or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › QuickTime 7 Pro to require paid upgrade, new Tiger builds seeded
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

QuickTime 7 Pro to require paid upgrade, new Tiger builds seeded

post #1 of 101
Thread Starter 
QuickTime 7.0 Pro will Require Paid Upgrade

Along with Mac OS X 10.4 "Tiger" Apple will ship a major update to its QuickTime digital media software, labeled QuickTime 7.0.

Sources close to the development team say the 7.0 release will require "Pro" users to purchase a new license for the software, expected to cost $30. All license keys for versions of QuickTime 6 will be disabled in the new version, sources explained.

As previously reported, QuickTime 7 will also make it so previously free features—such as opening a new player window—require users to purchase a "Pro" license.

Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger build 8A393

In related news, Apple today seeded Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger build 8A393. The build comes just one week after the company provided developers with build 8A385.

Weighing in at just shy of 2279MB, the latest seed addresses several of the known issues pertaining to the previous build, including bugs associated with the Dock, iDisk synching, and Finder window titles.

However, sources said the new build has introduced a couple of new glitches, such as Spotlight's search menu malfunctioning and abnormalities with the 23-inch Cinema Display.

Apple Remote Desktop 2.2 Build 7C10

Earlier this week Apple seeded Apple Remote Desktop 2.2 Build 7C10, which will deliver "enhanced functionality and improved reliability."
post #2 of 101
This isn't unreasonable, though I'm sure plenty of people will claim that it is. As I recall this has been standard policy for QT sellingness.

What I want to know is, what makes QT7 such a 'major' upgrade? I mean, other than a new codec and some gimmicky full screen controls... feel free to correct me if I'm missing something obvious.
post #3 of 101
Quote:
Originally posted by J@ffa
This isn't unreasonable, though I'm sure plenty of people will claim that it is. As I recall this has been standard policy for QT sellingness.

What I want to know is, what makes QT7 such a 'major' upgrade? I mean, other than a new codec and some gimmicky full screen controls... feel free to correct me if I'm missing something obvious.

Just guessing, but perhaps support for H.264? Pixlet? Given Steve's comment at MWSF, it seems reasonable to expect some sort of hi-def goodness.
post #4 of 101
I believe it is a Cocoa app now.
post #5 of 101
Quote:
Originally posted by J@ffa
This isn't unreasonable, though I'm sure plenty of people will claim that it is.

i'll be the first to say it is reasonable. $30 is a small price to pay for such diverse functionality. the whole point of quicktime "pro" is that pros use it. if you make money using quicktime for video or whatever, $30 is nothing. another way of looking at it is that until quicktime 8 is released, let's say in 2 years, you're paying just over $1/month for quicktime 7. you probably pay more in text messaging fees on your cell.
post #6 of 101
Quote:
Originally posted by ipodandimac
i'll be the first to say it is reasonable. $30 is a small price to pay for such diverse functionality. the whole point of quicktime "pro" is that pros use it. if you make money using quicktime for video or whatever, $30 is nothing. another way of looking at it is that until quicktime 8 is released, let's say in 2 years, you're paying just over $1/month for quicktime 7. you probably pay more in text messaging fees on your cell.

um...last time i checked you didn't need to be a pro to want to open a new qt player window or to fucking save a movie or god forbid watch something full screen.

30 dollars is a big price to pay on top of 129 for BASIC functionality.
post #7 of 101
Quote:
Originally posted by applenut
um...last time i checked you didn't need to be a pro to want to open a new qt player window or to fucking save a movie or god forbid watch something full screen.

30 dollars is a big price to pay on top of 129 for BASIC functionality.

I smell stingy.
post #8 of 101
Quote:
Originally posted by applenut
um...last time i checked you didn't need to be a pro to want to open a new qt player window or to fucking save a movie or god forbid watch something full screen.

30 dollars is a big price to pay on top of 129 for BASIC functionality.

It seems the basic Quicktime should be able to at lease match Media Player and Real in capabilities. I understand that creation is a pro-feature I should pay for, but it seems that playback should be free. That would include viewing at full-screen. No wonder quicktime is loosing momentum.
post #9 of 101
Quote:
Originally posted by applenut
um...last time i checked you didn't need to be a pro to want to open a new qt player window or to fucking save a movie or god forbid watch something full screen.

30 dollars is a big price to pay on top of 129 for BASIC functionality.

AMEN!!!

God knows only "pros" have 12 friends hovering around watching trailers in full screen to pick a flick to go to.

Cropping, setting in/out points, rendering yada, yada that is pro, but new windows? and full screen?

looks like a trip to warz/irc for a crack or key 5 minutes after an update...
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #10 of 101
Count me in the "it's totally reasonable" category. The only concern is that the timing could be better...within six months many people will have felt the need (or strong desire) to buy iLife 05, Tiger and QuickTime 7 Pro...so I could see some poeple having an issue, but for me it's all totally worth it...even if it's just for h.264. What I'm really hoping for though is HE-AAC.
post #11 of 101
Quote:
Originally posted by crees!
I smell stingy.

I smell an apologist.
post #12 of 101
I think it's horseshit. And I won't cry when QT gets dominated by Real and MS because Apple didn't want to include basic fucking features in its player.

I don't care how many buzzwords QT has associated with it. I know how awesome QT7 will be but the average joe won't know. And the average joe will only be looking to view things fullscreen and other basic features that come free with Media Player and RealPlayer.

Cassanova needs to be slapped if he's calling the shots for QT pricing. Slapped. Hard. By Jobs.

Sad thing is, with the new Cocoa QT APIs, anyone can build a fullscreen player with zero lines of code. Apple actually had to add lines to *prevent* the player from going fullscreen if the user isn't a registered QT user.
post #13 of 101
Hm, all I smell is childish tactlessness.

I get the feeling that the standalone QT player over the long term will basically disappear from the landscape as apps that make use of the framework and with more complete and specific functions take over the consumer space. IMO, Apple should just make a dedicated QT Pro/editing app instead of this slightly weird strictly menu-driven thing shoehorned into the player app. At the same time, they are being wankers for not giving users full-screen and multi-window abilities in the default player. The whole QT "Pro" thing seems like confused marketing -- is it for authors? Is it premium service but without premium content? It should be cleared up. The old pro model circa 1996 isn't really viable any more.
post #14 of 101
Like I said: go to warz or IRC, get a key, be done and have fun

"shrug"


But it is a f+++ing rip off for QT 6 keyholders, you cannot even use qt6 in tiger, you cannot install an older version of an OS component.

This is not like final cut or iLife 04, those can move, you have paid for them, you can use them.

I personaly think it is time to turn the tables on apple, a class action law suit, for just strait up fuicking the customers
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #15 of 101
As I have said repeatedly, Quicktime Pro should be free with a .Mac subscription.

That would generate much more for Apple over the long term.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #16 of 101
I'd be willing to buy a bundle of Tiger + QTPro7 for, say, $15 or $20 more than Tiger alone. I think that would be a reasonable option.
post #17 of 101
I realize Apple has to pay licensing fees for codecs and other tech but come'on. Limiting the player just looks stupid and the nag screen has to go.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #18 of 101
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
I realize Apple has to pay licensing fees for codecs and other tech but come'on. Limiting the player just looks stupid and the nag screen has to go.

it looks reaaaally stupid. they are only hurting themselves. the problem is too many mac users just accept what they are given. the few times that the mac community has actually "spoken up" about a stupid/move decision, Apple has actually listened.

I have no problem paying for "pro features". I have been a QT pro buyer before. But when they started taking that away with each upgrade and started limiting basic playback I stopped paying.

I refuse to pay 30 dollars so I can have two movies open at once, view them full screen, and save a movie i am viewing. This is basic functionality for a media player.
post #19 of 101
This is nothing new that you need a new Pro key to Quicktime when there are a full upgrade like QT 5->6 .

And that new QT Pro keys are bundled when there are upgrades to DVD Studio Pro or Final Cut Pro that you have to pay for to get (you get new documentation etc).
post #20 of 101
yeah the main issue here is full screen.
which makes apple look bad when people use QT on their PCs
and annoys us when we use it on our Macs
there are ways to get around the limitation without paying, sure
but you shouldn't have to put out the effort
i mean how much to they even make off of QT pro?
does it even add to their bottom line in any significant way?
post #21 of 101
That's not so much the issue. The issue is that they're apparently making some currently free features into pro features. If there's an explanation, I'm not seeing it. Maybe iTunes will supplant QT Player as the primary media interface for consumers?

Oh, to be a fly on the wall in Cupertino...
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #22 of 101
Quote:
Originally posted by applenut
um...last time i checked you didn't need to be a pro to want to open a new qt player window or to fucking save a movie or god forbid watch something full screen.

30 dollars is a big price to pay on top of 129 for BASIC functionality.

Well if you want free, then use VLC. nobody is making you use quicktime to watch movies.
post #23 of 101
Quote:
Originally posted by ipodandimac
Well if you want free, then use VLC. nobody is making you use quicktime to watch movies.

that's the spirit!

post #24 of 101
Specific criticisms here are just symptomatic of a larger problem. Apple is trying to sell QuickTime Pro to two groups of people: consumers and producers of QuickTime content.

QuickTime Pro may be an attractive product to producers. For $30 US, producers gain editing features, advanced media encoding and decoding features and more. Producers are also consumers. They gain full screen playback in QuickTime Player and are no longer subjected to ads for QuickTime Pro.

However, by far, the most common use of QuickTime is to consume content. For $30 US, consumers gain full screen playback and the ability to open new windows in QuickTime Player, and are no longer subjected to ads for QuickTime Pro. Since consumers have the easy option of simply not using QuickTime at all, I'm not sure how how increased efforts to badger these people into accepting a deal of such low value would benefit Apple in the long run.

If Apple is insistent on marketing more products to every user of QuickTime, what they could do is sell products that more cleanly fit classes of users. QuickTime Pro, with codecs and editing facilities specifically for content producers, and a nicer QuickTime Player with, say, codecs, filters and media organisation facilities targeted at content consumers. Basically, products worth the money for both classes of users.

Amorph's iTunes idea is interesting, though, and it was something I had thought about when a full-screen video trailer on Apple's site opened in iTunes. Really, for a while now, QuickTime Player has seemed sort of out of place in Apple's current strategy. Perhaps it'd be best to rethink QuickTime Player entirely. On the pro end, fold QuickTime Pro into the rest of Apple's media authoring family, and on the user end, fold QuickTime Player into iTunes.
We're investigating reports of indecent acts being committed at the YMCA.
Reply
We're investigating reports of indecent acts being committed at the YMCA.
Reply
post #25 of 101
Perhaps the consumer version could have a DVR-like capabilities for those who stream H.264 programming.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #26 of 101
Cry me a river. $30 is not even a dribble in the bucket.

Suggestion to everyone: Substitute one month's worth of addictions you spend ten times more on, like lattes, smokes, booze and pay the fee.

I could list 50 people I know who spend over half the cost of this per day on their consumeritis addictions.

Let's not forget the numbnuts who will go drop $100 on all things Tolkien just to be a complete nerd.
post #27 of 101
Quote:
Originally posted by applenut
it looks reaaaally stupid. they are only hurting themselves. the problem is too many mac users just accept what they are given. the few times that the mac community has actually "spoken up" about a stupid/move decision, Apple has actually listened.

I have no problem paying for "pro features". I have been a QT pro buyer before. But when they started taking that away with each upgrade and started limiting basic playback I stopped paying.

I refuse to pay 30 dollars so I can have two movies open at once, view them full screen, and save a movie i am viewing. This is basic functionality for a media player.

Show me where what you describe is 'BASIC FUNCTIONALITY.'

This is complete BS.

Playing multiple movies at fullscreen is not a basic piece of functionality. It is a piece of functionality that was added to QuickTime over time.
post #28 of 101
Quote:
Originally posted by mdriftmeyer
Playing multiple movies at fullscreen is not a basic piece of functionality.

Yes, it really is. I'm pretty sure even Quicktime 1.0 from 15 years ago could open multiple movies at once. This is just a really tacky move that will not produce much incremental revenue, and will make Apple look silly.
post #29 of 101
It´s just that it makes Apple look cheap. If Apple continues down this road . . . next thing might be that scrubbing through a movie is "pro" feature.

Full-screen and having multiple windows open is a standard. not a "feature"

Zon
I´ll get back to you.
Reply
I´ll get back to you.
Reply
post #30 of 101
Why does apple still keep the 1994-esk pro and standard model for media playback?

The simple solution is a two-app line for quicktime:
Quicktime player which includes:
Web plugins, all codecs for playback (includeing pixlet and h.264), unlimited windows open (within system capabilities), full screen playback, and full screen playback option in web window context menu(see windows media player)
Fyll screen controls.

And a $30 Quicktime Producer which includes:
all of the above and
in/outpoint markers
save/render stream
all other QT features
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #31 of 101
Quote:
Originally posted by 3.1416
Yes, it really is. I'm pretty sure even Quicktime 1.0 from 15 years ago could open multiple movies at once. This is just a really tacky move that will not produce much incremental revenue, and will make Apple look silly.

And I'm pretty sure that you would be wrong. Ten years ago, you could not play MPEG files in the QuickTime player. For that you had to download Sparkle. Full screen playback? The QuickTime Player didn't do it. Editing movies? Didn't do that, either. Virtually everything [except multiple codecs, IIRC] that you children are whining about was introduced under the QuickTime Pro label. Basic functionality? Please!
post #32 of 101
Personally, I don't care about paying the $30. But it pains me to see Apple pull this kind of stuff. I mean, they'll give away iLife with their computers - 5 fucking full blown apps - and then they'll pull something like this.
post #33 of 101
It's very simple; every Apple unit has to contribute something to the bottom line. The QT unit is expensive with lots of people, lots of licensing issues, long stretches between updates, and Frank's guitar collection. To make a decent number of people pay up there needs to enough stick and carrot. Its called business.

Don't like it? Don't fucking buy it.
post #34 of 101
Quote:
Originally posted by vinney57
Don't like it? Don't fucking buy it.

You see, THATS the fucking problem. People won't buy it. They'll use windows media player or some shit like that. If Apple wants to keep the other formats at bay, I think they need a little more aggressive strategy to making QT more appealing. I personally don't know anyone other than myself, who'll pay $30 for a media player.
post #35 of 101
Quote:
Originally posted by mdriftmeyer
Let's not forget the numbnuts who will go drop $100 on all things Tolkien just to be a complete nerd.

BAAAAHAAAAAHAAHAHAHAHAAA.

Unfortunately, Quicktime pro just doesn't have that same impulse/obsessive effect on people.
post #36 of 101
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank777
As I have said repeatedly, Quicktime Pro should be free with a .Mac subscription.

That would generate much more for Apple over the long term.

That is absolutely sensible. Apple could be making a mistake with this and I think that playback, NOT recording should have as meany features as one gets in the alternate crap offered "out there." Apple would be making a very big mistake with this one-IF it is true- but, after all, this is conjecture at this point!
post #37 of 101
I don't even like Quicktime - just get Windows Media player 10 - it is better, it is free, you can use it fullscreen, and it works on the mac. Apple can stuff quicktime.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #38 of 101
Quote:
Originally posted by mdriftmeyer
Cry me a river. $30 is not even a dribble in the bucket.

Suggestion to everyone: Substitute one month's worth of addictions you spend ten times more on, like lattes, smokes, booze and pay the fee.

I could list 50 people I know who spend over half the cost of this per day on their consumeritis addictions.

Let's not forget the numbnuts who will go drop $100 on all things Tolkien just to be a complete nerd.

Well then why don't you buy me a key? Afterall, it's real easy to get the money.
post #39 of 101
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
I don't even like Quicktime - just get Windows Media player 10 - it is better, it is free, you can use it fullscreen, and it works on the mac. Apple can stuff quicktime.

Where does one get version 10 for the Mac? All I see on Microsoft's website is 9. And 9 is truly horrible, pausing alone is comparable to an old VCR that takes several seconds to stop.

I have enough trouble getting people I know to upgrade--they certainly aren't going to want to spend another $30 after spending $150 (whatever) on the OS.

If they have to, I would rather see them add a few dollars into the cost of Tiger to re-include the basic functionality of Quicktime, rather that stick it to you after the fact.
post #40 of 101
Quote:
Originally posted by the cool gut
You see, THATS the fucking problem. People won't buy it. They'll use windows media player or some shit like that. If Apple wants to keep the other formats at bay, I think they need a little more aggressive strategy to making QT more appealing. I personally don't know anyone other than myself, who'll pay $30 for a media player.

Then stop crying about it and pick up a copy of serialbox - EOD.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › QuickTime 7 Pro to require paid upgrade, new Tiger builds seeded