Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple to Integrate 'QuickTime Pro' Features in Snow Leopard?

Maury said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Truffy said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
I wouldn't doubt if the QTPro-only restrictions were removed only for testing purposes.
 
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..
 
nadirturkman said:
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..
Click to expand...

Uh, Microsoft had a monopoly, Apple did not. Different laws appy to monopolies.
 
nadirturkman said:
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..
Click to expand...


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.
 
clmason said:
Uh, Microsoft had a monopoly, Apple did not. Different laws appy to monopolies.
Click to expand...

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 ?!
 
Peace said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?!
 
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
 
air-ick said:
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
Click to expand...

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

BTW - is QuickTime better @ converting videos for the iPhone? Compared to visualhub/handbreak...
 
clmason said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
nadirturkman said:
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 ?!
Click to expand...

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

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:
 
Digitalclips said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
fleshman03 said:
Not free. More of an incentive to buy Snow Leopard.

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

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
 
nadirturkman said:
Err.. what about .mov format!?
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back