distribution negotiation. So how would this help them ? It'll help them pay $500 a year more, that's all and that's the point of this change. Nothing more.
  - distances 7y ago
    Parent laid it out already: without this option, device creators would need the full commercial license right from the start. This allows them to cheaply bootstrap and get the full license if/when their gadget proves promising.

by gloggy 7y ago

For companies earning under $100000 a year. That's pretty meager for a company employing up to 5 people. Qt is a great environment, but it is still ridiculously expensive for small companies.

swypych 7y ago

For what it does, I don't think so, seems like a bargain.

nottorp 7y ago
If you have more than 5 employees or make more than $100k/year (i.e. even in a low wages section of the US, you pay more than one developer) - it's the old price of $5500/year/developer.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  That's lot of money per dev.

penagwin 7y ago

Yeah wait a minute - 100k USD a year is barely one developer (Especially after benefit costs, etc) - and they say revenue too. So basically if you're a one man shop it's an improvement I guess?

Tom4hawk 7y ago
Not everyone lives in USA.
- penagwin 7y ago
  That's definitely true, but even outside the US, that's not much money. Keep in mind they're counting revenue, and employees are more expensive than their salary (Even if your salary is 50k you can still cost 70k or more).
johannes1234321 7y ago
According to their 2018 report they have 45.6M EUR in sales and loss of 2322 Euro. No idea where the 100k ist coming from. https://mb.cision.com/Main/14183/2742082/991814.pdf https://mb.cision.com/Main/14183/2742082/991814.pdf (host blocked by uBlock for me)
- SyneRyder 7y ago
  They were referring to the new Qt license. Companies with less than $100k in revenue and less than five employees now only have to pay $499/year for a Qt commercial license.

jschwartzi 7y ago

It's basically a license for a tiny hardware startup to do Qt development with some limited support. It's not a very good license to sell product with, since any hardware startup that intends to use Qt in a product will pre-negotiate the distribution licenses up-front to capture the cost in the BOM for a unit. The only thing this does is allows you to ramp your commercial license costs as you get closer to profitability. Basically if I'm a hardware company A, and I want to build a device that uses Qt5, originally I would buy a commercial license up-front for like 5 figures. If I'm building this product using my own personal funds and not VC-funding then this represents a huge outlay to get commercial support. What this $500 fee does is allows me to do commercial-licensed development out of the gate but without any support resources beyond installation(which was easy). Then, when I start doing design verification and am fixing bugs in the product I can start paying for a full commercial license and get support if I discover an issue with the graphics engine. Getting Qt up and running can be difficult if you've never done any open-source or Linux development before. And for some systems, having installation support is paramount because the build systems are not tightly integrated with Qt's build system(EG QNX). So it can ease some difficulties in using Qt. I think this is a pretty good offering for a niche of users who would otherwise avoid all the GPLv3 code and stick to Qt core, develop alternatives to all the good Qt modules like the virtual keyboards and stuff, and then determine they don't need to pay for a full commercial license once they get up and running. This provides an alternative path for those users where they can feel comfortable just using Qt's version of certain things. And it's probably a big win for them.

Data_Junkie 7y ago
Not a win for them at all. Still have to do a legal distribution negotiation. So how would this help them ? It'll help them pay $500 a year more, that's all and that's the point of this change. Nothing more.
- distances 7y ago
  Parent laid it out already: without this option, device creators would need the full commercial license right from the start. This allows them to cheaply bootstrap and get the full license if/when their gadget proves promising.