QuickTime Pro is ONLY $30...

Posted:
in macOS edited January 2014
Quick background; I had a 733MHz Digital Audio+Panther. It's a good machine but it's getting real long in the tooth. It kept my finger in Mac-ville. Just sold it.



My main work and play machine is a high powered Overam laptop running Windows XP Pro. This lappy is a bad-ass (Half Life 2 at high settings...). Unfortunately, it doesn't run Mac OS X. If Apple produced a PowerBook with relatively simular specs, I'd gladly go all Mac once again.



The daughter of one of my clients is about ready to graduate from art school. She's very talented. He was going to buy her a top of the line Sony or Dell desktop. He has the connections to buy at below wholesale prices.



Steve Jobs, are you reading this? I convinced him to buy his daughter the mid level dual G5. Of course, along with the requisite "artist" software and hardware peripherals, this came out to pert near $5,000! That's a good chunk of dough even for someone with relatively DEEP pockets.



So here's the kicker. After spending a good deal of that money with Apple, he's going to have to pony up $30 for QT Pro... I know, I know. It's ONLY $30. WTF, something is screwy about this. I'm no tech-geek. Bare with me here. Apple supplies a developers kit (or something of that nature) with each and every copy of OS X. They have produced, arguably, the most advanced consumer OS ever. Tiger looks like a world beater...



Yet, you have to cough up an additional $30 to unlock the "crippling". This just strikes me as a cheap shot. A tacky one at that.



OK, I put on my fire-proof suit, I'm ready...
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 32
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,271member
    No fire proof suit necessary.



    Apple could "eat" the costs of QT Pro but that would be asking a lot of them. Quicktime is the algamation of licensed codecs that apple pays for. I guess they just wanted to decouple the costs this from the OS so that OS X could remain 129 rather than be sold for $170 or so. Not everyone needs the QT Pro features.
  • Reply 2 of 32
    ebbyebby Posts: 3,110member
    I take a different route when it comes to quicktime. If if buy it now, I will end up buying it again later when I update Final cut pro or something. (That comes with QT registration keys) So I'll basically I have to live in the dark until I have some big bucks to burn. (I'll still have QT 6)
  • Reply 3 of 32
    mac writemac write Posts: 289member
    Tiger forces you to upgrade to QuickTime 7. No installing QuickTime 6 possible.
  • Reply 4 of 32
    g_warreng_warren Posts: 713member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hardhead

    BARE with me here.



    Sorry? Apologies, just had to point it out - bad spelling and grammar can annoy me when it's early in the morning!
  • Reply 5 of 32
    sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    yeah it can be frustrating but the above posters made some good points



    Quicktime7 basic will be free... even for Panther users



    So you have some next-generation decoding technology eg. h.264 for Panther and Tiger users



    for $30 (the price of 1 or 2 shareware software) you can now export in a plethora of formats, including an industry-leading standards-compliant avc/h.264 , sorenson3, etc. etc...
  • Reply 6 of 32
    sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hardhead

    ....



    The daughter of one of my clients is about ready to graduate from art school. She's very talented. He was going to buy her a top of the line Sony or Dell desktop. He has the connections to buy at below wholesale prices.



    Steve Jobs, are you reading this? I convinced him to buy his daughter the mid level dual G5. Of course, along with the requisite "artist" software and hardware peripherals, this came out to pert near $5,000! That's a good chunk of dough even for someone with relatively DEEP pockets.



    ....




    trust me, you've done her a big big favour as well as her father. face it, unless you're working at an appleStore or apple dealer, the biggest reward is that warm fuzzy feeling, a chance to write about it here, and *hugs* from us AppleInsiders...



    aww... *group hug*





    well that's as warm and fuzzy as it will get.



    seriously though, how awesome it is that you've helped set up a young person with her best opportunity to excel enjoy and have a great time at what she does well. she can focus on creativity, abstract thinking, pushing the envelope, getting clients, getting a great job, leading her industry.... instead of worrying about reinstalling, antivirus, de-spyware-ing, defragging. for multimedia production applications as well, she will have much higher performance from the dualG5 than even higher-GHZ-rated Sonys or Dells.



    also she'll be working on one of the most advanced operating systems for the creative class - mac os 10.4 tiger. the sleek interface, daring paradigms and inspirational feel of the system will contribute to her fledging blossoming as an artiste.



    (damn.. why isn't apple marketing paying me? oh yeah, as i wrote, there it is...mmm warm fuzzy feeling... that's the reward)







    .....
  • Reply 7 of 32
    bergzbergz Posts: 1,045member
    I just installed QT 7.0 using Software Update. I'm using 10.3.9. It is 2:39 AM Cupertino time.



    --B
  • Reply 8 of 32
    sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bergz

    I just installed QT 7.0 using Software Update. I'm using 10.3.9. It is 2:39 AM Cupertino time.



    --B




    bloody sweet
  • Reply 9 of 32
    I suspect that Apple's charge for quicktime pro is more about the royalties that Apple has to pay, then trying to nickle and dime people.



    Most video codecs are patent protected. I suspect Apple has to pay someone a royalty for each copy that is able to encode video using these patented codecs.



    So, Apple has to either pay the royalty for every copy of OS X they sell, or break the parts that require a patent royalty out into an added extra.



    I suppose they could just add $30 to the price of OS X, but maybe they'd rather only pay royalties to the patent holder when the software is actually going to be used.



    Also, it may be that the patent holder won't let Apple just give it away with every release, but rather requires them to charge a seperate amount.



    I'm speculating completely, of course.



    If you think its unfair that someone should be granted a monopoly on math, donate here: http://www.eff.org.
  • Reply 10 of 32
    sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by melevittfl

    I suspect that Apple's charge for quicktime pro is more about the royalties that Apple has to pay, then trying to nickle and dime people.



    Most video codecs are patent protected. I suspect Apple has to pay someone a royalty for each copy that is able to encode video using these patented codecs.



    So, Apple has to either pay the royalty for every copy of OS X they sell, or break the parts that require a patent royalty out into an added extra.



    I suppose they could just add $30 to the price of OS X, but maybe they'd rather only pay royalties to the patent holder when the software is actually going to be used.



    Also, it may be that the patent holder won't let Apple just give it away with every release, but rather requires them to charge a seperate amount.



    I'm speculating completely, of course.



    If you think its unfair that someone should be granted a monopoly on math, donate here: http://www.eff.org.




    for just $30, if you wanted to encode and backup your DVDs in H.264 format, using a really advanced codec, simple to use controls, software optimised for Mac OS 10.3 and 10.4, would you do it?



    what if that h.264 offered near-DVD quality, and better compression and space saving than divx/3vix/xvid?







    ............
  • Reply 11 of 32
    There are ways to subvert Apple's ridiculous QT pricing. Since I use it only for playback and not encoding, I activated the Pro version myself.



    IMO this is a stupid way for Apple to promote QT. Greater QT market penetration helps Apple more than the small profit they get on Pro license sales. Nobody wants to use a media player that nags them for money all the time, just to be able to play vide full screen.
  • Reply 12 of 32
    hardheadhardhead Posts: 644member
    G_Warren, you stinker you... That's what I get for posting RIGHT before I go mee mees...



    He payed for the upgrade. She's going to need it.



    The point made about the royalties makes sense. No argument there. However, one shoudn't be punished if one chooses not to upgrade to Pro. At least provide a basic video save feature. Maybe the abitlity to only save a reduced sized video. Something.
  • Reply 13 of 32
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,271member
    God I'm tired of the complaints.



    Apple just needs to make future versions of OS X $159 and include the free Pro License.



    There comes a point where you get tired of this subject "every" upgrade cycle. Just pack it in the price and be done with it Apple. Sheesh.
  • Reply 14 of 32
    hardheadhardhead Posts: 644member
    hmurch., you hit the nail on the head. This is what Apple should consider doing. Even if it raises the price. Apple PR will just have to be aggresive about pointing out the superiority of QuickTime over WinMediaPlayer, RealPlayer plus all the 'vixs combined.



    The features of QuickTime Pro are a selling point. If it's included in the initial price of purchase, that will be much less annoying than being reminded on a regular basis that you have "crippled-ware".



    Even non video-pros (like myself) want to be able to view full screens and save videos.
  • Reply 15 of 32
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    Actually, I think what Apple needs to do is sort out the authoring tools of QT Pro from the advanced viewing tools of QT Pro. The problem with the upgrade is its lack of focus, an identity crisis of sorts. Is Apple charging for maybe a handful of premium end-user features, or is QT Pro supposed to be part of a professional authoring environment?



    (Of course, I think the authoring UI needs a lot of work too, all menu-driven and tucked away.)



    $30 is too steep IMO for what boils down to one or two features that most people want: full screen playback and maybe advanced playback controls. They should charge $10 to unlock the viewing features if they're going to insist on charging for them at all, and they can keep the authoring tools locked until you pony up another 20 clams.



    And, oh God, they really need to eliminate the negware screen on launch. I'd rather they badge the viewer window of the free player (just not over the content) than do that.



    Oooh, stress... hateful feelings... must... burn... everything...
  • Reply 16 of 32
    ebbyebby Posts: 3,110member
    OK, I gotta ask this question. Can I upgrade to QT 7 to sample the movies and later reinstall QT 6 for exporting? (I know, without the QT7 extras) I could do that with earlier versions and I would like to know that is still an option.



    EDIT: It was hard to find, bit there is a 6.5.2 reinstller.

    Quote:

    The QuickTime 6.5.2 reinstaller will remove QuickTime 7 from a Mac OS X 10.3.9 system and restore QuickTime 6.5.2.



    Note: This reinstaller will only run on Mac OS X 10.3.9.



    I feel safe to test out QT 7 now.
  • Reply 17 of 32
    sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BuonRotto

    Actually, I think what Apple needs to do is sort out the authoring tools of QT Pro from the advanced viewing tools of QT Pro. The problem with the upgrade is its lack of focus, an identity crisis of sorts. Is Apple charging for maybe a handful of premium end-user features, or is QT Pro supposed to be part of a professional authoring environment?



    (Of course, I think the authoring UI needs a lot of work too, all menu-driven and tucked away.)



    $30 is too steep IMO for what boils down to one or two features that most people want: full screen playback and maybe advanced playback controls. They should charge $10 to unlock the viewing features if they're going to insist on charging for them at all, and they can keep the authoring tools locked until you pony up another 20 clams.



    And, oh God, they really need to eliminate the negware screen on launch. I'd rather they badge the viewer window of the free player (just not over the content) than do that.



    Oooh, stress... hateful feelings... must... burn... everything...




    perfectly put.



    my dad asked me the other day, "quicktime is by apple??" and my uncle asked me "iPod is by apple??"



    apple stands poised with some excellent halo-effect drivers, eg, quicktime, now quicktime high-definition, and of course the almost ubiquitious iPod. halo-effect conversion will only happen once this translates in peoples mind that they do, and always have, especially in the past several years, make great computers and software.



    apple will have to decide. keep profit margins high and risk a certain level of obscurity (which in the end can result in negative brand image -- "if they are so great why don't they advertise more? my dad has said a billion times"



    or the can "sacrifice" a bit of profit margin, re-invest it into very smart and targeted PR and marketing to get the word out and just maybe, profit margins will be slightly lower but guess what overall profits may be higher from increased volume, increased exposure, all snowballing along with the halo-effect drivers to truly represent how great the Mac is, like "those crazy Mac people" have been saying all along.
  • Reply 18 of 32
    nobody is asking to encode movies and that other nonsense. I just want to freaking player back movies in full screen. I wonder how much that licensing fee is...
  • Reply 19 of 32
    sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NaMo4184

    nobody is asking to encode movies and that other nonsense. I just want to freaking player back movies in full screen. I wonder how much that licensing fee is...



    i hear ya. $30 gives you the whole shebang, most people just want to watch movies full screen... like their collection of trailers... watching movies full screen doesn't involve a licensing fee of course it's a 'feature' to be 'unlocked' by that $30....
  • Reply 20 of 32
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    I think the emphasis should be more like "Quicktime Pro is ?only? $30..." I am a college student - I dont have a ton of money - I just plunked down70$ for tiger and you are telling me I should think nothing of spending $30 to unlock the included media player...ALL I WOULD EVER DO WITH IT IS PLAY BACK IN FULL SCREEN! Does that make me a media "pro"? I think not.
Sign In or Register to comment.