Snow Leopard's QuickTime may pack Pro features at no cost

***AppleInsider*** · 02-10-2009, 03:04 PM

An architectural overhaul to Apple's QuickTime media software due as part of Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard may ship with a media player that bundles once-premium features at no cost.

That's just one of several Snow Leopard-related tidbits to crop up in recent weeks after the Cupertino-based Mac maker equipped its developer community with the first pre-release builds of the next-generation OS since early December.

Removal of Pro licensing

Apple has distributed the QuickTime multimedia framework with a limited version of QuickTime Player for so long that the original reason for adding the optional Pro version has almost been lost to history. QuickTime Pro unlocks advanced recording, sharing, saving and exporting functions after users buy a Pro license key, which the company sells for $29.95 and also bundles with some of its Pro software titles.

The QuickTime Pro licensing system appears due to change. A person familiar with the latest distributions of Snow Leopard told MacRumors earlier this week that the software arrived with a version of Player that unlocks all QuickTime Pro's existing features by default.

A few years ago Apple began highlighting Pro features as grayed-out menu items in the Player software to entice users to upgrade. Those options would become immediately available once the user registered QuickTime by entering a Pro license into the QuickTime preference pane.

Though the accessibility of Pro features in the Snow Leopard builds could simply be a measured aimed at affording developers access to test the new version of QuickTime broadly, it was also reported that QuickTime system preference panel has been updated to completely omit the registration pane -- a sign that the change may be permanent.

In recent years, Apple has loosened its grip on some legacy QuickTime Pro features while debuting others. In early 2007, the company added a new feature to the paid software that allowed users to export video on their computers in a format suitable for its then fledgling Apple TV media hub. A few months later it unlocked full-screen playback, a feature once exclusive to the Pro software.

QuickTime Player 7.5 basic (left) compared to an unlocked Pro version (right).

Apple is shedding its need to directly monetize QuickTime as it builds products and software that earn revenue for the company using QuickTime as a catalyst technology. Back when Apple was only selling Macintosh computers and spending a lot of money developing software to differentiate its systems from generic PCs, the need to find a way to directly earn revenue from its system software was more critical.

Many attempts to monetize QuickTime

Shortly after the initial development of QuickTime 1.0 in 1991, Apple attempted to bring in money to cover its development by packaging the technology into a $149 Pro version of its Mac System 7 operating system software in 1993. That plan failed miserably, not just because Mac users of the day were accustomed to getting System Software updates from Apple for free, but also because QuickTime and the equally new AppleScript were bundled with the bloated, complex, and system taxing PowerTalk, a collaboration software framework built upon AppleTalk.

QuickTime 2.0, released in 1994, was the only version to be released as a paid-only upgrade. It was also the first version offered for Windows. By version 2.1, Apple was back to offering QuickTime for free, largely to spur rapid cross platform adoption as it fought with Microsoft to deliver the best video playback platform.

QuickTime languished within the struggling Apple during its dark period of the mid-90s. Apple had brought a suit against Microsoft related to code theft that had used the San Francisco Canyon Company to take Apple's technology and install it as part of Microsoft's Video for Windows.

Meanwhile, Microsoft met with Apple's new executives from NeXT and threatened in 1997 to destroy Apple's entire creative multimedia business if it didn't agree to "knife the baby" and drop video playback on the Windows platform, according to testimony given during in the Microsoft monopoly trial.

Steve Jobs brokered a deal with Microsoft that dropped the QuickTime code theft case in exchange for a visible partnership that made Microsoft an investor in Apple and ensured regular new releases of Office for Mac.

Apple also released QuickTime 3.0 in 1998 with a new business model: the software itself would be free, but a special Pro version could be unlocked for $30. The Pro version only enabled certain features of the MoviePlayer application, not the core software itself, making the restriction easy to bypass.

As QuickTime 4, 5 and 6 were released in rapid succession in 1999, 2001, and 2002, the business model behind QuickTime changed from one where Apple was trying to sell foundational operating system technology to consumers to one where the company began using QuickTime itself to develop and support real applications. For example, iTunes relies upon QuickTime for all its underlying media handling needs. Apple's Pro Apps, particularly Final Cut, and its iLife consumer suite are also built on QuickTime.

In 2005, Apple released QuickTime 7, an entirely new architecture that focused the company on MPEG-4 H.264 as a video codec, making it simpler to manage video across devices from iPods to desktops and future devices such as Apple TV and the iPhone. With QuickTime now embedded throughout Apple's products, the demand for earning money from the core software itself is no longer there, enabling the company to enhance users' experience by dropping the legacy Pro licensing fee.

Apple's inability to successfully license QuickTime as a raw software technology to the broad consumer market helps to explain why the company also makes no effort to sell Mac OS X to other hardware makers or as a retail product, and instead bundles its software with hardware sales.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[ Digg this story ]

**hmurchison** · 02-10-2009, 03:09 PM

If Snow Leopard comes with an unlocked QT Pro what feature will you all enjoy the most?

I might enjoy downloading HD trailers but then if I can more easily edit my .mov files that would help as well.

sausage&Onion · 02-10-2009, 03:23 PM

nuff said.

ascii · 02-10-2009, 03:23 PM

The ability to save a video as different formats coming free with the OS would be great. Yes, there are open source solutions, but not as good as a pre-installed, vendor supported product that's fully integrated with the rest of the system.

teckstud · 02-10-2009, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hmurchison

If Snow Leopard comes with an unlocked QT Pro what feature will you all enjoy the most?

Not having to pay for it.

mrtotes · 02-10-2009, 03:27 PM

Quicktime is a surprisingly powerful video editor - it's a shame they couldn't add a bit more interface to guide users (or incorporate the features into iMovie). This makes sense and can only help encourage people to use Quicktime.

walshbj · 02-10-2009, 03:36 PM

Holding back the QT features at this point is kind of cheap.

Did previous version of OS X distribute the developer releases with QT locked?

There are tons of applescripts floating around to automate qt tasks, but I've never had much luck with them.

A better interface would be nice, but not if QT grew to be bloated.

End of random QT thoughts....

RobH · 02-10-2009, 04:05 PM

I bought the Pro licence once and at the next major upgrade it turned out I had to pay the Pro upgrade again... Once bitten...

**Marvin** · 02-10-2009, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrtotes

Quicktime is a surprisingly powerful video editor - it's a shame they couldn't add a bit more interface to guide users (or incorporate the features into iMovie). This makes sense and can only help encourage people to use Quicktime.

I agree, I think that would be a great to have a more advanced interface for it, although the edit features would need to be hidden in playback mode.

Perhaps if there was a lozenge at the top right and clicking it would expand the video, audio tracks and possibly text tracks into a format similar to imovie. Then you could do track editing and Core effects to selections.

One big problem with iMovie and other editors is having to convert video into a common format for editing and then you have to convert back out again. For high end editing, it's not such an issue as you want frame accurate editing and have as few timeline renders as possible but for quicktime edits, you generally want to just cut stuff up or modify audio tracks, colors, brightness etc of certain parts of the video without the headache of full video encodes.

I've wished Apple would open the Pro version for all users for a long time. The developer SDK was open and 3rd party software allowed the features of QT Pro for free and more, like batch encodes. I wonder if they will do the same for the Windows version though.

mn_hawk · 02-10-2009, 04:20 PM

Does anyone else remember Steve saying that Snow Leopard wouldn't introduce "new features" and it was just to optimize the system, clean things up, etc. When I read that, I thought "well, if it's Intel only, then no new features wouldn't really matter on my G5, etc."

But this whole week has been a series of articles mentioning all the new "goodies" with SN!! Maybe I want QT Pro features, and dynamic printer libraries, and better communication with Exchange, etc. And I'm willing to pay for the upgrade . . . but I don't need a new computer!

All of the G5 Xserves out there . . . wouldn't it make sense to make THOSE more compatible with Windows servers?

I seriously hope that Apple isn't dropping us this way.

paxman · 02-10-2009, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hmurchison

If Snow Leopard comes with an unlocked QT Pro what feature will you all enjoy the most?

I use QTPro for editing little movies shot in my stills camera. Its just quick and easy once they are in iPhoto. I will trim and join and optimize. But the feature I like the most is the ability to flip the movie on its side. I have a wide screen camera and I can shoot with the camera sideways or upways as I like, QTP sees me right. You might be able to do this in iMovie but I don't have iMovie 09 and iMovie 08 is... well, you know...

**melgross** · 02-10-2009, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mn_hawk

Does anyone else remember Steve saying that Snow Leopard wouldn't introduce "new features" and it was just to optimize the system, clean things up, etc. When I read that, I thought "well, if it's Intel only, then no new features wouldn't really matter on my G5, etc."

But this whole week has been a series of articles mentioning all the new "goodies" with SN!! Maybe I want QT Pro features, and dynamic printer libraries, and better communication with Exchange, etc. And I'm willing to pay for the upgrade . . . but I don't need a new computer!

All of the G5 Xserves out there . . . wouldn't it make sense to make THOSE more compatible with Windows servers?

I seriously hope that Apple isn't dropping us this way.

They didn't say that they wouldn't release any new features, just that the release was focussed on under the hood work.

Sevenfeet · 02-10-2009, 04:39 PM

This is an interesting history lesson. I remember seeing the original Quicktime 1.0 beta back in 1989 when it was just an interesting (but novel) player for 160x120 video. Over time the features got better but it did languish with all other Apple technologies in the mid-1990s. I remember when the Quicktime Pro feature was first introduced back in '96 (I think), there was a fair amount of grumbling in the user base, but we all went ahead and paid it, not that we specifically needed the features, but Apple was doing so badly and desperately needed the money. When System 9 was released and Apple wanted payment for that (unusual for previous Mac OS releases), users pretty much ponied up and paid for it, again because Apple needed the money or it was going to fail as an ongoing concern.

Now Apple has a 40 billion dollar run rate a year and $28+ billion bank account (remember when the $150 million dollar Microsoft investment was a lot of money?). The number of people who still buy QTPro is probably so small that it's not even visible on any sales radar screens. And serial numbers are widely pirated I'm afraid.

Dlux · 02-10-2009, 04:47 PM

I've posted this elsewhere and still think it would be a good product option for Apple:

Bundle all the licensed codecs that we currently have to manage separately and sell that as a Quicktime add-on; MPEG-2 (already a separate Apple product), Flip4Mac/WMV playback and export, REAL playback, Ogg, and everything remaining that's currently covered by Perian. I'd pay $30* for that, and let Apple manage the updates and potential software conflicts.

It's not the same as QT Pro, but it would save all the individual users out there from cobbling this together themselves.

* I don't know what kind of licensing terms Apple would get, or if $30 is enough to cover all this, but that's a reasonable target price to start with.

Abster2core · 02-10-2009, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

An architectural overhaul to Apple's QuickTime media software due as part of Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard may ship with a media player that bundles once-premium features at no cost.

Maybe they will call it Quicktime X.

iVlad · 02-10-2009, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mn_hawk

Does anyone else remember Steve saying that Snow Leopard wouldn't introduce "new features" and it was just to optimize the system, clean things up, etc. When I read that, I thought "well, if it's Intel only, then no new features wouldn't really matter on my G5, etc."

But this whole week has been a series of articles mentioning all the new "goodies" with SN!! Maybe I want QT Pro features, and dynamic printer libraries, and better communication with Exchange, etc. And I'm willing to pay for the upgrade . . . but I don't need a new computer!

All of the G5 Xserves out there . . . wouldn't it make sense to make THOSE more compatible with Windows servers?

I seriously hope that Apple isn't dropping us this way.

I don't know if you didn't get the memo or smthg, but Snow Leopard will be Intel only OS.

Ireland · 02-10-2009, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abster2core

Maybe they will call it Quicktime X.

Who cares what the call it, its name of no consequence, besides marketing.

bloggerblog · 02-10-2009, 05:03 PM

About time!!

elroth · 02-10-2009, 05:03 PM

You had me until the last sentence:

Quote:

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Apple's inability to successfully license QuickTime as a raw software technology to the broad consumer market helps to explain why the company also makes no effort to sell Mac OS X to other hardware makers or as a retail product, and instead bundles its software with hardware sales.

Come on - the failure of QuickTime licensing has nothing to do with Apple's decision on licensing OS X. Nothing. That's a throwaway sentence that should have been thrown away.

**melgross** · 02-10-2009, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacOldTimer

It was report on AI on June 4th 2008 that there would be no "major features".

Quote from Article:
Citing a person familiar with the situation, the technology website confirms several details of the next major Mac OS X upgrade first reported on Tuesday, including a scheduled release as soon as Macworld 2009 this coming January, and that it will not introduce any major new features.

Link to AI article:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...rd_report.html

As I said, Apple never said that there wouldn't be any new features. That article just shows what I said. I didn't mention MAJOR features.

elroth · 02-10-2009, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacOldTimer

It was report on AI on June 4th 2008 that there would be no "major features".

Quote from Article:
Citing a person familiar with the situation, the technology website confirms several details of the next major Mac OS X upgrade first reported on Tuesday, including a scheduled release as soon as Macworld 2009 this coming January, and that it will not introduce any major new features.

Consider that the source was AI quoting another technology website, which cited a person "familiar with the situation" - proceed cautiously from there. Nobody except Apple can "confirm" such details. And Apple's not talking.

mn_hawk · 02-10-2009, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iVlad

I don't know if you didn't get the memo or smthg, but Snow Leopard will be Intel only OS.

Yeah, funny guy . . . I've read the rumors about that, but APPLE chose to change platforms, and it was ONE OS release ago. I have 24 Macs on site, and I'm in charge of hundreds of others. In every location there is a mix of G5s and Intels. If I can't update both platforms to SN, I won't update any of them to SN. And as Apple then releases more and more apps, updates, etc. to Intel only I'll just keep not buying anything from them until the G5s fail. That could be a while yet.

**hmurchison** · 02-10-2009, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mn_hawk

Yeah, funny guy . . . I've read the rumors about that, but APPLE chose to change platforms, and it was ONE OS release ago. I have 24 Macs on site, and I'm in charge of hundreds of others. In every location there is a mix of G5s and Intels. If I can't update both platforms to SN, I won't update any of them to SN. And as Apple then releases more and more apps, updates, etc. to Intel only I'll just keep not buying anything from them until the G5s fail. That could be a while yet.

Probably a good idea from an administrative standpoint. Leopard is a good OS and frankly if Snow Leopard was full pop I wouldn't rush out to get it. My computer has only two cores and 2GB of RAM.

Jim Campbell · 02-10-2009, 05:23 PM

When the fuck did Appleinsider simply become a forwarding address for Daniel Eran Dilger's frothing Mac zealotry? Every single link in this article links to a Roughly Drafted puff piece. I notice that the appalling Windows 7 propaganda piece that surfaced earlier this week got pulled after everyone who posted to the comments thread pointed out what a dreadful piece of old shit it was.

Seriously, this barely disguised version of RoughlyDrafted that you're passing off as Appleinsider these days is fucking embarrassing.

Jesus.

Jim

**JeffDM** · 02-10-2009, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hmurchison

If Snow Leopard comes with an unlocked QT Pro what feature will you all enjoy the most?

I might enjoy downloading HD trailers but then if I can more easily edit my .mov files that would help as well.

The biggest problem I had with "Pro" was that Apple had decided to call full screen playback a pro feature. I don't remember if that's still true, because I had bought the pro version for other reasons. One thing that i really liked was that QuickTime can convert a folder of image files into a movie, for me, which meant converting time lapse JPGs into a video. I've only done that a few times, but it's a nifty feature.

**Mr. H** · 02-10-2009, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by walshbj

A better interface would be nice, but not if QT grew to be bloated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvin

I agree, I think that would be a great to have a more advanced interface for it, although the edit features would need to be hidden in playback mode.

Perhaps if there was a lozenge at the top right and clicking it would expand the video, audio tracks and possibly text tracks into a format similar to imovie.

There's no need for a QT pro interface overhaul - it's already the best lightweight editor I know of. If you need more advance features, there's iMovie, Final Cut Express and Final Cut Pro.

**JeffDM** · 02-10-2009, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. H

There's no need for a QT pro interface overhaul - it's already the best lightweight editor I know of. I you need more advance features, there's iMovie, Final Cut Express and Final Cut Pro.

The problem isn't the advanced-ness of the features, the problem is that it's just not a very intuitive interface.

**Mr. H** · 02-10-2009, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffDM

The biggest problem I had with "Pro" was that Apple had decided to call full screen playback a pro feature.

Yes, that was ridiculous. And a major contributor to Windows people (and Mac people to a lesser extent) hating QuickTime. Thank god someone at Apple got with the program and unlocked the full-screen feature for all users.

I hope these latest rumours are true - about time that QT pro is free.

**Mr. H** · 02-10-2009, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffDM

The problem isn't the advanced-ness of the features, the problem is that it's just not a very intuitive interface.

What's not intuitive about it? I find it perfectly intuitive. The transport controls work as you'd expect with the mouse, and to find the left/right arrow keys will advance/retreat the highlighted transport control (e.g. the playback head or the in/out markers) is hardly surprising.

**JeffDM** · 02-10-2009, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. H

What's not intuitive about it? I find it perfectly intuitive. The transport controls work as you'd expect with the mouse, and to find the left/right arrow keys will advance/retreat the highlighted transport control (e.g. the playback head or the in/out markers) is hardly surprising.

Maybe it's not so terrible, but iMovie seemed easier to work with and easier to understand, at least the old version. The features are almost hidden, you have to somehow know they are there. It's certainly not the number of features, it has an editing program masquerading as a playback program. I didn't see the in/out markers, a couple of blips on the line there, without being told what they are, I wouldn't have known what to do with them. It has the feel of being designed for a secret society, you need to know the secret handshake in order to even get started.

**melgross** · 02-10-2009, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elroth

Consider that the source was AI quoting another technology website, which cited a person "familiar with the situation" - proceed cautiously from there. Nobody except Apple can "confirm" such details. And Apple's not talking.

Right. Apple's own statements say that they aren't "focusing primarily on new features."

While Bertrand Serlet said that "we hit the pause button on new features...", the real question is, what are new features?

Is native support for Exchange, a feature, or something else? There are lots of questions like that.

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008...owleopard.html

Is Location a feature? Is multitouch?

Is it only a feature if the user can get to it directly? Is making QT Pro free, a feature?

I don't think it's that simple.

Dorotea · 02-10-2009, 05:53 PM

@Jim

You may not like the Roughly Drafted blogger, but he does some good articles. His "Road to Leopard" series was smashingly good. So are many of the others. So just note that he is Prince McLean here and avoid the articles if you dislike him so much.

**Mr. H** · 02-10-2009, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffDM

Maybe it's not so terrible, but iMovie seemed easier to work with and easier to understand, at least the old version. The features are almost hidden, you have to somehow know they are there. I didn't see the in/out markers, without being told what they are, I wouldn't have known what to do with them. It has the feel of being designed for a secret society, you need to know the secret handshake in order to do anything.

I know with version 7, the default is to hide the I/O markers when there's no selection. I guess that makes it slightly less intuitive because you have to know QT does have I/O markers and they'll appear if you mouse over the play bar or create a selection using the keyboard. But how do you make I/O markers "more intuitive"? They are used in all kinds of video and audio editors - it's not like they're peculiar to QuickTime.

The keyboard shortcuts are not well documented enough - but again, you can't make the keyboard shortcuts much more intuitive than they already are (press "i" to make the "in" maker jump to playhead position, press "o" to make out marker jump to playhead position, holding down the option or shift keys whilst using the arrows does interesting stuff. Computer users should be used to the modifier keys modifying the default behaviour of other keys).

The vast majority of QuickTime Pro I've taught myself without having to look it up - for the most part I've found menu items etc. to be self-explanatory; just monkey around with it and you'll learn a lot quickly.

macxpress · 02-10-2009, 06:27 PM

I will enjoy saving and editing movies via QT without paying for it. I think this is a a good move for Apple. I always thought it was unfair to keep making people buy QT Pro every time you update QT to a new release (i.e. QT 6 to QT 7, etc).

Most just went to a serials website and got QT Pro for free, I however paid for it. So I can see why Apple would just say the hell with trying to license QT Pro.

wobegon · 02-10-2009, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ireland

Who cares what the call it, its name of no consequence, besides marketing.

You've said this in a past discussion and it's not any less wrong now.

QuickTime X already exists - it's what the iPhone and iPod touch use for video playback. You can question whether Apple will keep their word and bundle QuickTime X into Snow Leopard, but it's absurd to say QuickTime X is nothing but marketing when again, it is already in use by millions of iPhones and iPod touches.

**JeffDM** · 02-10-2009, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wobegon

You've said this in a past discussion and it's not any less wrong now.

QuickTime X already exists - it's what the iPhone and iPod touch use for video playback. You can question whether Apple will keep their word and bundle QuickTime X into Snow Leopard, but it's absurd to say QuickTime X is nothing but marketing when again, it is already in use by millions of iPhones and iPod touches.

Do you have a source for that? I've not heard that before, and I can't find any corroboration.

wobegon · 02-10-2009, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mn_hawk

Yeah, funny guy . . . I've read the rumors about that, but APPLE chose to change platforms, and it was ONE OS release ago. I have 24 Macs on site, and I'm in charge of hundreds of others. In every location there is a mix of G5s and Intels. If I can't update both platforms to SN, I won't update any of them to SN. And as Apple then releases more and more apps, updates, etc. to Intel only I'll just keep not buying anything from them until the G5s fail. That could be a while yet.

By SN I presume you mean SL. Also, it was more like 1.5 OS releases ago. Tiger was on the first Intel Macs, remember?

What's the point of not upgrading your Intel systems? You do realize G5s would benefit little, if at all, from the advancements Snow Leopard promises, right?

wobegon · 02-10-2009, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffDM

Do you have a source for that? I've not heard that before, and I can't find any corroboration.

Quote:

Using media technology pioneered in OS X iPhone, Snow Leopard introduces QuickTime X, a streamlined, next-generation platform that advances modern media and Internet standards. QuickTime X features optimized support for modern codecs and more efficient media playback, making it ideal for any application that needs to play media content.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/snowleopard/

**Mr. H** · 02-10-2009, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffDM

Do you have a source for that? I've not heard that before, and I can't find any corroboration.

Apple's Snow Leopard page says:

"Using media technology pioneered in OS X iPhone, Snow Leopard introduces QuickTime X, a streamlined, next-generation platform that advances modern media and Internet standards. QuickTime X features optimized support for modern codecs and more efficient media playback, making it ideal for any application that needs to play media content."

I guess it's up for interpretation as to whether that means the iPhone's QuickTime is QuickTime X or just that QuickTime X will be based on the iPhone's QuickTime. My interpretation is that it's the latter.

SanHolo · 02-10-2009, 07:02 PM

Maybe someone should point out that developer releases usually come with an unlocked QT Pro, not just Snow Leopard...

02-10-2009, 03:04 PM	#1
*AppleInsider* Kasper's Automated Slave Join Date: Nov 1997 Posts: 6,151	Snow Leopard's QuickTime may pack Pro features at no cost An architectural overhaul to Apple's QuickTime media software due as part of Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard may ship with a media player that bundles once-premium features at no cost. That's just one of several Snow Leopard-related tidbits to crop up in recent weeks after the Cupertino-based Mac maker equipped its developer community with the first pre-release builds of the next-generation OS since early December. Removal of Pro licensing Apple has distributed the QuickTime multimedia framework with a limited version of QuickTime Player for so long that the original reason for adding the optional Pro version has almost been lost to history. QuickTime Pro unlocks advanced recording, sharing, saving and exporting functions after users buy a Pro license key, which the company sells for $29.95 and also bundles with some of its Pro software titles. The QuickTime Pro licensing system appears due to change. A person familiar with the latest distributions of Snow Leopard told MacRumors earlier this week that the software arrived with a version of Player that unlocks all QuickTime Pro's existing features by default. A few years ago Apple began highlighting Pro features as grayed-out menu items in the Player software to entice users to upgrade. Those options would become immediately available once the user registered QuickTime by entering a Pro license into the QuickTime preference pane. Though the accessibility of Pro features in the Snow Leopard builds could simply be a measured aimed at affording developers access to test the new version of QuickTime broadly, it was also reported that QuickTime system preference panel has been updated to completely omit the registration pane -- a sign that the change may be permanent. In recent years, Apple has loosened its grip on some legacy QuickTime Pro features while debuting others. In early 2007, the company added a new feature to the paid software that allowed users to export video on their computers in a format suitable for its then fledgling Apple TV media hub. A few months later it unlocked full-screen playback, a feature once exclusive to the Pro software. QuickTime Player 7.5 basic (left) compared to an unlocked Pro version (right). Apple is shedding its need to directly monetize QuickTime as it builds products and software that earn revenue for the company using QuickTime as a catalyst technology. Back when Apple was only selling Macintosh computers and spending a lot of money developing software to differentiate its systems from generic PCs, the need to find a way to directly earn revenue from its system software was more critical. Many attempts to monetize QuickTime Shortly after the initial development of QuickTime 1.0 in 1991, Apple attempted to bring in money to cover its development by packaging the technology into a $149 Pro version of its Mac System 7 operating system software in 1993. That plan failed miserably, not just because Mac users of the day were accustomed to getting System Software updates from Apple for free, but also because QuickTime and the equally new AppleScript were bundled with the bloated, complex, and system taxing PowerTalk, a collaboration software framework built upon AppleTalk. QuickTime 2.0, released in 1994, was the only version to be released as a paid-only upgrade. It was also the first version offered for Windows. By version 2.1, Apple was back to offering QuickTime for free, largely to spur rapid cross platform adoption as it fought with Microsoft to deliver the best video playback platform. QuickTime languished within the struggling Apple during its dark period of the mid-90s. Apple had brought a suit against Microsoft related to code theft that had used the San Francisco Canyon Company to take Apple's technology and install it as part of Microsoft's Video for Windows. Meanwhile, Microsoft met with Apple's new executives from NeXT and threatened in 1997 to destroy Apple's entire creative multimedia business if it didn't agree to "knife the baby" and drop video playback on the Windows platform, according to testimony given during in the Microsoft monopoly trial. Steve Jobs brokered a deal with Microsoft that dropped the QuickTime code theft case in exchange for a visible partnership that made Microsoft an investor in Apple and ensured regular new releases of Office for Mac. Apple also released QuickTime 3.0 in 1998 with a new business model: the software itself would be free, but a special Pro version could be unlocked for $30. The Pro version only enabled certain features of the MoviePlayer application, not the core software itself, making the restriction easy to bypass. As QuickTime 4, 5 and 6 were released in rapid succession in 1999, 2001, and 2002, the business model behind QuickTime changed from one where Apple was trying to sell foundational operating system technology to consumers to one where the company began using QuickTime itself to develop and support real applications. For example, iTunes relies upon QuickTime for all its underlying media handling needs. Apple's Pro Apps, particularly Final Cut, and its iLife consumer suite are also built on QuickTime. In 2005, Apple released QuickTime 7, an entirely new architecture that focused the company on MPEG-4 H.264 as a video codec, making it simpler to manage video across devices from iPods to desktops and future devices such as Apple TV and the iPhone. With QuickTime now embedded throughout Apple's products, the demand for earning money from the core software itself is no longer there, enabling the company to enhance users' experience by dropping the legacy Pro licensing fee. Apple's inability to successfully license QuickTime as a raw software technology to the broad consumer market helps to explain why the company also makes no effort to sell Mac OS X to other hardware makers or as a retail product, and instead bundles its software with hardware sales. [ View this article at AppleInsider.com ] [ Digg this story ]

02-10-2009, 03:09 PM	#2
hmurchison Global Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 10,457	So..... If Snow Leopard comes with an unlocked QT Pro what feature will you all enjoy the most? I might enjoy downloading HD trailers but then if I can more easily edit my .mov files that would help as well. Mac mini - 2 , iPod Nano- 1 G4 Cube - 5 , iPod Shuffle -1 Bloggity Blog

02-10-2009, 03:23 PM	#3
sausage&Onion Registered User Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 68	About damn time nuff said.

02-10-2009, 03:36 PM	#7
walshbj Registered User Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 502	Holding back the QT features at this point is kind of cheap. Did previous version of OS X distribute the developer releases with QT locked? There are tons of applescripts floating around to automate qt tasks, but I've never had much luck with them. A better interface would be nice, but not if QT grew to be bloated. End of random QT thoughts.... File Encryption Tools Built Into Your Mac

02-10-2009, 04:05 PM	#8
RobH Registered User Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 3	The problem with QuickTime Pro? I bought the Pro licence once and at the next major upgrade it turned out I had to pay the Pro upgrade again... Once bitten...

02-10-2009, 03:23 PM	#4
ascii Registered User Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 791	The ability to save a video as different formats coming free with the OS would be great. Yes, there are open source solutions, but not as good as a pre-installed, vendor supported product that's fully integrated with the rest of the system.

02-10-2009, 03:27 PM	#6
mrtotes Registered User Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Gloucestershire, England Posts: 614	Quicktime is a surprisingly powerful video editor - it's a shame they couldn't add a bit more interface to guide users (or incorporate the features into iMovie). This makes sense and can only help encourage people to use Quicktime.

02-10-2009, 04:20 PM	#10
mn_hawk Registered User Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 8	And Intel ONLY?? Does anyone else remember Steve saying that Snow Leopard wouldn't introduce "new features" and it was just to optimize the system, clean things up, etc. When I read that, I thought "well, if it's Intel only, then no new features wouldn't really matter on my G5, etc." But this whole week has been a series of articles mentioning all the new "goodies" with SN!! Maybe I want QT Pro features, and dynamic printer libraries, and better communication with Exchange, etc. And I'm willing to pay for the upgrade . . . but I don't need a new computer! All of the G5 Xserves out there . . . wouldn't it make sense to make THOSE more compatible with Windows servers? I seriously hope that Apple isn't dropping us this way.

02-10-2009, 04:39 PM	#13
Sevenfeet Registered User Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 41	This is an interesting history lesson. I remember seeing the original Quicktime 1.0 beta back in 1989 when it was just an interesting (but novel) player for 160x120 video. Over time the features got better but it did languish with all other Apple technologies in the mid-1990s. I remember when the Quicktime Pro feature was first introduced back in '96 (I think), there was a fair amount of grumbling in the user base, but we all went ahead and paid it, not that we specifically needed the features, but Apple was doing so badly and desperately needed the money. When System 9 was released and Apple wanted payment for that (unusual for previous Mac OS releases), users pretty much ponied up and paid for it, again because Apple needed the money or it was going to fail as an ongoing concern. Now Apple has a 40 billion dollar run rate a year and $28+ billion bank account (remember when the $150 million dollar Microsoft investment was a lot of money?). The number of people who still buy QTPro is probably so small that it's not even visible on any sales radar screens. And serial numbers are widely pirated I'm afraid.

02-10-2009, 04:47 PM	#14
Dlux Registered User Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 303	Offer a codec add-on pack as a paid option instead I've posted this elsewhere and still think it would be a good product option for Apple: Bundle all the licensed codecs that we currently have to manage separately and sell that as a Quicktime add-on; MPEG-2 (already a separate Apple product), Flip4Mac/WMV playback and export, REAL playback, Ogg, and everything remaining that's currently covered by Perian. I'd pay $30* for that, and let Apple manage the updates and potential software conflicts. It's not the same as QT Pro, but it would save all the individual users out there from cobbling this together themselves. * I don't know what kind of licensing terms Apple would get, or if $30 is enough to cover all this, but that's a reasonable target price to start with.

02-10-2009, 05:03 PM	#18
bloggerblog Registered User Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 570	About time!! Jessie Ventura + Ron Paul = USA

02-10-2009, 05:23 PM	#24
Jim Campbell Registered User Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 8	When the fuck did Appleinsider simply become a forwarding address for Daniel Eran Dilger's frothing Mac zealotry? Every single link in this article links to a Roughly Drafted puff piece. I notice that the appalling Windows 7 propaganda piece that surfaced earlier this week got pulled after everyone who posted to the comments thread pointed out what a dreadful piece of old shit it was. Seriously, this barely disguised version of RoughlyDrafted that you're passing off as Appleinsider these days is fucking embarrassing. Jesus. Jim

02-10-2009, 05:53 PM	#32
Dorotea Registered User Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 136	@Jim You may not like the Roughly Drafted blogger, but he does some good articles. His "Road to Leopard" series was smashingly good. So are many of the others. So just note that he is Prince McLean here and avoid the articles if you dislike him so much.

02-10-2009, 06:27 PM	#34
macxpress Registered User Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Upstate NY Posts: 551	I will enjoy saving and editing movies via QT without paying for it. I think this is a a good move for Apple. I always thought it was unfair to keep making people buy QT Pro every time you update QT to a new release (i.e. QT 6 to QT 7, etc). Most just went to a serials website and got QT Pro for free, I however paid for it. So I can see why Apple would just say the hell with trying to license QT Pro. Website: MacXpress 2.66 GHz Quadcore MacPro (Nehalem) 24" LED Apple Cinema Display 2.4 GHz 24" Aluminum iMac (Rev A) 867 MHz PowerMac G4 (Quicksilver) w/17" Apple Studio LCD 16GB iPhone 3G(S)

02-10-2009, 07:02 PM	#40
SanHolo Registered User Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 2	Was always the case... Maybe someone should point out that developer releases usually come with an unlocked QT Pro, not just Snow Leopard...

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode