Qt Creator for Qt Enterprise users

Published Tuesday July 9th, 2013 | by

Qt Creator 2.8 provides a couple of new value additions for Qt Enterprise users. We would like to emphasize that this does not restrict the usage of the tools in our open source offering. In this release the focus is on QML and Qt Quick support.

The new extension plugins to the Qt Quick Designer and the QML Profiler add new features on top of the existing plugins.

Qt Quick Designer including enterprise differentiators in action.

This means smoother Qt Quick application development in the designer by:

  • Editing properties like text, color, and source inline in the form editor by double clicking.
  • Visual editor for paths.
  • Editor for connections, bindings, and dynamic object properties.

 

Inline Editing in the Form Editor

The user can double-click objects in the form editor to edit their text, color, or source properties. This is quicker and more convenient than using the property editor.
Because some QML types have several of these properties, such as TextEdit, you can also right-click objects to open the inline editors from a context menu. This feature also works on custom components if the properties follow the naming conventions from the Qt Quick Items.

 

Path Editor

The visual path editor in Qt Quick Designer allows changing the path in PathView much faster than in the text editor. You can move the control points to change the cubic Bezier curve. This speeds up the process of creating the path by a magnitude when compared to text or importing them from other tools. It is also possible to add and remove segments from the curve, and PathAttribute and PathAttribute elements defined in the text are preserved.

Connection View
The Connection View is a new pane in the sidebar like the property editor and navigator. It allows the user to manage Connections, Bindings and dynamic properties through a graphical interface.  Each of these three functions has its own separate tab.

 

Connections
The connection tab.

The connection tab handles Connections elements, binds them to a target item and executes an action by defining a signal handler. No need to edit QML code anymore, just trigger state changes based on clicked signals.

 

Bindings
The bindings tab.
Add, edit and remove bindings in the bindings tab. You get also a nice overview of the existing bindings, which might have an impact on the layout or even the performance.

 

Dynamic Properties
The dynamic properties tab.

The tab for dynamic properties allows to add additional properties to an item.
This makes it possible to follow good practice and define values like margins in one place, reusing them in other places by using bindings, instead of hard coding them. Another use case is creating reusable Components; in this case the properties of the root item define the interface.

 

QML Profiler
The QML Profiler in action

The QML Profiler is extended by the ability to trace Scene Graph events and to profile the size of the pixmap cache used for images in QML.  This is very valuable information, since memory consumption is typically related to image resources.
The SceneGraph row shows the events of the Qt Quick 2 SceneGraph renderer, split into GUI thread and Renderer thread parts. This allows a detailed analysis of the SceneGraph behavior for a given application, helping to fine-tune your QML code to achieve the best performance.
The pixmap cache row shows the loading, adding, and removing of pixmaps from the Qt Quick internal pixmap cache over time. This is especially helpful for Qt Quick applications in a resource constrained setup with slow disk loading.

 

Did you like this? Share it:

Posted in Customers, Declarative UI, Qt, Qt in use, Qt Project, Qt Quick, Qt Quick 2, Qt Quick 2.0, QtCreator, Releases

61 comments to Qt Creator for Qt Enterprise users

Sylv says:

Great job! Qt Creator is a really nice IDE.
Is the final release already available ?

Thomas Hartmann says:

No not yet, but it is coming soon. :)

Stefan says:

This really looks promising.

gin says:

Very good:)
But visual studio is other thing.

lynv says:

Why it is only for Qt Enterprise users? It will not be useful for non enterprise users?

Muhammad Bashir Al-Noimi says:

Although this is a good news for Qt Creator but it’s very bad for the community.

Digia use on same Microsoft’s manner for marketing its products:
* VisualStudio Enterprise == Qt Creator Enterprise == a commercial product.
* VisualStudio Express is a freeware product while Qt Creator is open source.

If that is Digia strategy I can tell you clearly they use open source to utilize the community shame on you Digia.

Joachim says:

Do you work for free?

Eike Ziller says:

The open source community also utilizes Digia’s resources (several dozen developers, CI & build infrastructure, etc), so you can consider this a win-win situation.

Eddie says:

It is obvious as a user, people expect to get it for free but Digia still has to pay its Engineers, Software Developers and people.

For me Qt is the best framework ever so far as it has got a separate language (QML) for pixel perfect and slick UI design, it is cross platform, it has got tons of examples and fantastic documentations.

Those tools are just for saving a bit of our time and making our life easier and doesn’t limit the functionality of the actual framework. For hard core programmers like me, it doesn’t really matter too much.

Im sure the price will come down or will become free as a free beer because of too many competitions from other framework vendors or perhaps because of open source plugins getting better than their official commercial bloody plugins.

dipesh says:

QtCreator is the best IDE out there across platforms, frameworks and not limited to earth. Thanks! :)

Daniel Molkentin says:

@Muhammad Bashir Al-Noimi: So how exactly do you suggest that Digia should pay the people that create this awesome software?

When Digia makes a proprietary product, community people complain, if they offer no differentiation, the paying customers complain. And no matter how you would like to turn it, they, at the end of the day, are the reason people can work full time on Creator. That is unless you have secretly set up a trust fund for them or you have your own crew willing to do the same work for free.

Lilian says:

They could create components like the QtCharts.
Take a look at Embarcadero RAD Studio, they sell mainly the components. For example, you can drop a database connector on the interface and through an easy UI you can configure the connection with the database, without coding. And other companies do the same, they create components to sell for the RAD Studio.

Qt became popular because it gave power and wasn’t limited but if Digia decides to do that, don’t expect people to jump on the wagon as before. Digia is lucky they already attracted big companies and it got popular, before this awful decisions…

Kai Koehne says:

Honestly, I don’t get why you think selling components is good, and differentating in Qt Creator is bad.

Even with the above additions in the Qt Creator Enterprise edition, Qt Quick support in opensource Qt Creator is still there. All the things mentioned are just convenience … there’s nothing that prevents you from developing a rocking Qt Quick application with the open source version too, just that the Enterprise edition makes it a bit easier for you.

Compare that to Qt Charts, where you’d have to write a similar component _from scratch_ if you want to have something similar in GPL/LGPL.

Kevin says:

But isn’t that the same what we see here?

Unless other offerings like Visual Studio Express, QtCreator is a fully functionaly, fully plugin based and extendable IDE.

The enterprise version is, just like you suggest, the IDE plus some additional plugins.

Lilian says:

This saddens me very much.
I am soul broken, seriously!
I understand if Digia were the only contributors to the product, than they could do this separation between the paying customers and the open source community.
I feel that those from the open source community that contributed to Qt and Qt Creator are let down.

I understand that they spend on the production and maintenance of Qt and they have to make money but I don’t think that this is the right way. They could sell Qt and QML components like Qt Charts I think…

Btw, I am not okay only with the QML Profiler part being only for the Qt Commercial users because this is a core part for development of QML applications, now separating the Open Source Community. I’m absolutely okay with commodities but the core not being available…

Kai Koehne says:

The QML Profiler is and will remain part of the Open Source Edition too. It’s just that there are some _extensions_ to the QML Profiler now only in the Enterprise edition, mainly of interest if you want to have a detailed look in the behavior of the SceneGraph, or the pixmap cache.

Lilian says:

I know that the QML Profiler is there in the open source version.
I agree with what Digia does but I still think that the additions to the QML Profiler should be available to everyone, it’s a core part.

Thomas Hartmann says:

Just see it as an additional feature that was paid by selling commercial licences and that would otherwise not exist.

Andre' says:

@Lilian: I am afraid your complaint does not make much sense to me. How are extensions to the QML Profiler different from the “commercial components” you suggest to create? It’s pretty much exactly that.

The QML Profiler and Designer have been created by payed people, with the money coming from commercial customers. Core parts are and always have been available in the Open Source version, they are usable and helpful, and are intended to stay there.

Nobody is taking away anything from you.

I am also not aware of any actual contributor who is unhappy with the setup. You can, of course try to prove me wrong by giving an example.

Yes, “They” want to make money, and I am very much in favour of that, because that money is used to pay _me_.
My kids need food on a regular base, and super markets over here do not hand out food for free.

@Muhammar: You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but to be blunt, I find your comment insulting.

My daily work on Qt and Qt Creator, payed by Digia from the money gathers, is almost exclusively also available in the Open Source version, as are, obviously, the parts I do on spare time. I believe the Open Source community gets are pretty good deal out of my activities. Some, if not most, of “my” parts of Creator would not exist and therefore also not be available as Open Source, simply because I lack the necessary infrastructure at home.

I see no reason to be ashamed, and I see no reason you can possibly have to demand that.

Lilian says:

Linux kernel was created mostly by payed people too(if you get what I’m saying)…
I am okay with the modifications, I thank Digia that it maintains this product. The stronger finance Digia has the better Qt might get…
But I’m still not satisfied that the QML Profiler addition(which is a core part) is closed to the open source community.
I don’t think this is the right way to go…
I am still gonna use Qt, but that makes me worry about it’s feature(the open source part)…
I think everyone has the right to talk about their concerns on this matter…
Again, at the moment that won’t stop me using Qt…

Andre' says:

What did you contribute to Qt?

Julien says:

I’m quite impressed with the pace of progress since the Digia took over the reins. I’m a user of the open-source version, and so evidently wish I had all the bells and whistles too. However, I recognize that this effort to monetize is what funds the improvements to the open-source version. And what improvements there have been!

The open-source version of Qt as it stands today is still the best Qt there’s ever been. The IDE is leaps and bounds better than the Designer days, and very competitive to other IDEs, QML is a wonderful asset, and that I was able to get my Windows app to work on Android with just a recompile is incredible to me.

If an absence of neat little extras is what funds the work for the open-source version, I’m for it.

Stefan says:

Are there any plans to “trickle down” some of these features to the open source version, after some time?

Max says:

It is said to read this discussion. It is all about money. And if we all want to keep Qt alive this is a valid way we have to accept. I’m and my company desided to go to the commerical license this year. (As a very small company) And we are pretty happy to see that there are small difference between the open source and commercial. For me it is a recognisation of Qt toward the customers that we pay.

Btw. aren’t that features or components? So Qt is doing what you recommended. No everything in the world is for free!

Steffen says:

The truth is Digia has been leeching Nokia’s money for years.

They bought Qt by a fraction of what Nokia paid for it, with the only interest to resell it for a bigger price in the future.

They don’t have employees but resources that they like to milk and dump.

Their business ethics are low to non-existent. I wouldn’t believe a word these unpleasable directors/managers are writing, specially the ones that have long forgotten how to implement any kind of software and are only being used by the ones above their rank anyway, possibly for a bigger paycheck.

Once they realize they can’t milk more money out of their farm, they will change their so called strategy to remain in control of their so called company, eg the owners who were recently laughably running out of money.

Karl Napf says:

> The truth is Digia has been leeching Nokia’s money for years.

How so? Digia did contract work for Nokia like lots of other companies, are you referring to that?

> They bought Qt by a fraction of what Nokia paid for it,
> with the only interest to resell it for a bigger price in the future.

Poor Nokia was ripped off by Digia? Seriously?

> They don’t have employees but resources that they like to milk and dump.

How does that differ from most other companies nowadays?

> Their business ethics are low to non-existent.

How does that differ from most other companies nowadays?

> I wouldn’t believe a word these unpleasable directors/managers
> are writing,

Wow, that author finds a lot of time to write software for a manager… Check the Qt Creator commit logs if you do not believe me.

> Once they realize they can’t milk more money out of their farm,
> they will change their so called strategy

I surely hope Digia management is smart enough to adapt their strategy if it does not work out.

> to remain in control of their so called company, eg the
> owners who were recently laughably running out of money.

No idea what you are talking about here…

RobNZ says:

I don’t agree with this.

Qt Creator is a jewel in the Qt crown, but it’s not the only one and it’s not the main one. I have a commercial license and I’m a prime mover for my company’s decision to pay for Qt; I can tell you that extra features in Qt Creator would have precisely zero effect on that decision.

In the meantime, Qt Creator is great for assisting new programmers to conquer Qt’s learning curve, it should be as featureful and just plain awesome as possible, to get new people hooked into the ecosystem.

Oh, and Steffen, I don’t know what your beef is, but you’re boring. Please go away.

Max says:

I agree.
But features is a nice to have. For example the chart library… That took effect on the decision…

HGH says:

I agree. These features will be more useful to novices than hardcore programmers who would eventually prefer to code it by hand anyway.

HGH says:

I thinkt here should a shortcut to open the devices options. Or some other means by which to connect/disconnect devices faster than it is now. Not always the devices are discovered and autoconnected on startup.

Sonu Lohani says:

Hello Digia,
Good Morning.
Its good to see a new version of Qt Creator with vast improvements in the Qt Quick Designer. You’re doing a good work by making the Qt better day-by-day. This is the great work by you after the android stuff. Will you be going to release this in open source stuff in future or keep it for the commercial users only? Anyway, again a great work by you.

Thanks

Be open do open.

Lilian says:

Don’t forget that the Android stuff was mostly done by Bogdan which doesn’t work or gets paid by Digia.

davide says:

a letdown, this will raise A LOT of flames in the Qt community, ruining the overall mood…
this will cause a fuss in the kde community as well, is it really worth it? the community will re-implement these tools in open-source projects anyway.
I think this isn’t the right road.

Stephane says:

Please all people moaning about Digia’s plan to make money.
First buy a license and support the QtProject then speak.

Of course Digia’s plan is to make money, in which world do you live in ? Pink world with flowers on top ? Get back to reality and have a look at apple, google and microsoft business model.
I prefer Qt in the hands of a strong company making money and investing in Qt, that being in hand of a foundation without any money and investment !

I’d like to thank Digia for their work since they took Qt over Nokia, it was a real challenge, and I think they succeeded in having all people contributing to QtProject ! (Necessitas, QtSerialPort module, and much more I’m sure I do not even know about :p)

PS: sorry for my non native English.

Max says:

*agree*

Roman says:

Without a company behind, the Qt develpment would be dead, soner or later. We should be happy that Qt development is supported by a company like Digia.

7 says:

IMO the problem is not that Digia is trying to make money, every company does that, the problem is how they are doing it…

Let’s face it, commercial pricing is ridiculous for independent developers, there is no flexibility, and what is worse, as of lately, Digia appears to strongly push to make money on free open-source software, which is … kind of low.

It is understandable that some independent users feel uncomfortable for the framework they rely on being bestowed to a company with such practices.

My personal opinion is that Qt should have remained property of trolltech and the company should never have sold out to nokia in the first place. Qt under nokia was bad, but at least nokia had no intent of exploiting Qt so senselessly, digia gave a new hope to Qt by dedicating to support ios and android, but that would have happened a long time ago if trolltech didn’t sell out, and now is the inconsiderate and profit hungry corporate entity that is in charge.

Stefan says:

Last time I checked the prices for Unity 3D they were playing in the same league as Qt.

And there is no free LGPL version of Unity 3D.
And they charge extra for support.

Xamarain (Mono) also sells an Enterprise edition in the same price league as Qt and offers additional components for money. And support again does cost extra.

If you want to see Qt succeed, then you have to understand that Qt/Digia needs a sustainable business model.

Since Qt development is done in the open the rough costs for development are no secret.
Anybody volunteering to raise this amount of money via kickstarter? I mean if successful it would be the most successful kickstarter project ever.

And a side note about Trolltech:

Trolltech was never profitable and mostly living from money back from the .com boom.
Do you thing they “sold out” to Nokia just for the fun? Trolltech without major changes to the business model, would be bankrupt by now.

Ynod says:

People also tend to forget that it was Nokia who changed Qt open source version to LGPL. From my very limited perspective, that was one of the biggest and most important contributions to open source usage on last decade.

Seriously, that was a huge thing, and we all get to benefit from that for years to come.

Karl Napf says:

> Digia appears to strongly push to make money on free open-source
> software, which is … kind of low.

Qt is open source software that is heavily sponsored by Digia. How else can a company justify spending money on something other than to make more money?

> It is understandable that some independent users feel uncomfortable
> for the framework they rely on being bestowed to a company with
> such practices.

I do not see how that is different form what Trolltech did. The main difference is of course that back then Qt was GPL/commercial while it is GPL/LGPL/commercial now, so you as a user have _way_ more freedom in how you use Qt today.

> My personal opinion is that Qt should have remained property of
> trolltech and the company should never have sold out to nokia in
> the first place.

Wishful thinking does not help anyone. My guess is that the offer Nokia made was too good to resist, which would mean that it was way more than the companies net worth back then. That in turn would mean that Trolltech would be bankrupt by now;-)

> Qt under nokia was bad,

Seriously? Nokia did some great things that Trolltech could never have done: Adding the LGPL license and going open governance are the two big things that spring to mind here.

> but at least nokia had no intent of exploiting Qt so senselessly,

Many people argue that Nokia’s push for mobile devices did hurt Qt on desktop and many called that move senseless back then.

> digia gave a new hope to Qt by dedicating to support ios and android,

Agreed… not to mention that they pay enough developers to keep up the pace across the board.

> but that would have happened a long time ago if trolltech didn’t sell out,

In my alternate universe Trolltech was bought by some database company, is now the new standard UI framework in Java and all remaining C++ users are getting sued for using intellectual property that is licensed to Java developers only.

If you make up with stories, at least make up with good ones…

> and now is the inconsiderate and profit hungry corporate entity that is in charge.

Show me any corporate entity that is a) still around and b) not profit hungry.

Seriously: Where is the surprise that a company that invests heavily into something wants to get money back? Where is the surprise here?

7 says:

@Karl Napf – digia do not sponsor Qt, they exploit it commercially, and it doesn’t give money to Qt developers out if its pocket, it just gives some of what those people made while pocketing the rest
And by “making money on free open source software” I mean not only Qt but also boot 2 qt, which is pretty much a cut-down android…

Nokia paid ridiculous money for Qt, no one denies that. However, this is not the case with digia, which paid scraps for it. I don’t argue nokia did a good thing with LGPL, but under nokia there was no future for Qt as a mobile platform framework, not to mention the years wasted on the failed experiment qt quick 1

And your alternate universe must be a rather retarded one (ironic, considering it is you who advices to “at least make up good stories), no one will buy qt just for the UI, which was morally outdated and just a small fraction of the entire framework, much less the rest of your “good story”. Trolltech could have made in on their own, they had a good product, they only had to work on its popularity. But I guess bad management will always chose to quickly and painlessly sell out… the quick buck…

I find it preposterous that so many people blindly and vigorously defend every bad decision that has plagued Qt ever since the nokia acquisition, despite the many obvious mistakes, terrible waste of resource and lack of an innovative direction. Fanboyism much?

Karl Napf says:

There as very, very few companies out there paying people out of there own pocket. Those that do tend to close down pretty soon. So of course Digia is exploiting Qt commercially. Shareholders want a return on their investments. That is how our world operates, changing the system might be a good thing, but outside of the scope of this discussion.

I have no trouble whatsoever with Digia basically “selling convenience” like Qt2boot (convenience of not having to strip down android) or some QML editor (convenience of graphically designing stuff instead of programming). Selling essential things is something I would mind a lot.

I do agree that there was no more future for Qt in Nokia. But I do appreciate the work Nokia put into the product and Nokia selling the whole thing for cheap instead of just firing everybody in that department. Of course selling makes sense from a business perspective as you get a bit of money instead of having to pay severance packages, but still Nokia could have done far worse than sell Qt to Digia.

Am I a fanboy for saying that Nokia was not all bad? They focused on what they needed, which was really bad for the desktop, but they also did open governance and the LGPL option. Overall I think that is a positive balance. So far Digia did not do anything massively unexpected (wanting to make money out of Qt is expected:-), and they focus more on stuff I care about. So let’s see where they are going and what else they will come up with to make money.

HGH says:

I think there should be a shortcut to open the device options or some other means by which to connect/disconnect devices faster than it is now. Not always the devices are discovered and autoconnected on startup.

Morgan says:

First off – great work, these new tools look very good! Being able to quickly design qml interfaces will come in extremely handy.

However, I do think that depending on the amount of features in the designer that trickle down to the open source edition, Digia may be making a slight mistake here. Besides offending the community , I think that a tool like this could really make or break a great deal of developers’ interest in Qt.. A great Ui tool that doesn’t use java for android will surely garner much attention. However, depending on the features available for free, it might not attract as many if it costs and there is a free android alternative available.. And if developers do not make money with qt they won’t be able to afford further licenses.

However, I fully respect the decision on the profiler – if you’re really worried that much about speed than you should buy the commercial version and the support that comes along with it.

Just a few thoughts from a student who can’t afford the commercial version as of yet but is an avid user of qt.

Those of you complaining bitterly – maybe youknow more than I do (I haven’t had much time to play around with new versions if qt/qtcreator as of late) but I didn’t get the impression of any commitment of how much of these features will be in the open source edition. We may actually see many of the simpler features of the designer.

David says:

I’m trying to push for Qt commercial adoption at my day job, and this is _bad_ news.

A major advantage of Qt over the other proprietary UI toolkits is the wide pool of expertise due to the Open Source usage.

The value in Qt Commercial specifically is:

1. Ready access to engineers that know their stuff
2. The ability to file reasonable feature/enhancement requests that matter to us.

Both of these help me build software faster and better.

Digia creating great tools and then disallowing the formation of an expert pool of users does _not_ help me build software faster and better.

That’s my two cents.

The strategy of “commercial” and “community” software versions with divergent feature sets seems like a good idea on paper, but does not seem to work in the real world.

Andre' says:

That’s an interesting line of argumentation.

I believe, however, that your fear is unfounded, as there is practical evidence that it works nevertheless:

People are right now using widely different versions of Qt Creator in production. The difference in feature sets between, say, Qt Creator 2.2 and 2.8 is huge, larger by more than a magnitude than the difference between 2.8 Open Source and 2.8 Enterprise. Different Linux distrubutions ship modified versions of Qt Creator on a regular base, some of them rather heavily modified, Ubuntu e.g. adds plugins of their own.

Still, despite of all those differences, we do have the expert pool of Qt Creator users you are referring to. Different feature sets did not prevent its formation.

Thomas Hartmann says:

Please keep in mind that we are talking about features in the tooling that add convenience and that have a very flat learning curve.

Qt and the knowledge about Qt itself and the API is not “fragmented” at all.

[...] Qt Enterprise customers find packages in the Customer Portal. With Qt Creator 2.8 we introduce a few extensions to the Enterprise packages for special use cases regarding Qt Quick. For more information see our blog post on Qt Creator for Qt Enterprise users. [...]

Flavio says:

Some people have a strange idea of how Open Source works. In a word, you don’t get to enjoy million of lines of code for free. Digia has to be sustainable or there will be no Qt at all.

If your ideology forbids “evil” commercial components start opening your wallet and donate significant amount of money to keep everything open sourced.

someone says:

OMG

I look at this feature and for me it’s simple a core thing, not a thing that can be a extra.

Continue making decisions like this one and you will lose all the people working free for you.

someone says:

QtCreator is just a tool to promote/sell Qt, is a tool to lock people to Qt and then make people buy Qt.

But Digia think that you should even pay for tool (QtCreator), come on…

It’s in the Qt that the differentiation should be, not in the tools.

JKSH says:

>> “QtCreator… is a tool to lock people to Qt and
>> then make people buy Qt.”
Don’t make false accusations. Qt Creator is NOT required to write Qt programs — you can use other free IDEs like KDevelop or Eclipse.

>> “But Digia think that you should even pay for tool
>> (QtCreator)”
Qt Creator is free. The QML profiler is free. Digia is selling PLUGINS to these free tools. You can make and sell plugins too if you want.

>> “It’s in the Qt that the differentiation should be,
>> not in the tools.”
Why do you say that one can be differentiated but not the other?

someone says:

The main thing is Qt, for tools make help making use of it (so promote and help selling Qt) like QtCreator they should be no differentiation at all, even id it’s a plugin.

someone says:

>> >> “QtCreator… is a tool to lock people to Qt and
>> >> then make people buy Qt.”
>> Don’t make false accusations. Qt Creator is NOT
>> required to write Qt programs — you can use other
>> free IDEs like KDevelop or Eclipse.

You are doing a ugly thing, let’s look at the complete phrase:
“QtCreator is just a tool to promote/sell Qt, is a tool to lock people to Qt and then make people buy Qt.”

What I’m saying in that QtCreator is a tool to promote facilitate the use of Qt, so with the existence of a tool like QtCreator it will make people want Qt even more, so they will buy Qt.

So Digia should distribute the QtCreator with all the functionality as free (as a promoter of Qt) and with that get licenses for Qt, not trying to milk everything.

Trying to milk even the tools like QtCreator to me seems a huge mistake.

JKSH says:

Sorry, I misunderstood your original post when you said “lock people to Qt”. It sounded like you were talking about Vendor Lock-In (which is a bad thing).

But anyway, I don’t agree with your business strategy assessment. Companies buy commercial Qt licenses for these reasons: Intellectual property protection, legal protection, guaranteed technical support, embedded/real-time OS support, and commercial module access (Qt Commercial Charts). Companies/people that don’t need these won’t buy a commercial license, no matter how awesome Qt Creator is. Right?

I guess the core issue here is this: You don’t like Digia’s decision because you don’t get to use these tools for free. I admit I would’ve loved to get them for free (who doesn’t?), but I think it’s perfectly fair: Digia paid staff to create these plugins, so it’s fair for Digia to recoup their investment. Don’t forget, Digia needs to be economically sustainable, otherwise they can’t support LGPL Qt anymore.

If you really think this is a bad business decision, contact Digia’s business strategists and discuss it with them.

stereomatching says:

Qt is a good library, I am surprise to see how fast those
new features add into Qt since Digia take over it(hope that bugs fix could be faster too).Every software companies need money to pay their employees, hire more programmers, QA to enhance the ecosystem of Qt.Hope that the business model of Digia going well, then we could have a better Qt, which come with more features and stable.

mxttie says:

great stuff!
also, people are whining too much, don’t let that disencourage you!

Danny says:

Busy couple of weeks!

Thorbjørn Lindeijer says:

It’s sad for me to read about these nice features that will unfortunately be out of my reach, as somebody who only uses Qt for (free software) hobby projects.

I understand the need to make money, but I hope in the future you will find more “Enterprise-specific” features to monetize rather than the convenience stuff that everybody would benefit from. Though I have to admit I have no idea what kind of features those would be…

Maybe it is time for an alternative cheaper commercial license, that includes only the extended Qt Creator and relies on LGPL Qt otherwise? That may keep things affordable for the hobbyists.

Karl says:

I have used a Qt with a commerical license since the Trolltech days. I have never been happier with the advancements in the technology and the quality of the support that Qt has seen under Digia.

The qt-project is a great and wonderful thing as well. But I have no problems with Digia making money off the efforts of their developers.

Commenting closed.