Lars Knoll

The Qt Company Introduces a Unified Website and 20€/$25 Monthly Indie Mobile Package

Published Tuesday September 16th, 2014
43 Comments on The Qt Company Introduces a Unified Website and 20€/$25 Monthly Indie Mobile Package
Posted in Uncategorized

We have a lot of news to share with you today.

In June 2014, we announced via a stock exchange release that a new company entity for Qt under the parent company Digia Plc. would be formed. Today, I am very happy to be able to announce the new name as “The Qt Company”. Sweet and simple.

With The Qt Company as a separate entity, we will be able to put more focus on our Qt business operations to better position our beloved Qt technology in the software industry. We will now begin to use “The Qt Company” as our umbrella to market and promote Qt. The Qt Company has been registered in all countries where we do business and have offices.

One Unified Site |

In addition, we are today also launching the first phase of our unified Qt web site that I talked about in my blog post a month ago. We are launching this new website under the new domain This new website will serve as the main digital communication channel for everything relating to the Qt product. The plan is to combine the and web pages and online communities into one happy Qt world. In this first phase, we have started to redirect traffic from to You will also notice that under we have unified our package download options where our open source and commercial versions can be accessed from one location. In the next phase, we are planning to begin to move over content from to link directly from the new site under the “Developer” section. More information on that transition will come soon.

Another thing to take note of is our fresh new design and layout, plus a slightly updated Qt logo, which I hope you will like as much as we all do. We put a significant amount of effort to make sure that we highlight all the great things about our technology. Our goal with the new web site was to convey a simple, yet powerful message to our varying target audiences as to why everyone should develop with Qt. I hope we succeeded.

A great new offering for Indie Mobile Developers

Many of you have been asking for it, and we have listened. On top of the new web site and company name, today, we are also releasing a brand new Indie Mobile package targeting Android, iOS and WinRT development. You get the Qt libraries, Qt Creator, a commercial license and full development and deployment rights to the Android stores, App Store and Windows Marketplace (Note: the package doesn’t include support, commercial add-on features or Qt Cloud Services). The new package is available for the price of 20€/$25 per month on I hope this package will fill the needs of many of the independent developers in the community.

Qt 5.3.2 and Qt Creator 3.2.1

Finally, I would also like to mention that earlier today we did a Qt 5.3.2 and Qt Creator 3.2.1 release, rounding up the news we are having for today. Make sure to read those blog posts as well.

We hope that you have enjoyed our day of Qt announcements. Have a look at our new website and please let us know what you think. If you’re using Qt 5.3, make sure you get the update to 5.3.2. If you are an indie mobile app developer, you just have to grab our new Indie Mobile package. Download it now. We look forward to your comments.

Do you like this? Share it
Share on LinkedInGoogle+Share on FacebookTweet about this on Twitter

Posted in Uncategorized


Cam Mannett says:

The Indie Mobile package sounds absolutely brilliant, slight problem – I’m a desktop software developer. Why am I being punished? I WANT to give Qt money, but the current commercial offering is too poor value-for-money relative to the LGPL.

Slartibart says:

Everything that costs any money at all has poor value-for-money compared to LGPL 😛

Patrick says:

Not really. I was just looking for the pricing today since I remembered there was a ‘indie’ version and was disappointed it was mobile-only.

I wanted to release a free util for windows as an all-in-one executable for windows rather then a huge bundle of files with installer (a huge benefit for the commercial version), yet I don’t want to release the thousand lines of code that runs it simply because the code isn’t in a clean or maintainable condition.

I ended up ripping out the Qt functionality and just used std/boost stuff since it’s just a console app, but this sort of thing tends to push people towards poco and such if they want “friendlier” low-level stuff, rather then staying within the Qt stack for everything.

Marco says:

If I understood correctly, Community package developers can’t publish their apps to the application stores? :O


Lars Knoll Lars Knoll says:

You can use the community package to deploy to app stores given that you follow the license restrictions given by the (L)GPL and these don’t conflict with policies of the app store.

HGH says:

I think people would be glad to read an article about that.

Timo Skytta says:

I wish the QT company and you personally all the best and may you continue to be successful !

joe says:

“You get the Qt libraries, Qt Creator, a commercial license and full development and deployment rights to the Android stores, App Store and Windows Marketplace”

Can you explain me what it means?
I thought that I already had that with the open source version.
please don’t tell me that I have to pay 20€/$25 to upload my app to android store.
what is the difference of this version with the open source version?
thank you

joe says:

Lars Knoll has already answered my question higher:

“You can use the community package to deploy to app stores given that you follow the license restrictions given by the (L)GPL and these don’t conflict with policies of the app store.”

it seens ok for the community package.

I see the good point the of the commercial version (support, commercial add-on features and Qt Cloud) but I dont really see the point of Indie Mobile Package:
Except the fact that we help the Qt project, In which case that can be useful?

suy says:

Is as simple (and complicated) as this: the (L)GPL imposes you some things. The stores (Apple/Google/etc) impose you some other things. If your application needs to modify Qt, or link statically to Qt, you might be in trouble. Or not. Or you might need to ask a lawyer to be sure. Buying a license might simplify your life. And any advice you find on the net might not be sufficient, since to be 100% sure, some things might need to be tested on court, etc.

hjlee says:

I can’t understand exactly the word “monthly”
How long do I have to pay?
For development period?
or Selling (app) period?

Tuukka Turunen Tuukka Turunen says:

@hjlee: It is as long as you use the licensed software. After your App is in store you do not need to continue monthly payments, unless you want to make new versions of the App (or other Apps).

Reg31 says:

In the Qt Open Source license, you can’t statically link QT to your application. And in the Indie Package, you don’t have the commercial Add-ons.

So it’s a kind of in between license from Commercial to Open source.

Steve Walker says:

The LGPL licenses do not prohibit statically-linked, closed-source applications. You just need to make the application’s pre-link object-files available so they can be relinked with updated versions of the library.

Sohail says:

Thank you guys so much for this change. When I work on my next mobile project, Qt will be my choice for sure. Right now I’m only using desktop.

That being the case, I do also want to echo that you need something similar for desktop. The pricing is fine for that.

I want to congratulate you on this new, bold move. I hope you won’t leave the desktop guys out in the cold though. Let me give you money!!!

The indie package is really welcome, though of course if I would actually publish a mobile application based on Qt I would also love to use the Qt Quick Compiler and Purchasing APIs, in which case Qt’s price is again outside of my budget. :-(

In the meantime, I’m a desktop developer and would support Qt if a similar Indie Desktop license was available!

On desktop you can distribute the shared libraries (DLL/dylib/so) under the LGPL and it’s not a problem. There’s plenty of hard disk space and RAM. This works fine for commercial sofware developers who have not purchased a commercial Qt license.

On mobile platforms, however, space and memory is tight and you want to link statically. Doing this under the LPGL is a headeache* for commercial software developers who have not purchased a commercial Qt license. This is why this new Indie Mobile license makes sense.

* Either you provide your source code (big no-no) or you provide the object files so that your customer can relink with a different version of Qt (and that’s assuming you the customer will use the same configuration options you used, otherwise your Qt and his Qt are ABI-incompatible).

Leo says:

>> On mobile platforms, however, space and memory is tight and you want to link statically.

Not really. The difference in space is trivial and mobile devices have enough of it. The difference in memory usage is also not huge. What I really want is to use the qt quick compiler as that will have a far greater impact on performance than linking statically. Unfortunately for a small non profit like us we cannot spend 450/month for our developers to get the full license. Too bad.

Kim says:

I agree. As an independent developer, I cant afford $150/month. I would spend $25/month if Qt Quick Compiler and Qt Purchasing was included.

roi says:

Agree with you, would be much more attractive if qml compiler and Qt Purchasing included

Renato Dias Viana says:

Qt Purchase is essential for the successfull of the Indie License, Digia should rethink this and put this feature inside the indie license.

Lilian says:

Lately, some great decisions from Digia…
I think the open source community will be happy about it too.

Side note, I think the documentation should be easily accessible from the first time you load up the site(A link on the top?).

john says:

But why ?
Was already taken ?

Yes, this is kinda troll
#OhWait #Troll like in Trolltech !

Morgan says:

While I greatly appreciate the addition of an indie package, I find the choice of what to include in it rather interesting.

The whole point, it seems to me, of an indie package would be to support indie developers to progress to the point where they could afford the full commercial licence; why restrict to a subset of supported platforms and not include charts/visualizations/keyboard etc? I wouldn’t expect to see all features, such as those with direct costs like cloud and support, but these options are what could sell an indie on using Qt.

In my humble opinion it’s a bit disappointing the indie license doesn’t provide all the tools that could really make Qt a more competitive option – I’d love to see it take off as a platform for mobile development in a big way which QQCompiler & charts could help with.

And in regards to people’s questions about the difference – the right to change source code is a big one, and I’m assuming you can do static builds which will make iOS…

dslsynth says:

I think the Indie license is a good start. Its much more affordable compared to the commercial license and I am pretty sure that Digia and/or the new Qt Company will listen and make an even better indie offers in the future. Consider it a starting point and a way to test the market to see how it works out for people (and Digia).

Given the price difference there have to be a difference in contents as well. Removing support from the indie license means that its fairly free for Digia to offer. Same thing with the cloud support. Removing the commercial add-ons from the Indie license means that the normal commercial license owners feel they get something for their money as well.

What is missing is – as written in a different comment – is desktop support and optional license features (support, add-ons, cloud, qml compiler, charts, …).

Will I get an Indie license? Sure! As soon as I actually get access to a mobile development hardware (which is not the case currently).

cosmam says:

In looking into Qt licensing before, I saw that you couldn’t switch from the LGPL license to the Commercial license without working something out with Qt, price-wise (at least I think I remember that). Does something similar hold for Inde to Commercial?

As a for instance, let’s say that I make a game, and stick with the Indie license. Later on, I decide that adding purchasing or cloud support is important for me – how do I go about upgrading?

Tuukka Turunen Tuukka Turunen says:

@cosmam: Yes, you can upgrade.

Tec says:

There are still issues to be addressed, but this really is a great step forward for both Qt and Digia as it’s caretaker.

After the GPL3 announcement Qt looked like it was dead to commercial development. Now with realistic pricing, I’m thinking ‘why bother with anything besides the commercial license?’

There are still kinks. Like how there apparently is no such thing as an ‘indie desktop’ developer. Or how all new features to are declared ‘enterprise.’ But still, a great move on Digia’s part, to be applauded. And purchased!

How about expanding the offer — say an Indie $50/mn for all platforms? Or a ‘no support’ discount? Or simply Unified Qt [all platform] with revenue based pricing, period.

Drew says:

The idea of the indie licence is great. But it does not actually provide access to any of the functionality that currently comes with the commercial licence – Charts, Data Visualisation, Enterprise Controls. It’s a fairly severe limitation that Qt/QML cannot create even simple 2D graphs (provided by Qt Charts).

Jan Faroe says:

I agree with Cam Mannett. I am a independant desktop developer as well. The main reason for wanting to be a licensed user is to be able to escalate the pending Mac OS issues to commercial support.

dslsynth says:

I am one of those indie developers lobbying recently for something quite similar to the new Indie license so I am very happy with Digias new offering.

The idea with the most basic commercial license offering is that it will not cost Digia very much to offer such a license and it will function as a potential crowd funding of Qt development as well.

Qt is now a much more financially realistic offering for mobile developers and not just rich companies. Imagine someone with a food budget less than the commercial fees and you get the idea!

There are room for improvement though:
(1) Affordable desktop licenses are needed too.
(2) There is no Linux mobile/tablet license.
(3) The Ubuntu platform is progressing towards shared tablet and desktop binaries so a solution is needed here too.
(3) Modular license offers: Let developers pick what they want of cloud, support, all add-ons or subsets of the add-ons (qml compiler, charts, purchasing, …).

CarelC says:

I think the website looks great and I understand that it is “the first phase”. I do however find a lot of broken or empty links especially in the qt-certification part ( which is a bit annoying. I have reported a few of these using the “Help us improve” button.

Perhaps a disclaimer should be added to the site to state that it is still work in progress or something.

With that said, well done and I think if everything comes together it will be awesome.

abcPlus says:

Very nice website. Only thing I dislike are the links style: light green font on white background make them unreadable.

Dheerendra says:

This is really good start in new licensing model. This will surely help independent developers community. It may be good to see some licensing model extended towards embedded linux as well.

Francisco says:

Can anyone provide a simple clarification regarding the following?

At there’s a table where “Mobile application distribution through public application stores” isn’t checked for “Community” backed Qt.

Does that make sense? As far as I know, if I use LGPL Qt, I can distribute it’s binaries along with my application right? So, what’s left that would block the release of an App that uses a dynamically linked LGPL library in any store? Having to bundle it in an APK for example? Does LGPL libs conflict with public store development aggreement? Or is it just the case that the missing check box is being misleading?

Tim Day says:

My understanding for iOS at least was that the app store only accepts static linked binaries (so the the answer to “what’s left that would block the release of an App that uses a dynamically linked LGPL library in any store?” would be “Apple”)

However at (July 2013) there is some discussion “it remains to be seen whether Apple will accept applications that bundle dylibs into the iOS App Store.”

So who knows…

Francisco says:

Thanks Tim

Reza says:

In new website you say that will be embedded in’s Developers section, my question is the offline binary files that currently is in Download section of qt-project still be accessible?

Tuukka Turunen Tuukka Turunen says:

@Reza: Yes, the offline binaries are still there. Online installer is very convenient when one has a suitable network connection.

HGH says:

WoW! Not that facebook-pornsite-lose50poundsinaweek-wallofpicsandtext style, please! I really want to find the original inventor of that website style and teach him a lesson!
Well I hope the new site will have better links because there a few things that are really difficult to find if you don’t know where they are like snapshot builds, bug reporting, some documentation, also the blog posts should be sorted in a index etc.

Ville says:

This indie licencing looks very interesting. Don’t have any experience with the qml compiler, but I think I could pay another 20€ for having it.

I hope something like feature picking with some reasonable pricing will be enabled. One would be the (Enterprise) support, which I don’t need.

dslsynth says:

Acceptable price levels are very dependent on ones own finances. Twenty euros is a lot of money for me, actually.

A far more attractive solution would be to provide the QML Compiler as part of the open source package and make modular licensing offers for the other commercial add-on features and support.

Lucijan says:

Great news! The new indie license has its price set just right. One thing that I think is still missing is information on the minimum amount of months for the license. I am assuming it’s still 3 months as I was told? It would be nice if it were clearly stated on the web page.

I am also happy about the unification of the web sites. The only minor criticism I have is the choice of font and the light-green color, both of which make it hard to read.

All in all, I’m very excited about working with Qt in the future. Now if only we got the ability to customize the dropdown list part of the Qt Quick Controls Combobox…

Commenting closed.

Get started today with Qt Download now