PDA

View Full Version : Apple to Integrate 'QuickTime Pro' Features in Snow Leopard?




MacRumors
Feb 9, 2009, 02:49 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/02/09/apple-to-integrate-quicktime-pro-features-in-snow-leopard/)

The latest Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard seeds suggest that Apple may be eliminating the 'QuickTime Pro' upgrade that is currently offered as a $29.99 (http://store.apple.com/us/product/D3380Z/A) upgrade to Mac users.

Apple has long reserved several additional features for QuickTime Pro that are not available in the standard QuickTime Player. Some of these features include editing (cut, copy, paste), exporting to different codecs, and saving web QuickTime movies to hard drive. In a standard Mac OS X installation, these features are dimmed out in the QuickTime Player application:


http://images.macrumors.com/article/2009/02/09/033958-quicktimepro.jpg
QuickTime Player in 10.5

In the latest Snow Leopard builds, however, all features are reported to be fully enabled. In addition, the "Buy QuickTime Pro" and "Registration" links have been completely eliminated as menu options and the registration control panel also removed from the System Preferences.

These changes suggest that Apple may finally be incorporating all the Pro features into the standard QuickTime installation. Apple has announced that it would be revamping QuickTime in Snow Leopard with the introduction of QuickTime X. Apple will be incorporating technology from the iPhone into QuickTime X to optimize support for modern audio and video formats.

Article Link: Apple to Integrate 'QuickTime Pro' Features in Snow Leopard? (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/02/09/apple-to-integrate-quicktime-pro-features-in-snow-leopard/)



Saladinos
Feb 9, 2009, 02:52 AM
About time!

There are hundreds of free apps that do this anyway. Unless it's at a pro level like Final Cut, there shouldn't be a need to charge for video software.

Alucardx03
Feb 9, 2009, 02:53 AM
That would be fantastic. I think we pay enough to buy the computers as it is. An additional $30 could buy a case or other accessory.

Beric
Feb 9, 2009, 02:58 AM
Sounds good. I've never paid for QT Pro anyway, just used free apps that did the same thing.

DMann
Feb 9, 2009, 02:58 AM
Things are looking better all the time!

Gamoe
Feb 9, 2009, 02:59 AM
It would be about time!

Quicktime has been part of the Mac OS (http://developer.apple.com/DOCUMENTATION/MacOSX/Conceptual/OSX_Technology_Overview/MacOSXOverview/chapter_2_section_2.html) even before Mac OS X, and as such, I have always found Apple's charging for the so-called "Pro" features contradictory and rather reprehensible.

fabio.c
Feb 9, 2009, 02:59 AM
That would be soo kind from apple....
I've been buying quicktime pro since 2001 and I always felt it like a kind of silly "tax", given all other much more complex features you get for free...

DARKJ3DI
Feb 9, 2009, 03:04 AM
The are probably just removing it for the development builds?:confused::confused:

motulist
Feb 9, 2009, 03:09 AM
I sure hope so. The fact that Macs can't do this stuff right out of the box is embarrassing.

yetanotherdave
Feb 9, 2009, 03:11 AM
I sure hope so. The fact that Macs can't do this stuff right out of the box is embarrassing.

iMovie will do a lot of it...

BWhaler
Feb 9, 2009, 03:12 AM
This is long overdue.

talkingfuture
Feb 9, 2009, 03:13 AM
Great news.

emulator
Feb 9, 2009, 03:13 AM
That would be soo kind from apple....
I've been buying quicktime pro since 2001 and I always felt it like a kind of silly "tax", given all other much more complex features you get for free...
you, and others if any, should not have, and apple have stopped this stupidity in 2002. in reality, they did not even care as they have never blacklisted the Core serial.

motulist
Feb 9, 2009, 03:19 AM
iMovie will do a lot of it...

But imovie isn't a media player. The fact that Macs don't have a built in media player able to do the most basic of tasks like full screen playback is just embarrassing for OS X.

bcortens
Feb 9, 2009, 03:23 AM
But imovie isn't a media player. The fact that Macs don't have a built in media player able to do the most basic of tasks like full screen playback is just embarrassing for OS X.

Actually the free version of Quicktime has been able to do fullscreen playback for a while now, I can't remember if it was with 7 or 6.something that it was introduced but its been available for a while.
Though I do agree that most of the "pro" features should have been available for free for a while as well...

princigalli
Feb 9, 2009, 03:24 AM
I'm waiting for Quicktime to solve some essential problems with encoding. There are still some quality issues in some formats, and Quicktime integrates color space information in 264 files that can make your life hell sometimes.

arn
Feb 9, 2009, 03:25 AM
The are probably just removing it for the development builds?:confused::confused:

While anything's possible, Apple's previous development builds have always led directly into gold master builds. They don't make feature changes right before they ship to the public.

arn

gusious
Feb 9, 2009, 03:27 AM
Finally....:rolleyes:

Stuart in Oz
Feb 9, 2009, 03:31 AM
A great move, and well and truly due.

Now if they can just improve the terrible h.264 encoding...

matthewlesh
Feb 9, 2009, 03:39 AM
Wow.. that's great.. very unexpected from Apple.. i guess it's a way to get people to upgrade to Snow Leopard maybe.. that or their being nice.

That said it's always been extremely easy to just find a serial online. [Not that i'd every do such a thing.]

Truffy
Feb 9, 2009, 03:40 AM
To be honest, the only QT Pro that I have came 'free' with FCS. Admittedly, that came in at a little more than $30, but hey-ho. :D

TheReef
Feb 9, 2009, 03:45 AM
I bought Quicktime Pro a few years back, glad I (hopefully) won't have to be buying it again for Quicktime X as users upgrading from 6 to 7 did.

stephenli
Feb 9, 2009, 03:53 AM
Wow.. that's great.. very unexpected from Apple.. i guess it's a way to get people to upgrade to Snow Leopard maybe.. that or their being nice.
.....

Finally. Its great anyway.
(I really want to upgrade, but I am using a Quad G5:(:(:()

netdog
Feb 9, 2009, 04:07 AM
It would seem to be worth a lot more to Apple to establish H.264 as the de facto standard, knocking .wmv out of the way. I expect that we will see this unleashed by Apple on the Windows world as well.

ZrSiO4-Zircon
Feb 9, 2009, 04:17 AM
Ah, I remember using BTV Pro as a QTPro substitute :p
Then I found other free, more up-to-date software that did so much more.
But offering QTPro as standard would be a nice alternative to little apps that won't necessarily get supported through the years.

princigalli
Feb 9, 2009, 04:18 AM
It would seem to be worth a lot more to Apple to establish H.264 as the de facto standard, knocking .wmv out of the way. I expect that we will see this unleashed by Apple on the Windows world as well.

This can only happen when 264 QT files will play properly on all systems and even if your computer is not the fastest. Also, colors should not look different on different computers, or with your FCP color simulation on or off. Until then, WMV remains the only reliable widespread video distribution standard.

Pandaboots
Feb 9, 2009, 04:20 AM
I'd say this one is true...I upgraded to Pro over a year ago and wondered why I never had to renew it..Now we know.

Bakafish
Feb 9, 2009, 04:22 AM
I believe the reason they broke out that charge was so they could account for joint licensing agreements. There was other people's IP in there and they wanted to be payed for content creation (try converting a raw file to MP3 for example, IIRC you can't in QT as they didn't want to deal with the licensing fees.) By charging for QT Pro they could separate out any associated revenue as opposed to having to pay out for every copy of OS X they shipped. I imagine that they have renegotiated or will drop some of the older codecs and technologies that are no longer relevant. It is good that it is on by default, but it would have made OS X more costly to have done so in the past, and you may be paying for it now as well.

colmaclean
Feb 9, 2009, 04:27 AM
I guess they're trying to justify the price tag for 10.6 by adding some tangible benefits.

Can you imagine the average punter paying $80 or whatever for an OS that looks pretty much the same as its predecessor apart from apparently being more efficient 'under the hood'?

Ubuntu
Feb 9, 2009, 04:31 AM
Wow.. that's great.. very unexpected from Apple.. i guess it's a way to get people to upgrade to Snow Leopard maybe.. that or their being nice.

That said it's always been extremely easy to just find a serial online. [Not that i'd every do such a thing.]

I must admit that I had to. I originally purchased Quicktime Pro, and then suddenly it locked up and went back to the original Quicktime. The digital download key was no longer available (after two months?) and Apple support did nothing. No way I was going to pay twice for the app that should be free.

isgoed
Feb 9, 2009, 04:47 AM
As a developer all the Quicktime pro functionality is just accessible. The pro fee only opens up this capabilities to quicktime-player, which is kind of a weird construction. The testimonial is from all the freeware and shareware apps that simply use quicktime to copy, paste and export movie files.

iMacmatician
Feb 9, 2009, 04:51 AM
Great news, and it's about time too.

Dagless
Feb 9, 2009, 05:02 AM
About time! Sometimes I just want to glue or cut apart quick video files, I'd rather not jump into iMovie just for that.

alexbates
Feb 9, 2009, 05:23 AM
That would be great. I have never felt the need to purchase this and am glad that of will be standard on Snow Leopard.

MacSamurai
Feb 9, 2009, 05:38 AM
Sounds great! Just hope they don't increase the snow leopard price up 30 bucks :) j/k they would never do that to us...

Bentron
Feb 9, 2009, 05:43 AM
We have Pro on our iMac. I mainly use it for keeping an always accessible HD trailer that I'll watch more than once. I'm glad it'll be the new standard, it's overdue.

colonels1020
Feb 9, 2009, 05:47 AM
About time! With all the pro features enabled for free and the new support for "modern" codecs, Quicktime will be the best player out there! :D

haravikk
Feb 9, 2009, 05:58 AM
Sweet, Quicktime will finally will be back on par with Movie Player from OS 7!
I mean seriously, the fact they made features we've had for over a decade "Pro" in the first-place was just plain ridiculous! And yet, Movie Player's export options are still superior to Quicktime Pro 7.6's!?

Quicktime is one of the most badly mishandled of Apple's software offerings, I just hope this new "Quicktime X" has better playback etc. as well, as I've been really disappointed in Quicktime for a long while now; mainly because it ain't so quick.

koobcamuk
Feb 9, 2009, 06:27 AM
It's a shame I can't get a refund on my purchase though. Oh well.

numbersyx
Feb 9, 2009, 06:33 AM
Excellent move by Apple which will go far in spreading the virtues of Quicktime as opposed to Windows Media Player files...

crazzyeddie
Feb 9, 2009, 06:38 AM
I believe the reason they broke out that charge was so they could account for joint licensing agreements. There was other people's IP in there and they wanted to be payed for content creation (try converting a raw file to MP3 for example, ... I imagine that they have renegotiated or will drop some of the older codecs and technologies that are no longer relevant.

You are exactly right. Apple does have to pay to license certain technologies such as Sorenson, etc... that aren't open. They may simply be dropping them, as MP4 (audio/video) has basically overtaken the video market.

Chupa Chupa
Feb 9, 2009, 07:02 AM
I'd say this one is true...I upgraded to Pro over a year ago and wondered why I never had to renew it..Now we know.

Actually you never had to renew it because a new major upgrade version, i.e., Quicktime 8, wasn't released. Minor upgrades and fixes have always been free.

At any rate, if this actually happens, great news.

ArtOfWarfare
Feb 9, 2009, 07:07 AM
Am I the only one worried that Apple is only making such a move because they don't have enough other stuff to make Snow Leopard a compelling buy? I mean, I don't think OpenCL and that stuff is going to sound very interesting to the non-programers... it'll just sound complicated to the average computer user and Apple would be better not talking about it at all when trying to sell Snow Leopard (unless they're making the sell to those developers and programmers that would be interested in it.)

jamesybsu
Feb 9, 2009, 07:23 AM
i don't know why I am remembering this, but it seems like leopard was reportedly going to offer this based on the seeds before its release. However, once we got closer to release date it was later disabled and part of the "pro" features. Am I wrong here?

macFanDave
Feb 9, 2009, 07:24 AM
The latest Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard seeds suggest that Apple may be eliminating the 'QuickTime Pro' upgrade that is currently offered as a $29.99 upgrade to Mac users.

Apple has long reserved several additional features for QuickTime Pro that are not available in the standard QuickTime Player. Some of these features include editing (cut, copy, paste), ...

There ya have it! If only we'd pony up $29.99 for iPhone Pro, then we could have cut, copy and paste!

arn
Feb 9, 2009, 07:28 AM
i don't know why I am remembering this, but it seems like leopard was reportedly going to offer this based on the seeds before its release. However, once we got closer to release date it was later disabled and part of the "pro" features. Am I wrong here?

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=313072

looks like there was talk of the "full screen" going free in leopard... which it did as a QT update. but the editing features remained "pro" it looks like even in the seeds.

arn

mlmorg
Feb 9, 2009, 07:31 AM
I hope quicktime X will finally include support for divx and mkv. it's ridiculous that quicktime hasn't incorporated all of perian's added benefits yet. plus, windows 7 will support it natively so why not os x?

darwinian
Feb 9, 2009, 07:32 AM
I believe the reason they broke out that charge was so they could account for joint licensing agreements. There was other people's IP in there and they wanted to be payed for content creation (try converting a raw file to MP3 for example, IIRC you can't in QT as they didn't want to deal with the licensing fees.) By charging for QT Pro they could separate out any associated revenue as opposed to having to pay out for every copy of OS X they shipped. I imagine that they have renegotiated or will drop some of the older codecs and technologies that are no longer relevant. It is good that it is on by default, but it would have made OS X more costly to have done so in the past, and you may be paying for it now as well.

This sounds very reasonable to me.


--Pablo

tomato45un
Feb 9, 2009, 07:34 AM
all mac users would glad that the quick time pro will be free.
i won't buy the pro version normally i used other 3rd party software to cut the video.

clmason
Feb 9, 2009, 07:41 AM
Finally. Its great anyway.
(I really want to upgrade, but I am using a Quad G5:(:(:()

Remember, there's been no announcement that PowerPC is being dropped, that's just speculation. You might be okay.

dernhelm
Feb 9, 2009, 07:47 AM
You are exactly right. Apple does have to pay to license certain technologies such as Sorenson, etc... that aren't open. They may simply be dropping them, as MP4 (audio/video) has basically overtaken the video market.

Oh great. Now we'll get the interminable "but the Sorenson codec was so much better!" threads.

:rolleyes:

Full of Win
Feb 9, 2009, 07:53 AM
Just like they did for full screen support moving from the pro to the public version. Sad it has taken this long.

krye
Feb 9, 2009, 07:56 AM
Cool, but do I get my $30 back?

OttawaGuy
Feb 9, 2009, 08:02 AM
Cool, but do I get my $30 back?

Why would you get your money back?

link92
Feb 9, 2009, 08:04 AM
It would seem to be worth a lot more to Apple to establish H.264 as the de facto standard, knocking .wmv out of the way. I expect that we will see this unleashed by Apple on the Windows world as well.

Windows 7 supports H.264 out to the box, too.

sushi
Feb 9, 2009, 08:04 AM
This is good news.

About time as some have already said.

weg
Feb 9, 2009, 08:05 AM
Excellent move by Apple which will go far in spreading the virtues of Quicktime as opposed to Windows Media Player files...

Not unless they make the full version for Windows also freely available. That said, I'm glad that Apple decided to make it free. Quicktime always felt like cripple-ware, with all these deactivated menu items.

Peace
Feb 9, 2009, 08:10 AM
The are probably just removing it for the development builds?:confused::confused:

This last build is the first time the pro features have been "free".

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=313072

looks like there was talk of the "full screen" going free in leopard... which it did as a QT update. but the editing features remained "pro" it looks like even in the seeds.

arn

I suspect this is part of the transition to QTX. It's been slowly ported to Cocoa a bit at a time. It's not fully Cocoa yet but it's getting there. I'm guessing 2 seeds from now we will see QTX.

Remember, there's been no announcement that PowerPC is being dropped, that's just speculation. You might be okay.

There has yet to be any PPC versions of OS 10.6..It's Intel only.
Rosetta is an optional install so it might get pulled all together depending on a couple of big company holdouts... *cough* Intuit *cough*.

link92
Feb 9, 2009, 08:12 AM
You are exactly right. Apple does have to pay to license certain technologies such as Sorenson, etc... that aren't open. They may simply be dropping them, as MP4 (audio/video) has basically overtaken the video market.

MPEG-4 still has patent licensing fees, though. I expect they're just taking the financial hit, as they still have to pay the decoding fees anyway — also, on top of that, there is a limit of 100,000 USD (IIRC — Apple certainly reaches it though) for each of the fees regardless of how many units shipped.

unscriptable
Feb 9, 2009, 08:13 AM
Apple needed something to demo Grand Central! What better than to demonstrate transcoding at up to 10x speeds!

Patriks7
Feb 9, 2009, 08:16 AM
Nice to see this. But a search in Google can get it for free now anyway. That's what I did, cause all third party converters to iPhone have been crap for me.

kornyboy
Feb 9, 2009, 08:18 AM
Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5H11 Safari/525.20)

I think this is a good idea. I don't see QT Pro being a huge revenue stream for Apple. I paid the $30 several versions ago and haven't had to pay for it since. The code has worked for each upgrade (major and minor) since.

I think that this is a good idea. I hope it turns out to be the case in the final release of snow leopard.

clmason
Feb 9, 2009, 08:18 AM
There has yet to be any PPC versions of OS 10.6..It's Intel only.
Rosetta is an optional install so it might get pulled all together depending on a couple of big company holdouts... *cough* Intuit *cough*.

Yes, you're probably right, but it isn't official yet, and Apple can still decide to release intel-only or both. Steve could always make the call one way or the other.

Tallest Skil
Feb 9, 2009, 08:20 AM
Apple needed something to demo Grand Central! What better than to demonstrate transcoding at up to 10x speeds!

I think you're being a little optimistic here... ;)

charlituna
Feb 9, 2009, 08:25 AM
That would be great. I have never felt the need to purchase this and am glad that of will be standard on Snow Leopard.

or not. remember at this point folks are talking about rumors and speculation based on what's in the builds. it is still possible that, as one poster pointed out, its just that Pro was turned off for testing purposes.

until Snow Leopard's features are announced by Apple, assume nothing.

Peace
Feb 9, 2009, 08:26 AM
The H.264/AAC implementation is based off Apple's Quicktime format and is now considered an "open format". If one excludes the old sorenson format and sticks to H.264/AAC then there would be no need for licensing fees since Apple and a couple of judges have allowed it to be in the public domain. One simply pays a fee to the open consortium organization. Apple pays it too. Just like Microsoft does now with Windows 7. It's the better MPEG format now so wide spread adoption is already there.

Digitalclips
Feb 9, 2009, 08:27 AM
you, and others if any, should not have, and apple have stopped this stupidity in 2002. in reality, they did not even care as they have never blacklisted the Core serial.

So you encourage use of QT Pro without paying? I never had to as it is supplied free with Final Cut Pro but unlike you I applaud those that did the right thing and paid. I pay for iLife upgrades even though it is easy to get and no serial required. I know it is an old and worn out discussion on this forum but here I go again; if what you do to earn a living was so easily ripped off I am certain you would not encourage people to do it. Those who own software companies have to pay for R&D, staff salaries and so on yet you seem to think it's ok to steal software from them. Do you shop lift too if there are no cameras watching I wonder?.

Sweetfeld28
Feb 9, 2009, 08:32 AM
I think its wise to do this now, even though it should of been done a long time ago. Hopefully, it will have incorporated Blu-Ray support. I almost bought a Blu-ray drive from Circuit City this weekend at a very nice price; but i didn't because there still is no support in OS X for it yet.

tbealmear
Feb 9, 2009, 08:35 AM
Its about damn time! I always thought that shelling out 30 bucks to be able to save a video I downloaded was kind of ridiculous. I know I know, its only 30 bucks, but I'm cheap.

clmason
Feb 9, 2009, 08:46 AM
So you encourage use of QT Pro without paying? I never had to as it is supplied free with Final Cut Pro but unlike you I applaud those that did the right thing and paid. I pay for iLife upgrades even though it is easy to get and no serial required. I know it is an old and worn out discussion on this forum but here I go again; if what you do to earn a living was so easily ripped off I am certain you would not encourage people to do it. Those who own software companies have to pay for R&D, staff salaries and so on yet you seem to think it's ok to steal software from them. Do you shop lift too if there are no cameras watching I wonder?.

Note, I'm not taking either side here, but that's an inaccurate comparison. If you take something from a store, they no longer have that item. That is stealing. If you pirate software, you are a copyright violator, not a thief.

Not defending pirating, but if you're going to criticize something, criticize it for what it really is.

Maury
Feb 9, 2009, 08:47 AM
The latest Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard seeds suggest that Apple may be eliminating the 'QuickTime Pro' upgrade that is currently offered as a $29.99 (http://store.apple.com/us/product/D3380Z/A) upgrade to Mac users.

Sigh. What exactly is the point of this?

Last time I checked, the program in question is called "QuickTime Player". That's because it's primary purpose in life is to PLAY MEDIA. Playing media is a vital function that every modern platform needs, and QTP is a reasonable engine for that.

Every feature beyond playing media is bloat. Consider...

do you use QTP to convert media for the iPhone? Or do you use HandBrake or iSquint?

do you use QTP to record and edit video? Or do you use iMovie or FCP?

QTPro is everything that is bad about Windows Media in a nutshell. Focus Apple, FOCUS!

Maury

Peace
Feb 9, 2009, 08:48 AM
Note, I'm not taking either side here, but that's an inaccurate comparison. If you take something from a store, they no longer have that item. That is stealing. If you pirate software, you are a copyright violator, not a thief.

Not defending pirating, but if you're going to criticize something, criticize it for what it really is.

You really should look up the definition of "pirate" sometime.;)

clmason
Feb 9, 2009, 08:49 AM
You really should look up the definition of "pirate" sometime.;)

Okay, yes, I don't mean the maritime type.

fleshman03
Feb 9, 2009, 08:54 AM
Sweet.

More perks to SnowLeopard.

lazyrighteye
Feb 9, 2009, 08:54 AM
About $@%!ing time.
Let's hope this remains in the GM. ;)

Freis968
Feb 9, 2009, 09:01 AM
Smart move Apple...;)

supremedesigner
Feb 9, 2009, 09:04 AM
Apple doesn't believe in serial numbers, neither Chuck Norris too. :D

fleshman03
Feb 9, 2009, 09:05 AM
You really should look up the definition of "pirate" sometime.;)

OK. I'm not really too interested in getting into this again. I simply want to inject an idea. That is all. One post on this, then I'm not going to go into it anymore. Ok?

Just take a look:
Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OE5QsT5tJWs)

nick9191
Feb 9, 2009, 09:11 AM
So does the latest seed have QuickTime X or still the old QuickTime 7?

Chupa Chupa
Feb 9, 2009, 09:18 AM
Sigh. What exactly is the point of this?

Last time I checked, the program in question is called "QuickTime Player". That's because it's primary purpose in life is to PLAY MEDIA. Playing media is a vital function that every modern platform needs, and QTP is a reasonable engine for that.

Every feature beyond playing media is bloat. Consider...

do you use QTP to convert media for the iPhone? Or do you use HandBrake or iSquint?

do you use QTP to record and edit video? Or do you use iMovie or FCP?

QTPro is everything that is bad about Windows Media in a nutshell. Focus Apple, FOCUS!

Maury

Quicktime Player and Quicktime Pro are not the same at this point. And yes, I do use QT to do quick edits of music and video. It's quite handy when you don't want to open a big app up. Sometimes you only need a spoon, not a shovel. I'm not sure I'd pay $30 for it, but it comes with Final Cut Studio so I have it. And I do find uses for it. It's not bloatware.

EuphApple
Feb 9, 2009, 09:30 AM
To be honest, the only QT Pro that I have came 'free' with FCS. Admittedly, that came in at a little more than $30, but hey-ho. :D

Exactly. I think Apple said "Hey, they are wiling to spend a lot of money for this program, so we should include QT Pro and raise the price $300". It's sad. But does this mean a new final cut is coming out? Or are they lowering the price by $300? Because I don't see Apple giving a free program out with other software.

trip1ex
Feb 9, 2009, 09:45 AM
I wouldn't doubt if the QTPro-only restrictions were removed only for testing purposes.

nadirturkman
Feb 9, 2009, 09:53 AM
Just one question that always bothered me, how does it amount that microsoft had a lawsuit for trying to monopolize the market by having windows media player pushed in with windows and apple doing what's basically the same with quicktime and so one, never had any problems.
Don't take me wrong, big apple fan but, i always thought microsoft was attacked because it had alot of money, always seemed really unfair that lawsuit against them..

clmason
Feb 9, 2009, 09:57 AM
Just one question that always bothered me, how does it amount that microsoft had a lawsuit for trying to monopolize the market by having windows media player pushed in with windows and apple doing what's basically the same with quicktime and so one, never had any problems.
Don't take me wrong, big apple fan but, i always thought microsoft was attacked because it had alot of money, always seemed really unfair that lawsuit against them..

Uh, Microsoft had a monopoly, Apple did not. Different laws appy to monopolies.

Peace
Feb 9, 2009, 10:00 AM
Just one question that always bothered me, how does it amount that microsoft had a lawsuit for trying to monopolize the market by having windows media player pushed in with windows and apple doing what's basically the same with quicktime and so one, never had any problems.
Don't take me wrong, big apple fan but, i always thought microsoft was attacked because it had alot of money, always seemed really unfair that lawsuit against them..


Windows Media Format is a proprietary format that ( normally ) requires Windows Media Player. The QT format's mpeg-4 is part of the standards.

Besides. Windows holds a 90% market share. I suppose if Apple had a 90% share there might be some inquiries into a possible monopoly. But they don't hold a 90% market share thus no monopoly.

nadirturkman
Feb 9, 2009, 10:06 AM
Uh, Microsoft had a monopoly, Apple did not. Different laws appy to monopolies.

Yeah sure, but come on, they had it because all computers were shiped with windows while, mac os was only shipped with Mac computers. Had nothing to do with the fact they sent windows media player with windows. You can't just say u have the monopoly and fine you because u sell more then others. The monopoly law says that u can't monopolize the market by being the only solution available and by keeping competition away, how does media player do that ?!

nadirturkman
Feb 9, 2009, 10:08 AM
Windows Media Format is a proprietary format that ( normally ) requires Windows Media Player. The QT format's mpeg-4 is part of the standards.

Besides. Windows holds a 90% market share. I suppose if Apple had a 90% share there might be some inquiries into a possible monopoly. But they don't hold a 90% market share thus no monopoly.

Err.. what about .mov format!? it goes both ways if u think about it . Plus like i said, they have 90% of marketshare because windows shipped with any computer..
Imagine if apple decided to let Mac os work on any intel based computer out there, apple's market share would sky rocket. Again 90% marketshare isn't because microsoft had media player with all windows computers. Apple doesn't have such a big market share because they never played the market like microsfot did, their own fault, and u can't file a lawsuit on monopoly just based on that.

P.S - Shoud Fedora, Red Hat and other linux OS's feel wronged because they don't have as much marketshare as Mac os?!

air-ick
Feb 9, 2009, 10:10 AM
Apple giving something away for free!?!?!?! Surely the world is coming to an end. The next thing you know, they'll be giving you adapters in the box with their laptops:rolleyes:

Eric

happydude
Feb 9, 2009, 10:13 AM
this is great. why would anyone rate this negative?

fleshman03
Feb 9, 2009, 10:15 AM
Apple giving something away for free!?!?!?! Surely the world is coming to an end. The next thing you know, they'll be giving you adapters in the box with their laptops:rolleyes:

Eric

Not free. More of an incentive to buy Snow Leopard.

BTW - is QuickTime better @ converting videos for the iPhone? Compared to visualhub/handbreak...

Digitalclips
Feb 9, 2009, 10:18 AM
Note, I'm not taking either side here, but that's an inaccurate comparison. If you take something from a store, they no longer have that item. That is stealing. If you pirate software, you are a copyright violator, not a thief.

Not defending pirating, but if you're going to criticize something, criticize it for what it really is.

Well when I owned a software company and had those overheads to pay and people used our software without paying forgive me if failed to see your subtle differences in nomenclature. Your comments illustrate the whole problem, you don't see the fruits of labor in a digital sense as anything real. If my company sold wooden widgets you'd agree they could be stolen but as it is a product you can duplicate you don't. The net result is the same if the 'violations' are in sufficient number, the sales drop and the company goes belly up. To me everyone with an unpaid copy is a thief.

iParis
Feb 9, 2009, 10:20 AM
I wonder if this would be enabled for Leopard users in a QuickTime update.
Hell, it would be really cool if they enabled it for Windows users.

clmason
Feb 9, 2009, 10:21 AM
Yeah sure, but come on, they had it because all computers were shiped with windows while, mac os was only shipped with Mac computers. Had nothing to do with the fact they sent windows media player with windows. You can't just say u have the monopoly and fine you because u sell more then others. The monopoly law says that u can't monopolize the market by being the only solution available and by keeping competition away, how does media player do that ?!

Ah, no, the monopoly laws say you can't leverage one monopoly in order to gain another.

EmperorDarius
Feb 9, 2009, 10:21 AM
Very well, about time.
@The Pirates: now you don't have to look for a working 'serial', you don't need it anymore, isn't it better?:p

LaDirection
Feb 9, 2009, 10:22 AM
Excellent.

1-It should have come for free with the purchase of Final Cut anyways

2-QuickTime gained back my respect when Apple added the gamma selection option in the preferences recently (Color compatibility for FC Studio users)

3-Hope this is true.

liven2
Feb 9, 2009, 10:23 AM
Being a long time Mac user and one who always has purchased the Quicktime Pro upgrade this would be a very welcome sight! I have my figures crossed that they do not change their minds before final release. TO be honest I would not be surprised if they end up making it pay only in the end :rolleyes:

clmason
Feb 9, 2009, 10:24 AM
Well when I owned a software company and had those overheads to pay and people used our software without paying forgive me if failed to see your subtle differences in nomenclature. Your comments illustrate the whole problem, you don't see the fruits of labor in a digital sense as anything real. If my company sold wooden widgets you'd agree they could be stolen but as it is a product you can duplicate you don't. The net result is the same if the 'violations' are in sufficient number, the sales drop and the company goes belly up. To me everyone with an unpaid copy is a thief.

So, your argument is that copyright violators are really bad and have a bad impact. You could be right, I take no position on it. But that doesn't make them "thieves". Just like if you murder someone, that makes you a murderer, not a rapist. It's a different thing.

morespce54
Feb 9, 2009, 10:24 AM
About time...
Back in the days were QT wasn't the standard it is today (even on Mac OS), those were basic options...

air-ick
Feb 9, 2009, 10:25 AM
Not free. More of an incentive to buy Snow Leopard.

BTW - is QuickTime better @ converting videos for the iPhone? Compared to visualhub/handbreak...

That was sarcasm by the way. I bought Quicktime Pro years ago to convert some videos for the phone I had at the time(pre-iPhone). The license still works on the current Quicktime.

Eric

Fridgemagnet
Feb 9, 2009, 10:26 AM
Err.. what about .mov format!?

wmv is a video codec in itself, .mov merely allows you to encapsulate other codecs and combine various formats into one multimedia file (you could for instance combine mp3 audio, acc audio, wmv video and jpeg files into one .mov file which just encapsulates them all. Those codecs all stay as their respective formats with in a single .mov file.

So it's not the same thing.

.wmv and .mp4 are comparable but .mov is something different.

nadirturkman
Feb 9, 2009, 10:29 AM
Ah, no, the monopoly laws say you can't leverage one monopoly in order to gain another.

How were they leveraging on windows to gain another monopoly, how was microsoft gaining from this ? Maybe it's just me, i don't see anything wrong with what microsoft was doing, because all operating systems end up doing the same.. Shouldn't microsoft be allowed to do it just because they're a bit more successful ?

nadirturkman
Feb 9, 2009, 10:30 AM
wmv is a video codec in itself, .mov merely allows you to encapsulate other codecs and combine various formats into one multimedia file (you could for instance combine mp3 audio, acc audio, wmv video and jpeg files into one .mov file which just encapsulates them all. Those codecs all stay as their respective formats with in a single .mov file.

So it's not the same thing.

.wmv and .mp4 are comparable but .mov is something different.

Thank's i did not know that! ;) always thought .mov was a QT format since it only played on QT.

slughead
Feb 9, 2009, 10:33 AM
iMovie will do a lot of it...

That's what makes it so stupid.

Plus, M$ has free software for video editing included with its OS (or a free download).

Thank God for M$, or we'd never get anything for free.

clmason
Feb 9, 2009, 10:34 AM
How were they leveraging on windows to gain another monopoly, how was microsoft gaining from this ? Maybe it's just me, i don't see anything wrong with what microsoft was doing, because all operating systems end up doing the same.. Shouldn't microsoft be allowed to do it just because they're a bit more successful ?

I don't have an opinion, just trying to explain what the laws say, not that they are right or wrong.

lftrghtparadigm
Feb 9, 2009, 10:34 AM
But imovie isn't a media player. The fact that Macs don't have a built in media player able to do the most basic of tasks like full screen playback is just embarrassing for OS X.

What the hell are you talking about?



iTunes AND Quicktime Free handle media playing just fine. And yes FULL SCREEN playback is enabled!

milo
Feb 9, 2009, 10:43 AM
It's about freaking time.

It always blew my mind that they nickel and dimed over this in the first place.

At least they finally started enabling it with FCP and Logic Studio installs.

mrkgoo
Feb 9, 2009, 10:45 AM
Quicktime Pro for free with Snow Leopard makes total sense. For an OS update that may have little to market for mainstream users in regards to upfront 'features', being able to say 'Quicktime Pro FREE' is a significant step.

milo
Feb 9, 2009, 10:46 AM
But imovie isn't a media player. The fact that Macs don't have a built in media player able to do the most basic of tasks like full screen playback is just embarrassing for OS X.

Both iTunes and regular QT player do full screen playback.

I'm not sure what you expect in a media player that iTunes doesn't do, seems to do WAY more than the included windows media player.

Digitalclips
Feb 9, 2009, 10:46 AM
So, your argument is that copyright violators are really bad and have a bad impact. You could be right, I take no position on it. But that doesn't make them "thieves". Just like if you murder someone, that makes you a murderer, not a rapist. It's a different thing.

I suspect the argument is silly because it is based on the old definition of English words that predate the digital world. The concept that something can be obtained whilst leaving the original untouched would have been science fiction when the Oxford Dictionary first defined theft. However, over time laws and definitions will have to be and indeed are being updated to reflect the fact we now live in a world where digital data can be taken without authorization . This is from Wikipedia: 'In criminal law, 'theft' (also known as stealing or filching) is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent.'
So now we have to argue about the meaning of 'taking' I guess. ;)

staypuffinpc
Feb 9, 2009, 10:50 AM
Is the MPEG-2 playback codec now going to be available? It's really annoying that Apple has not licensed their 'free' or even 'pro' versions of the player to use the MPEG-2 codec. This is a very annoying and huge problem with the stupid .mod formats that a lot of digital camcorders (standard format) use. I have purchased this for my own computer, but I work with a lot of school districts that need to use files from the same cameras and I'm very reticent to recommend that they purchase a $20 codec for a $30 tool. Any clue on this, anyone?

clmason
Feb 9, 2009, 10:52 AM
I suspect the argument is silly because it is based on the old definition of English words that predate the digital world. The concept that something can be obtained whilst leaving the original untouched would have been science fiction when the Oxford Dictionary first defined theft. However, over time laws and definitions will have to be and indeed are being updated to reflect the fact we now live in a world where digital data can be taken without authorization . This is from Wikipedia: 'In criminal law, 'theft' (also known as stealing or filching) is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent.'
So now we have to argue about the meaning of 'taking' I guess. ;)

Well, if someone is charged with illegally copying software, are they charged with theft? No, they are charged with copyright violation. We have a term for it already! (and copyright violation predates the digital world too, though of course it is much easier now.)

mogzieee
Feb 9, 2009, 10:57 AM
Good.

ghall
Feb 9, 2009, 11:15 AM
This is good. I bought QuickTime Pro a couple years back and I love it, but I'd rather not have to pay $30 again. Good on Apple for finally doing what they should have done to begin with.

juststranded
Feb 9, 2009, 11:36 AM
Please please please, Apple, get rid of some of my options for playing movies.

• Quicktime
• DVD Player
• QuickLook
• iTunes
• iMovie

I don't know how they could simplify them, but at least get rid of DVD Player and give QuickTime a better DVD menu. Besides, they'd have to change it to BluRay Player soon. That'd just be a horrible name.

Anyone know if there's a disadvantage to watching a movie in QuickLook as apposed to Quicktime?

Peace
Feb 9, 2009, 11:39 AM
Please please please, Apple, get rid of some of my options for playing movies.

• Quicktime
• DVD Player
• QuickLook
• iTunes
• iMovie

I don't know how they could simplify them, but at least get rid of DVD Player and give QuickTime a better DVD menu. Besides, they'd have to change it to BluRay Player soon. That'd just be a horrible name.

Anyone know if there's a disadvantage to watching a movie in QuickLook as apposed to Quicktime?

Don't think there's any difference between watching in QuickLook or Quicktime due to the nature of QT being the media engine behind OSX.

Tallest Skil
Feb 9, 2009, 11:43 AM
Besides, they'd have to change it to BluRay Player soon. That'd just be a horrible name.

2015 is soon?

What's wrong with having options? It's the same as being able to view things in Windows Media Center and Windows Media Player.

Manderby
Feb 9, 2009, 11:53 AM
As far as I remember, QT-X has been said to be reengineered to a far more convenient API for developers, which, I suspect, would be Cocoa in the language of apple enigineers. So the main reason, why they release QT-Pro for free would actually be that any developer could create a Pro-version within less than 2 hours which would make the QT-application useless because within no-time, everyone would download a well-working app. To prevent this unsatisfying third-party-software-download (I'm speaking about the users), they release the Pro in first place.

btw: Students (Neptun, Poseidon) get the Pro for free since several years.

And to follow the previous posts, I too think that a simple, fast-to-load, just-for-a-quick-look media player is absolutely necessary on any system.

50548
Feb 9, 2009, 11:53 AM
this is great. why would anyone rate this negative?

Exactly my question here...are people grumpy or what? There is absolutely no reason to rate this news as negative...:rolleyes:

MikeDTyke
Feb 9, 2009, 12:03 PM
Exactly my question here...are people grumpy or what? There is absolutely no reason to rate this news as negative...:rolleyes:

This forum is full of b*tchy whiners, or hadn't you gotten that yet.

I only pop on now and again to laugh at the ones that work themselves into a froth. :D

Peace
M.

swagi
Feb 9, 2009, 12:11 PM
No need to whine, as I always had the Pro features since I bought FCS, but...


...could Apple please start to offer QuickTime encoding support for MP3 again?

Blame it on Peugeot, but my car stereo only supports MP3, so I'm switching back to it now :D

Analog Kid
Feb 9, 2009, 12:19 PM
'bout time. I've always assumed this was to cover some licensing cost, but it's time to roll it in.

Digitalclips
Feb 9, 2009, 12:32 PM
Well, if someone is charged with illegally copying software, are they charged with theft? No, they are charged with copyright violation. We have a term for it already! (and copyright violation predates the digital world too, though of course it is much easier now.)

Since Dowling v. United States rejected the notion that copyright infringement is theft you are technically correct. Perhaps this will change over time. European courts may lead the way for surely common sense will eventually win through. I would contend a digital item, a concept or a tune can be stolen and the concept it cannot and only copyright violation applies is simply outmoded. Having said that, the law is a strange beast when a petty crime of theft can lead to years in prison and white collar crimes are often treated lightly.

pimentoLoaf
Feb 9, 2009, 12:32 PM
I still have a nice thick book detailing the vagaries of QuickTime Pro. Had to have it, as my digital still camera has a QuickTime movie mode.

8CoreWhore
Feb 9, 2009, 12:35 PM
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/5F0C866C-6DDF-4A9A-9515-531B0CA0C29C.html
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/8AA115DC-2398-456E-9319-FE5842A41BD1.html

Peace
Feb 9, 2009, 12:37 PM
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/5F0C866C-6DDF-4A9A-9515-531B0CA0C29C.html
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/8AA115DC-2398-456E-9319-FE5842A41BD1.html

3 year old news? MS didn't do a very good job.

WATCHDOG
Feb 9, 2009, 12:45 PM
+++

Applaud or Complain?

Flip a coin. Tails. Complain!

+++

Too Little, Too Late!

Once upon a time I'd purshased QT "pro". OK.

But when SoftWare Update gave me the next iteration of QT,
my $30 QT "pro" functioning was disabled; ergo, another 30 bucks.

Happened again.. So I said, 'to heck with the pro; this is a scam!'

In this current era of rapidly vanishing spending cash, expect to see
more & more "enticements", "perks", Price-Reduction Sales, and so-called "FREEBIES" -> from all those who need your dough else they perish.

+++

MrCrowbar
Feb 9, 2009, 01:09 PM
Wow.. that's great.. very unexpected from Apple.. i guess it's a way to get people to upgrade to Snow Leopard maybe.. that or their being nice.

That said it's always been extremely easy to just find a serial online. [Not that i'd every do such a thing.]

Or you could just go into an Apple Store or authorized reseller, open Quicktime, and write down the Volume Licence. Worked fine in the early days of OSX 10.4, dunno how it is now, I bought VisualHUB and love it. Much faster, output looks better and there's a queue for the "rare" occasion you're doing re-encoding multiple videos.

50548
Feb 9, 2009, 01:18 PM
Well, if someone is charged with illegally copying software, are they charged with theft? No, they are charged with copyright violation. We have a term for it already! (and copyright violation predates the digital world too, though of course it is much easier now.)

Especially since copyright does not equal traditional ownership; otherwise there would be no fair use rights and various exceptions...people seem to easily forget that, not to mention that media copying is a form of non-rivalrous good.

8CoreWhore
Feb 9, 2009, 01:28 PM
3 year old news? MS didn't do a very good job.

It's not "news", you sound bite addicted invalid.:cool:

likemyorbs
Feb 9, 2009, 02:01 PM
wow, i have pro but i didnt exactly buy it. its definitely not worth paying for, it should have always been free.

mrkgoo
Feb 9, 2009, 02:22 PM
Please please please, Apple, get rid of some of my options for playing movies.

• Quicktime
• DVD Player
• QuickLook
• iTunes
• iMovie

I don't know how they could simplify them, but at least get rid of DVD Player and give QuickTime a better DVD menu. Besides, they'd have to change it to BluRay Player soon. That'd just be a horrible name.

Anyone know if there's a disadvantage to watching a movie in QuickLook as apposed to Quicktime?

I don't understand the nature of your request. You want to REMOVE functionality from software? It's meant to be for convenience. Quicklook is fast, but doesn't have the same options as a proper player.

Why get rid of DVD player? it's totally different from Quickplayer - I guess you want the software to be integrated together. Still, no reason to completely get rid of software.

apfhex
Feb 9, 2009, 03:19 PM
it should have always been free.
Yes, it's about effing time. I always thought it was silly.

Kilamite
Feb 9, 2009, 03:24 PM
Thought (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=6974953&postcount=21) this would happen. ;)

dawnrazor
Feb 9, 2009, 03:34 PM
Hasn't QTP been available free, to anyone with half a brain cell, on the most unofficial official level for the longest time anyway?

Eminemdrdre00
Feb 9, 2009, 03:37 PM
What are some of these free apps that give Quicktime Pro functionality?

lantzn
Feb 9, 2009, 03:57 PM
Note, I'm not taking either side here, but that's an inaccurate comparison. If you take something from a store, they no longer have that item. That is stealing. If you pirate software, you are a copyright violator, not a thief.

Not defending pirating, but if you're going to criticize something, criticize it for what it really is.

You can call it what YOU want, but from the beginning, if you took something without paying for it (whatever the agreed payment may be), it's called stealing.

lantzn
Feb 9, 2009, 03:59 PM
Or you could just go into an Apple Store or authorized reseller, open Quicktime, and write down the Volume Licence. Worked fine in the early days of OSX 10.4, dunno how it is now, I bought VisualHUB and love it. Much faster, output looks better and there's a queue for the "rare" occasion you're doing re-encoding multiple videos.


R.I.P. VisualHub :(
Hopefully the opensource version will be just as good.

clmason
Feb 9, 2009, 04:01 PM
You can call it what YOU want, but from the beginning, if you took something without paying for it (whatever the agreed payment may be), it's called stealing.

The courts do not agree and in fact have ruled that copyright violation is *not* theft.

Kilamite
Feb 9, 2009, 04:04 PM
What are some of these free apps that give Quicktime Pro functionality?

HandBrake, MPEG Streamclip.

Not to mention the QuickTime Pro API's are actually free to use..

Plymouthbreezer
Feb 9, 2009, 05:59 PM
Thank god, this was the silliest and most outdated move Apple had been playing for a while... Good riddance QuickTime Pro!

chr1s60
Feb 9, 2009, 09:26 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5H11 Safari/525.20)

Some of the QuickTime Pro features should have been free a long time ago.

bwilliams1188
Feb 9, 2009, 09:29 PM
sounds to me like part of the plan to keep snow leopard expensive enough, maybe questioning the "cheap" upgrade. still pumped!!!

princigalli
Feb 10, 2009, 04:58 AM
HandBrake, MPEG Streamclip.

Not to mention the QuickTime Pro API's are actually free to use..

mpeg streamclip exports to various formats using quicktime compression. unfortunately.

wrldwzrd89
Feb 10, 2009, 08:01 AM
I'd be interested in seeing this - I think QuickTime Pro is certainly interesting, but the way it's currently implemented is just annoying.

Perfect example: QuickTime Pro features are NOT enabled. I'm trying to hide the QuickTime Player app, and I hit G instead of H. A dialog comes up about Find Next, which you can't (as far as I know) dismiss with the keyboard.

aaronsullivan
Feb 10, 2009, 08:19 AM
Best reasoning on here is the Cocoa transition. It will be DEAD easy to create a Quicktime clone once it is all hooked up with a Cocoa API. Any non-developer with an hour to spare will be able to hook one up if the API is as useful as I'd expect.

On top of that, it was a hold over from when Steve Jobs came back and demanded that all Apple projects need to be viewed from a profitability standpoint. Quicktime needed a way to support itself and the resulting ill-conceived plan for Pro upgrades took WAY too long to go away. (Video players/codecs were SO much more important back then, too.)

As for the piracy debate here, I applaud those that bring attention to the details. Simply saying "It's stealing" covers up the real issues and doesn't help anyone.

From the developer's viewpoint it IS close to stealing with an important caveat. The developer sets a price for using her hard work. Some one who knows he needs/wants it comes and uses it without paying. The net effect to the developer is that she lost a sale. Same as if you made something and someone stole it. Work put in. Work not paid for. Loss.

However, "piracy" is more complicated than that. For instance, it's so easy and inconsequential to the person who uses the work without paying that he may not even need/want what he is using. Plus, with software, no additional work is needed to replace it (as long as it was downloaded via a means that is at no cost to the developer.) In this case, there is no loss. If it was impossible to use the work without paying, this person would not have paid anyway (remember, they don't need or want it for its intended use.)

Of course, it gets deeper...

That said, I don't care what you call it, or what your understanding is:
I'm a developer, and I'd prefer it if you paid for my software. If you didn't, you'd better not be enjoying it. If you are enjoying it, still unwilling to pay, and that makes you happy inside, you are morally bankrupt and need to address that. Just saying.

Maury
Feb 10, 2009, 09:57 AM
I guess they're trying to justify the price tag for 10.6 by adding some tangible benefits.

Can you imagine the average punter paying $80 or whatever for an OS that looks pretty much the same as its predecessor apart from apparently being more efficient 'under the hood'?

Are you tetched in the head? People pay thousands of dollars for this all the time. It's called "new computer".

I was considering buying a new computer this year, when mine reached it's three-year anniversary. From what I have heard, 10.6 will offer performance benefits that are, for general use, at least as great as a new machine.

So yes, I can imagine the "average punter paying $80". Duh.

Maury

Maury
Feb 10, 2009, 10:04 AM
A more interesting question for most of us, I suspect, is whether or not QTX will support MKV out of the box. If it does, that might imply that the ATV will, at some point. And that would be VERY nice.

Maury

Wondercow
Feb 10, 2009, 10:07 AM
Note, I'm not taking either side here, but that's an inaccurate comparison. If you take something from a store, they no longer have that item. That is stealing. If you pirate software, you are a copyright violator, not a thief.

Not defending pirating, but if you're going to criticize something, criticize it for what it really is.

Pirating is stealing:

Oxford Concise:
1. Take (something) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it
2. Give or take surreptitiously or without permission

American Heritage:
1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission

New Oxford American Dictionary (Mac OSX):
1. Take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it

Mirriam-Webster:
1: to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice

None requires that the property be physical; in fact, three don't even require that the stolen item be property.

As a matter of law one is not charged with theft since taking IP doesn't meet the legal definition, but that does not change the definition in vulgar language and vulgar society. Pirating music, movies, software, etc. is theft—every major dictionary supports this.

clmason
Feb 10, 2009, 10:21 AM
Pirating is stealing:

Oxford Concise:
1. Take (something) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it
2. Give or take surreptitiously or without permission

American Heritage:
1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission

New Oxford American Dictionary (Mac OSX):
1. Take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it

Mirriam-Webster:
1: to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice

None requires that the property be physical; in fact, three don't even require that the stolen item be property.

As a matter of law one is not charged with theft since taking IP doesn't meet the legal definition, but that does not change the definition in vulgar language and vulgar society. Pirating music, movies, software, etc. is theft—every major dictionary supports this.

Well, then we're back to what the other poster mentioned. Can you be considered to have "taken" something from someone, if that person still has it? Not with any common use of the word take, I don't think. If I take something from you, you don't have it anymore.

But I can copy your "IP" and you can say, hey, he's violating my copyright! I didn't give permission for that copying! But even that's not absolute. Say I am quoting you to criticize you or review your work, or I am making a satire. That is permitted.

The behaviour and social relations (if you want to call it that) involved are different from the case where, say, I steal your car and now you have to take the bus! :)

wesleyh
Feb 10, 2009, 10:32 AM
Are you tetched in the head? People pay thousands of dollars for this all the time. It's called "new computer".

I was considering buying a new computer this year, when mine reached it's three-year anniversary. From what I have heard, 10.6 will offer performance benefits that are, for general use, at least as great as a new machine.

So yes, I can imagine the "average punter paying $80". Duh.

Maury

Hahah, you think snow leopard will offer an increase in performance similar to buying a new computer? One word: delusional.

I'll be happy if we get a 5% increase..

wesleyh
Feb 10, 2009, 10:34 AM
A more interesting question for most of us, I suspect, is whether or not QTX will support MKV out of the box. If it does, that might imply that the ATV will, at some point. And that would be VERY nice.

Maury

I think CDH is more likely, though XWO is not out of the question either if we are to believe that OPS will be available in Snow Leopard. I think that's going to be in the server package only, under the heading WXO.

My point: Don't use acronyms.

Wondercow
Feb 10, 2009, 12:52 PM
Well, then we're back to what the other poster mentioned. Can you be considered to have "taken" something from someone, if that person still has it? Not with any common use of the word take, I don't think. If I take something from you, you don't have it anymore.

Oxford Concise:
3. Accept or receive
4. Acquire or assume

New Oxford American Dictionary (OS X)
1. [further definition --WC] Gain or acquire (possession or ownership of something)

American Heritage:

1. To get into one's possession by force, skill, or artifice
10. To accept and place under one's care or keeping

Merriam-Webster:
6: to transfer into one's own keeping
11 a: to obtain by deriving from a source
12: to receive or accept whether willingly or reluctantly

Need more? :p

But I can copy your "IP" and you can say, hey, he's violating my copyright! I didn't give permission for that copying! But even that's not absolute. Say I am quoting you to criticize you or review your work, or I am making a satire. That is permitted.

No argument there. Under U.S. law you are correct, but you're only allowed to use a limited sample, not the entire work and only close to that for short arts.

The behaviour and social relations (if you want to call it that) involved are different from the case where, say, I steal your car and now you have to take the bus! :)

Don't get me wrong—I'm not saying that there isn't a difference; this is plainly evident in that the legal definition of "theft" doesn't include IP. I'm just really tired of the rationalization of theft because the object isn't physical. I wish people would just own up to what they do—stealing is stealing is stealing. The problem is that, psychologically, people don't want to admit to themselves that they are stealing, it's a hard pill to swallow because everyone knows "stealing is wrong". Rationalizing it allows people to sleep at night.

Just about everyone with a computer or photocopier is guilty of this—me included. Let's just call it what it is :)

clmason
Feb 10, 2009, 01:34 PM
Don't get me wrong—I'm not saying that there isn't a difference; this is plainly evident in that the legal definition of "theft" doesn't include IP. I'm just really tired of the rationalization of theft because the object isn't physical. I wish people would just own up to what they do—stealing is stealing is stealing. The problem is that, psychologically, people don't want to admit to themselves that they are stealing, it's a hard pill to swallow because everyone knows "stealing is wrong". Rationalizing it allows people to sleep at night.

Just about everyone with a computer or photocopier is guilty of this—me included. Let's just call it what it is :)

Okay, I guess we're just down to semantics at this point. But if "copyright violation" is as bad as you say, shouldn't the term "copyright violator" have the same moral and linguistic impact as "thief"? Just because I'm saying it shouldn't be called theft does not mean, necessarily, that I'm saying it's "less evil" or anything.

It could even be worse. Maybe someday thieves (of physical stuff) will say, hey, don't call me a "copyright violator" I'm not that bad, I'm just a thief! :)

By calling them different things, we as a society can then evaluate them differently, otherwise we *must* equate them. So, I guess I'm really making a linguistic argument here, not a moral one. Rape and murder are both horrible, awful crimes, but we still distinguish between them, and they have different consequences (horrible in both cases, of course.)

flottenheimer
Feb 10, 2009, 04:26 PM
At last.
There has been no sane reason for charging extra for an app as simple as QTPro. An app I consider providing core basic functions needed in a modern OS.
OS X comes with a lot of other and far more advanced apps. And they are all free.

Praise to Apple.

Tallest Skil
Feb 10, 2009, 04:28 PM
At last.
There has been no sane reason for charging extra for an app as simple as QTPro. An app I consider providing core basic functions needed in a modern OS.
OS X comes with a lot of other and far more advanced apps. And they are all free.

Praise to Apple.

If you're referencing iLife, it doesn't come with OS X.

I'm not sure what other apps you would be talking about.

Kilamite
Feb 10, 2009, 04:35 PM
If you're referencing iLife, it doesn't come with OS X.

I'm not sure what other apps you would be talking about.

It doesn't come with OS X - but it comes with every Mac; so I understand his point.

Aardvaarkman
Feb 10, 2009, 09:23 PM
To me everyone with an unpaid copy is a thief.

And that's your problem right there. You should be seeing them as "potential customers." After all, they have a desire to use your software. It's your job to work out why they don't want to pay for it, and turn them into paying customers.

"Piracy" has built software empires. Do you really think that Adobe or Microsoft would be so large today without illicit copying? I know hundreds of people who pirated Photoshop or Office in college, and went on to become paying customers once they got a job, because that's the software they were used to using. If they hadn't have pirated, they would probably be using something else today, like the GIMP, or Neo Office, or some other competitor's product.

Having someone pirate and use your software is far better than having them not use it at all. If nothing else, it gives you word-of-mouth advertising, as the pirate tells their friends about your product.

Aardvaarkman
Feb 10, 2009, 09:27 PM
The concept that something can be obtained whilst leaving the original untouched would have been science fiction when the Oxford Dictionary first defined theft.

I don't think so. Scribes have been copying information since the written word was invented. What would be alien to them, though, would be the concept of "copyright" and the idea that you couldn't just copy information freely.

clmason
Feb 10, 2009, 10:07 PM
And that's your problem right there. You should be seeing them as "potential customers." After all, they have a desire to use your software. It's your job to work out why they don't want to pay for it, and turn them into paying customers.

"Piracy" has built software empires. Do you really think that Adobe or Microsoft would be so large today without illicit copying? I know hundreds of people who pirated Photoshop or Office in college, and went on to become paying customers once they got a job, because that's the software they were used to using. If they hadn't have pirated, they would probably be using something else today, like the GIMP, or Neo Office, or some other competitor's product.

Having someone pirate and use your software is far better than having them not use it at all. If nothing else, it gives you word-of-mouth advertising, as the pirate tells their friends about your product.

This might be why Apple decided to make iWork serial free in the latest version. Sure, it's easier to pirate, but it also helps them compete against MS. I bet they are thinking they'd rather someone pirate it than not use it at all, as you say.

h'biki
Feb 11, 2009, 07:45 AM
As a matter of law one is not charged with theft since taking IP doesn't meet the legal definition, but that does not change the definition in vulgar language and vulgar society. Pirating music, movies, software, etc. is theft—every major dictionary supports this.

Ah, but how is "Intellectual Property" (from ideas through to software) actually property? They are non-excludable and non-rivalled. You cannot exercise dominion over them.

The very reason we have intellectual property legislation is to give the legal appearance of property to something which is NOT property.

So, if you want to use a natural law argument that piracy is theft, then you should also accept the natural law argument that intellectual property is not actually property... and therefore stealing it is not theft even in the vulgar definition.

clmason
Feb 11, 2009, 08:13 AM
Ah, but how is "Intellectual Property" (from ideas through to software) actually property? They are non-excludable and non-rivalled. You cannot exercise dominion over them.

The very reason we have intellectual property legislation is to give the legal appearance of property to something which is NOT property.

So, if you want to use a natural law argument that piracy is theft, then you should also accept the natural law argument that intellectual property is not actually property... and therefore stealing it is not theft even in the vulgar definition.

There's also the point Stallman frequently makes that we shouldn't just lump everything into one thing called "intellectual property" since things like copyright, patents and trademarks are all different things, treated differently under the law, and of course are treated differently historically and in society. An argument you could make about one might not hold for another.

RichardEM
Feb 11, 2009, 08:47 AM
I think that the reason, if it actually happens, that QuickTime Pro will be included at no charge in Snow Leopard is for marketing purposes. As Snow leopard is mostly a background upgrade, VERY important, it gives Apple something to market for the people who want more bells and whistles to justify upgrading to the new OS.

jkleemann
Feb 11, 2009, 08:51 AM
I hope that this is due to OpenCL optimized Encoding/Decoding since that would demonstrate that OpenCL has a vast potential in media processing.

wrldwzrd89
Feb 11, 2009, 09:07 AM
I hope that this is due to OpenCL optimized Encoding/Decoding since that would demonstrate that OpenCL has a vast potential in media processing.
Good idea on Apple's part... if it's true. Even if it is, though, many Macs won't be able to take advantage of it due to insufficient GPU horsepower, I suspect.

clmason
Feb 11, 2009, 09:18 AM
Good idea on Apple's part... if it's true. Even if it is, though, many Macs won't be able to take advantage of it due to insufficient GPU horsepower, I suspect.

Maybe they've spent this time also providing massive improvements to their graphics drivers? (Hey, I can dream!)

wrldwzrd89
Feb 11, 2009, 09:25 AM
Maybe they've spent this time also providing massive improvements to their graphics drivers? (Hey, I can dream!)
I think Apple's going to have to rewrite their graphics drivers anyway, to enable GPGPU functionality.

Maury
Feb 11, 2009, 09:33 AM
Don't assume everyone else is as narrow-minded as yourself.

I don't, just you - by demonstration, obviously.

There are many that use QT Pro for functions beyond putting movies on your stupid phone (what an idiotic concept anyway). I've used it like a swiss army knife for years, converting, exporting, saving web media, etc, etc, etc. I'm a hardcore FCP user, but why do I want to launch this huge program and go through all the setup just to perform some simple everyday tasks?

Exactly. So when someone is PLAYING CONTENT, which is 99% of what people use QTP for, then by your own logic why "do I want to launch this huge program [...] just to perform some simple everyday tasks"

If you do use QTPro for these tasks, your loss. iSquint uses the x.264 encoder which offers far wider format support, is much faster, and doesn't have Apple's screwed up gamma curve. Apparently you're not terribly familiar with the topics you're (sophomorically) attempting to insult me about.

Maury

wrldwzrd89
Feb 11, 2009, 09:38 AM
I don't, just you - by demonstration, obviously.



Exactly. So when someone is PLAYING CONTENT, which is 99% of what people use QTP for, then by your own logic why "do I want to launch this huge program [...] just to perform some simple everyday tasks"

If you do use QTPro for these tasks, your loss. iSquint uses the x.264 encoder which offers far wider format support, is much faster, and doesn't have Apple's screwed up gamma curve. Apparently you're not terribly familiar with the topics you're (sophomorically) attempting to insult me about.

Maury
I see the point you're trying to make, but... does iSquint use the QuickTime APIs to do any of its conversions? If it does, then the strength of your argument is weakened a little ;)

When I had QuickTime Pro I used it for simultaneous playback of multiple movies/sound files, which has... interesting results, if you do enough files at once.

Maury
Feb 11, 2009, 09:47 AM
Hahah, you think snow leopard will offer an increase in performance similar to buying a new computer? One word: delusional.

I'll be happy if we get a 5% increase..

The difference in performance between an original 4-core Mac Pro and the latest and greatest is limited for everyday tasks. As you can see for yourself in Bare Feets, the raw performance increase (ignoring changes in hard drives and graphics cards) that you get by moving from the Woodcrest (first generation MP) to Harpertown (latest MP) machines is extremely limited, on the order of 10% or less. Getting that performance increase would require a new machine, which is going to be several thousand dollars.

So at that point alone, if you're right and all we get is a 5% increase in performance, the the $80 price is obviously a steal. Duh.

But...

If you think there's only 5% improvement possible in the current OS, then it's clear that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. OSX is, sadly, quite inefficient. Compared to similar Unix-like OS's, Linux or FreeBSD, OSX is dog slow. Educate yourself:

http://sekhon.berkeley.edu/macosx/intel.html

Much of this is due to the IPC system in the kernel, which adds overhead to everything that the OS has to do. Another dog-slow part of the OS is malloc - if they implemented a new version they could improve the performance of every machine by something on the order of 10% for absolutely no cost at all.

Moreover, most modern software on OSX is built using Cocoa, or at least the Core libraries. These libraries are NOT efficient. Minor changes to the string handling and text layout functions would have real-world impacts for every user.

The estimated performance improvements from using OpenCL, GrandCentral and LLVL are hard to guess, but are likely to b MUCH greater than 5%. Additionally, Apple is putting OSX through a serious weight-reduction process - since much of a computer's performance is determined by throughput, reducing footprint has direct impact on performance.

I think it's safe to say that if current reports of a 30% size reduction in 10.6, along with wider use of LLVL in the libraries, then you should expect a much greater improvement than 5%. But what what I know, as a professional programmer and OpenStep developer?

What I find most amusing is that when a company adds crap that no one uses to their new OS, everyone shouts that they should stop adding crap and just fix what they already have. So Apple actually does just that, and everyone's complaining that they're not adding new crap instead. As teh Steve so eloquently put it, some times you just have to ignore the users

Maury

Maury
Feb 11, 2009, 09:58 AM
I see the point you're trying to make, but... does iSquint use the QuickTime APIs to do any of its conversions? If it does, then the strength of your argument is weakened a little ;)

No. As I said, iSquint (or whatever it's called now) uses the public domain x.264 package, which is much better than Apple's. In any case, even if it did use QTPro's libraries, you can do that without a license.

Apple needs to focus QuickTime Player on PLAYING QUICKTIME. That's 99% of what it's used for. If you allow yourself to get distracted making the program do "other things" (whatever those may be) then the 99% of its use suffers. If you don't, and focus on the 99%, then you end up with half-assed functionality - like what QuickTime Pro offers now.

Maury

Maury
Feb 11, 2009, 10:03 AM
Please please please, Apple, get rid of some of my options for playing movies.

Agreed, but...


I don't know how they could simplify them, but at least get rid of DVD Player

They can't, legally. If they are going to legally play DVD's on the MacOS, they need to support CSS decryption and that requires a separate "secure" program.

Yes, I realize that the CSS ship has sailed and the DVD companies may as well just remove it entirely (IMHO the freakin' nasty file system will stop most people from successfully copying a DVD with or without CSS), but that's just not going to happen.

I would prefer that all media, no matter what the source, open in QuickTime Player. But it's just not going to happen due to overlapping legalities. QuickLook is another matter entirely...

Maury

WATCHDOG
Feb 11, 2009, 01:16 PM
+++

Speaking of constantly upgrading thingees which shudda been free by now,
when is Roxio Toast 10 Titanium expected to arrive? :confused:

I just can't wait any longer to Share The Next Generation of Disc Burning! :cool:

+++

Kilamite
Feb 11, 2009, 01:19 PM
Speaking of constantly upgrading thingees which shudda been free by now, when is Roxio Toast 10 Titanium expected to arrive? :confused:

I just can't wait any longer to Share The Next Generation of Disc Burning! :cool:

It is out. If you bothered to check their website: http://www.roxio.com/enu/products/toast/titanium/overview.html

Got released a month ago.

chickenninja
Feb 11, 2009, 03:47 PM
This is smart, without quicktime pro is needed for fullscreen ( automator can be used with a script to get around that) so to have convenient fullscreen you need to buy quicktime pro, but if you have your mac serviced and your harddrive is wiped you loose your quicktime pro upgrade and have to buy it again. that happend to me and i didnt buy it again. The advanced features of quicktime pro are not advanced by todays standards and should be included by default like the other media players i have used. as it stands quicktime is somewhat independent of apple. they should merge or apple should come standard with its own brand player. because having an OS that cant play a video in fullscreen out of the box is a joke.

-hh
Feb 11, 2009, 04:04 PM
Once upon a time I'd purshased QT "pro". OK.

But when SoftWare Update gave me the next iteration of QT,
my $30 QT "pro" functioning was disabled; ergo, another 30 bucks.

Happened again.. So I said, 'to heck with the pro; this is a scam!'


A similar thing happened to me, except that it only took having QTPro wiped out just once.

The flaw in Apple's system is that the updater for Quicktime on a "one dot" (not "dot one") upgrade will overwrite a QTP license with a non-Pro QT version, which logically is flat-out wrong.

The analogy would be to have Adobe Acrobat (Full license) v7.x wiped out by Acrobat Reader v8.0

I've been "desiring" to buy the QT Pro upgrade for awhile now, but ever since Apple incremented to version 7.5, my decision was that Apple would promptly roll out v8.0 within 2-3 months of me finally biting the bullet. As such, I'm not going to pay anything until I see QT 8 (or QTX) rolled out.


...and while Snow Leopard buyers may get a free copy of QTP in their new OS, it also begs the question as to what's going to happen to PPC owners who (presumably) can't upgrade to 10.6?

If QTX goes free, it also needs to be on the PPC.


-hh

Mal
Feb 11, 2009, 04:38 PM
This is smart, without quicktime pro is needed for fullscreen ( automator can be used with a script to get around that) so to have convenient fullscreen you need to buy quicktime pro, but if you have your mac serviced and your harddrive is wiped you loose your quicktime pro upgrade and have to buy it again.

How times in this thread has it already been pointed out that you don't need to do anything to enable fullscreen viewing in Quicktime? It's already enabled! Just click "View Fullscreen" in the menu!

Oh yeah, and if you don't record your serial number so you can enter it again if you lose it, that's your own fault. Don't blame Apple for your negligence.

The advanced features of quicktime pro are not advanced by todays standards and should be included by default like the other media players i have used. as it stands quicktime is somewhat independent of apple. they should merge or apple should come standard with its own brand player. because having an OS that cant play a video in fullscreen out of the box is a joke.

The advanced features that make up Quicktime Pro are not things that just any program can do, though there are of course free options that can do a good bit of it. Really though, $30 for the conversion and editing tools you gain isn't a bad deal. I have no problem with them including it if they do in Snow Leopard, but don't go talking about how horrible of a deal it is or how lame Quicktime is without the Pro, it's a very capable program and Quicktime Pro made it more useful to a lot of people. BTW, OS X has at least three different ways to play video files fullscreen right out of the box, iTunes, Quicktime Player and Quicklook. It also of course can play DVD's fullscreen using DVD player. You've got the best modern operating system out there right out of the box (Linux may be better at a lot of things, but it's not much "right out of the box" typically, even with some of the easier distros).

A similar thing happened to me, except that it only took having QTPro wiped out just once.

The flaw in Apple's system is that the updater for Quicktime on a "one dot" (not "dot one") upgrade will overwrite a QTP license with a non-Pro QT version, which logically is flat-out wrong.

The analogy would be to have Adobe Acrobat (Full license) v7.x wiped out by Acrobat Reader v8.0

Bad analogy. Quicktime Player is one program, with Quicktime Pro being a enabled feature set within that program. If you upgrade it, and your license is for that version, then of course the license will no longer be valid in the upgraded version. Adobe doesn't generally force you to replace Acrobat 7.x when you install Acrobat 8.0, so it's not a good parallel.

I've been "desiring" to buy the QT Pro upgrade for awhile now, but ever since Apple incremented to version 7.5, my decision was that Apple would promptly roll out v8.0 within 2-3 months of me finally biting the bullet. As such, I'm not going to pay anything until I see QT 8 (or QTX) rolled out.


...and while Snow Leopard buyers may get a free copy of QTP in their new OS, it also begs the question as to what's going to happen to PPC owners who (presumably) can't upgrade to 10.6?

If QTX goes free, it also needs to be on the PPC.

QuickTime X can't be free on PPC if it's not support on PPC. Of course, we won't know until it comes out, but QuickTime X very well might not run on PPC machines at all. If it does, I would expect it to be free, but perhaps with the Quicktime Pro following the same model (though likely not if those features are enabled by default in Snow Leopard).

jW

twoodcc
Feb 11, 2009, 06:30 PM
finally! i am very glad to see this happen! can't wait for snow leopard!

Wondercow
Feb 11, 2009, 09:07 PM
Ah, but how is "Intellectual Property" (from ideas through to software) actually property? They are non-excludable and non-rivalled. You cannot exercise dominion over them.

The very reason we have intellectual property legislation is to give the legal appearance of property to something which is NOT property.

So, if you want to use a natural law argument that piracy is theft, then you should also accept the natural law argument that intellectual property is not actually property... and therefore stealing it is not theft even in the vulgar definition.

To quote my own post (with added emphasis):

None requires that the property be physical; in fact, three don't even require that the stolen item be property.

And to roll two posts into one since no one's replied yet:

PROPERTY

Oxford Concise:
1. A thing or things belonging to someone
3. (Law) Ownership

American Heritage:
1a. Something owned; a possession
1b. Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title [the sample sentence for this is actually properties such as copyrights and trademarks]
2. The right of ownership

New Oxford American Dictionary (Mac OSX):

1. a thing or things belonging to someone
• (Law) the right to the possession, use, or disposal of something; ownership

Merriam-Webster:
2a: Something owned or possessed ; specifically : a piece of real estate b: the exclusive right to possess, enjoy, and dispose of a thing : ownership c: something to which a person or business has a legal title

Intellectual property is property. One can exercise dominion over his thoughts or his art, but that's not even a part of the definition. Arguably this goes way back in history to when people first put their name to their art (be that writing, painting, or other).

Wondercow
Feb 11, 2009, 09:56 PM
Okay, I guess we're just down to semantics at this point. But if "copyright violation" is as bad as you say, shouldn't the term "copyright violator" have the same moral and linguistic impact as "thief"? Just because I'm saying it shouldn't be called theft does not mean, necessarily, that I'm saying it's "less evil" or anything.

I understand your point but it's really a moral judgement that each individual must make as to which crimes are worse than others. All I'm saying is that if one takes something that he is not entitled to he has stolen that item.

It could even be worse. Maybe someday thieves (of physical stuff) will say, hey, don't call me a "copyright violator" I'm not that bad, I'm just a thief! :)
It could happen—rape and pillage used to be the norm! :D

By calling them different things, we as a society can then evaluate them differently, otherwise we *must* equate them. So, I guess I'm really making a linguistic argument here, not a moral one. Rape and murder are both horrible, awful crimes, but we still distinguish between them, and they have different consequences (horrible in both cases, of course.)
I don't disagree, not at all. In fact I think you're on to something—since taking a copyrighted work to which one has no rights is stealing it should be equated with any other theft. This is what the various organizations have been trying to get into the collective consciousness for a few years now. The fact that the law generally separates these acts into different categories doesn't necessarily change the "OKness" of them, as you said both rape and murder are horrible crimes.

Wondercow
Feb 11, 2009, 10:09 PM
--deleted--

-hh
Feb 12, 2009, 06:45 AM
Bad analogy. Quicktime Player is one program, with Quicktime Pro being a enabled feature set within that program....Adobe doesn't generally force you to replace Acrobat 7.x when you install Acrobat 8.0, so it's not a good parallel.

Yes, it is a poor analogy, since Apple's QT does force a replace. But people should understand the basic point I'm making: a loss of paid-for features.

If you upgrade it, and your license is for that version, then of course the license will no longer be valid in the upgraded version.

Understandable, but does the 'upgrade' installer actually WARN you of that 'gotcha'? No, it does not.

And FWIW, I recall trying for awhile to have both the new (QT) and old (QTP) versions installed on OS X ... long story short, OS X doesn't like that.


QuickTime X can't be free on PPC if it's not support on PPC. Of course, we won't know until it comes out, but QuickTime X very well might not run on PPC machines at all. If it does, I would expect it to be free, but perhaps with the Quicktime Pro following the same model (though likely not if those features are enabled by default in Snow Leopard).

Understand & agree. There's simply a healthy number of longtime customers who are quite concerned about the rapidity with which Apple is ditching PPC in OS X (not necessarily just Quicktime).

This concern is not necessarily because its not something that we can't handle at current. It is a concern because it sets a disconcerting precedence for our long term platform decision-making.

I'm willing to go with Apple's oft-proprietary and expensive platform when there's evidence of long term stability so as to compensate as "value-added", but the crux of the matter is that Apple's current trends are suggesting that they are becoming significantly less reliable as a long term partner.

As such, Apple is in the process of losing this product differentiation 'value added', which obligates me to consider going back to 'commodity' PCs.


-hh

clmason
Feb 12, 2009, 07:53 AM
I understand your point but it's really a moral judgement that each individual must make as to which crimes are worse than others. All I'm saying is that if one takes something that he is not entitled to he has stolen that item.


It could happen—rape and pillage used to be the norm! :D


I don't disagree, not at all. In fact I think you're on to something—since taking a copyrighted work to which one has no rights is stealing it should be equated with any other theft. This is what the various organizations have been trying to get into the collective consciousness for a few years now. The fact that the law generally separates these acts into different categories doesn't necessarily change the "OKness" of them, as you said both rape and murder are horrible crimes.

Ok, well, I think we're mostly in agreement, but I still don't think the term "stealing" should be used for the reasons mentioned. At this point I think we'll need to agree to disagree.

charlituna
Feb 12, 2009, 09:19 AM
+++

Speaking of constantly upgrading thingees which shudda been free by now,
when is Roxio Toast 10 Titanium expected to arrive? :confused:


when. well i bought it 2 weeks ago from my local apple store.

as for the whole Snow Leopard and QT Pro etc issue (since that's the subject of the thread). I have no knowledge but I have a theory. Although I never take rumors as fact no matter who says them, I do think that this 'upgrade' of QT to eliminate the need to pay for what is right now "pro" is possible.

Back when QTPro started, not many folks were using said features. But now with iMovie and Final Cut Express and the new marketing (have you been in a store lately) everyone is going to be going pro.So I think that the new QT will be more inline with the current Pro and a new Pro might grow out of it. Perhaps something like setting up an arrangement to bundle all the decoders for things like mkv and divx into one installer. Or creating what they can natively and making you 'upgrade' to activate. Or just making all of of native and free. Who knows at this point.

As for Snow Leopard. it seems to me like they are trying to trim things up some. make it a leaner and meaner Mac OS rather than just tossing a few more tricks and PhotoBooths into the works. Microsoft Windows was boo'd for a long time as bloatware and even they are trying to trim the fat in the code. Hopefully this 'biggest loser' mentality will move into the software as well. I drives me nutty that Apple came up with an event based system for imovie so I don't need 12 copies of that one clip to use it in 12 projects and yet when you use iweb (at least in the '08 version) if you duplicate a page it makes a copy of all the images instead of referring to a common 'images' folder.

but if you have your mac serviced and your harddrive is wiped you loose your quicktime pro upgrade and have to buy it again.


or you copy down your serial number in a text file or a keychain item that is backed up when you are backing up your computer like a smart computer geek

I have only had to buy a new license once. when QT 7 was released. After that the same key has worked through every upgrade Apple has done. I never even had to re-enter the key to keep it working. I did transfer to a new computer once and did a selective migration off a backup from the night before so I had to re-enter the key since I didn't move my preferences folder but I had the key recorded so no big deal.

Mal
Feb 12, 2009, 11:25 AM
Yes, it is a poor analogy, since Apple's QT does force a replace. But people should understand the basic point I'm making: a loss of paid-for features.

Except you're not losing what you paid for, which was the features in the previous version.

Understandable, but does the 'upgrade' installer actually WARN you of that 'gotcha'? No, it does not.

And FWIW, I recall trying for awhile to have both the new (QT) and old (QTP) versions installed on OS X ... long story short, OS X doesn't like that.

Granted, but it's not very difficult to revert back to a previous version. You simply lose the advantages of the new version, at which point you decide whether you'd prefer to purchase the new Pro version or deal without the new features. Not really any different than most other software.

Understand & agree. There's simply a healthy number of longtime customers who are quite concerned about the rapidity with which Apple is ditching PPC in OS X (not necessarily just Quicktime).

This concern is not necessarily because its not something that we can't handle at current. It is a concern because it sets a disconcerting precedence for our long term platform decision-making.

I'm willing to go with Apple's oft-proprietary and expensive platform when there's evidence of long term stability so as to compensate as "value-added", but the crux of the matter is that Apple's current trends are suggesting that they are becoming significantly less reliable as a long term partner.

As such, Apple is in the process of losing this product differentiation 'value added', which obligates me to consider going back to 'commodity' PCs.


-hh

Apple has no choice but to ditch PPC's as soon as it is feasible to do so. If they continue to offer new software releases to accommodate them, it will slow down development for their Intel-based releases. The benefit is too small and the cost too high to try to keep them both continually updated (especially since, as has been pointed out, most of the new features in the Intel-only releases to come will not be beneficial to PPC's as it stands even if they would allow installation). Removing bloat (PPC code) is more important than preserving upgradability for computers that are out of their service period (few G5's remain that could be covered under AppleCare, and most will no longer be covered once Snow Leopard comes out).

jW

clmason
Feb 12, 2009, 11:51 AM
Apple has no choice but to ditch PPC's as soon as it is feasible to do so. If they continue to offer new software releases to accommodate them, it will slow down development for their Intel-based releases. The benefit is too small and the cost too high to try to keep them both continually updated (especially since, as has been pointed out, most of the new features in the Intel-only releases to come will not be beneficial to PPC's as it stands even if they would allow installation). Removing bloat (PPC code) is more important than preserving upgradability for computers that are out of their service period (few G5's remain that could be covered under AppleCare, and most will no longer be covered once Snow Leopard comes out).

jW

Note sure about this. They *may* drop PPC for 10.6, but I doubt they'll stop building it internally. Remember they built PPC/Intel for *years* and no one knew about it.

Ensuring you build on more than one platform ensures you'll still be able to down the road if you need to (The x86/extension line will not live forever.) It encourages good programming practices and also helps to catch a lot of bugs.

And of course, they have to build on arm as well for the iphone (at least in its present state.) So it's never going to be intel-only, even if they only sell an intel version of the Mac OS X desktop operating system.

-hh
Feb 12, 2009, 03:38 PM
Except you're not losing what you paid for, which was the features in the previous version.

Keyword being "except".

Bottom line is that I had the a software package that I paid for overwritten by a less fully featured one...with NO clear warning.

Granted, but it's not very difficult to revert back to a previous version. You simply lose the advantages of the new version...Not really any different than most other software.

I disagree - there's a fundimental difference, which stem from Quicktime installer's behavior acting much like Highlander's 'there can be only one'" - - the QT install will wipe out every other QT revisions that it can find, and it doesn't clearly warn you that its going to go do this.

And while replacing existing is relatively 'normal' when installing a software update for going from revision A.x to A.y, it most certainly is not the norm for "full dot" upgrades: Adobe Photoshop CS4 doesn't blindly erase Photoshop CS3, Mac-Office 2008 vs -2004, etc. Nor does Acrobat Reader ever dare to overwrite a full Acrobat Licence.

Personally, I would have liked to have kept QT-Pro v6 around while I decided if I liked QT-7 (Player) enough to re-purchase the Pro upgrade. Realistically, it wasn't an option because of how QT's installers work: re-running the QT6 installer (so as to re-enter my Serial# to get Pro back) wiped out "all other" QT's, which means that QT-7 'Reader' was taken out.

But you don't have to believe me: go try it yourself.

I did find a way to fool the system, but it was a royal nuisance and every time that a Quicktime update would appear in OS X's software update, it would invariably get messed up again. The bottom line is that Apple basically doesn't want you to have more than one version of Quicktime installed, ever.

Apple has no choice but to ditch PPC's as soon as it is feasible to do so. If they continue to offer new software releases to accommodate them, it will slow down development for their Intel-based releases. The benefit is too small and the cost too high to try to keep them both continually updated (especially since, as has been pointed out, most of the new features in the Intel-only releases to come will not be beneficial to PPC's as it stands even if they would allow installation).

Yes, that's the business case we keep hearing. I also hear that there's a nice bridge for sale in Brooklyn...

Removing bloat (PPC code) is more important than preserving upgradability for computers that are out of their service period (few G5's remain that could be covered under AppleCare, and most will no longer be covered once Snow Leopard comes out).

Expiration of Apple's legal liability under AppleCare service warranties is a pretty poor business service model, particularly since it doesn't allign very well with Apple's published definitions of "Vintage" and "Obsolete" products.

Apple's definitions and lists can be found here (http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1752).

In a nutshell,
Obsolete = products discontinued more than 7 years ago.
Vintage = products discontinued between 5 to 7 years ago.

Feel fee to review the list. You'll find that:


There's not a single PPC G5 Mac on Apple's Obsolete list.
There's also not a single PPC G5 Mac on Apple's Vintage list.
Also absent is every Mac mini model ever made.


So if on Apple's hardware side they're not yet even calling these PPC products "Vintage" (let alone "Obsolete"), then why is the software side walking a different walk?



-hh

Wondercow
Feb 12, 2009, 07:30 PM
At this point I think we'll need to agree to disagree.

I don't agree to that ;) :D

clmason
Feb 12, 2009, 08:17 PM
I don't agree to that ;) :D

/me pulls out hair! :)

lPHONE
Jan 2, 2010, 12:46 AM
Help!

I upgraded to Snow Leopard and Apple stole my Quicktime Pro! it's gone and I can't cut and paste video!

bretm
Jan 2, 2010, 02:01 AM
I understand your point but it's really a moral judgement that each individual must make as to which crimes are worse than others. All I'm saying is that if one takes something that he is not entitled to he has stolen that item.


It could happen—rape and pillage used to be the norm! :D


I don't disagree, not at all. In fact I think you're on to something—since taking a copyrighted work to which one has no rights is stealing it should be equated with any other theft. This is what the various organizations have been trying to get into the collective consciousness for a few years now. The fact that the law generally separates these acts into different categories doesn't necessarily change the "OKness" of them, as you said both rape and murder are horrible crimes.

since there are legal uses of copywritten material for many different purposes and situations it deserves a different designation. And the violator may not realize they are commiting a crime. They may have purchased a license and may be violating the specific terms. They may think it falls under fair use or educational purpose. They may simply be ignorant of course. I don't think there isso much potential grey area in rape or murder, but there's always "manslaughter" and rape between married couples so...

charlituna
Jan 2, 2010, 11:08 PM
Help!

I upgraded to Snow Leopard and Apple stole my Quicktime Pro! it's gone and I can't cut and paste video!

you need to re-install Quicktime 7. it's an optional install on the Snow Leopard disks.

scooterguitar
Jan 7, 2010, 05:59 PM
So quicktime pro IS included on any new imac purchase then?

charlituna
Jan 7, 2010, 11:28 PM
So quicktime pro IS included on any new imac purchase then?

yes and no.

quicktime 7 is included. but the standard, not the pro. you still have to have or buy a key to upgrade it.