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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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!
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
BINGO!
I've always been surprised how out-of-place the QuickTime Pro nag-screen is... ads on their own computers. QuickTime is an amazing technology, and although they do need to recover costs, popup screens advertising Pro isn't the way to do it.
I love the QuickTime Producer idea... that's what the $30 should buy. The added clarity would actually leverage more sales than they probably get with their current nagging model. Consumers just don't understand why they'd need Pro, and hate being nickel'n'dimed for stuff they may use once or twice.
Comments
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Full-screen and having multiple windows open is a standard. not a "feature"
Zon
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
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!
Don't like it? Don't fucking buy it.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by a_greer
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
BINGO!
I've always been surprised how out-of-place the QuickTime Pro nag-screen is... ads on their own computers. QuickTime is an amazing technology, and although they do need to recover costs, popup screens advertising Pro isn't the way to do it.
I love the QuickTime Producer idea... that's what the $30 should buy. The added clarity would actually leverage more sales than they probably get with their current nagging model. Consumers just don't understand why they'd need Pro, and hate being nickel'n'dimed for stuff they may use once or twice.