Well, yes, it would be nice if the Pro license could be more granular, and you could pay on a per-codec basis. Also, you would have thought it shouldn't be too hard for Apple to enable the "export to iPod" without enabling any other features. A key to unlock that feature could then be included with the purchase of a full-size iPod, and sold to others for $5.
I agree that having to pay for full-screen is a very bad joke. It's probably the reason that loads of PC users think that QuickTime is crap.
That's right. On ARstechnica, Anand, and others, there's always the same 3 or 4 guys (different on each site, of course) who are Mac baiters. They butt into every discussion. Whenever Apple pulls something like this, we never hear the end of it. They even convince others that the "Mac Tax" is on everything you get from Apple.
Sometimes I think that Apple should drop these small annoying fees and chalk it up to customer relations.
Just thought of this:
Any program that Apple gives you, or esp., and program that you BUY from Apple should automatically open those features that IT needs to function up to the advertised potential. After that, those features should be available to any other program you have. But not the rest (other than full screen, movie correction etc.).
If a program such as FCP, which I use, requires numerous features from Pro so that they just give you a license, then Pro IS available to everything else.
Onsite warranties for laptops are rather daft aren't they? If I can carry my laptop in then shouldn't I do that?
The reason why I say this is because I don't know about you all but I work monday-friday and I'm not taking a day off to wait for some Dell rep. Applecare also lets you speak to ...ahem shall we say a "native" english speaker.
Onsite warranties for laptops are rather daft aren't they? If I can carry my laptop in then shouldn't I do that?
The reason why I say this is because I don't know about you all but I work monday-friday and I'm not taking a day off to wait for some Dell rep. Applecare also lets you speak to ...ahem shall we say a "native" english speaker.
That service includes evenings and weekends.
Edit:
Also, it is often the case that a computer in need of repair is still usable, it may be just one feature that is broken. A return-to-base warranty means that you are without your computer whilst you wait for it to be shipped to apple, fixed, and sent back. Onsite warranty means you are only without your machine while the engineer is looking at it.
Also, it is often the case that a computer in need of repair is still usable, it may be just one feature that is broken. A return-to-base warranty means that you are without your computer whilst you wait for it to be shipped to apple, fixed, and sent back. Onsite warranty means you are only without your machine while the engineer is looking at it.
Assuming that they can fix it there. Sometimes they can't. Then often the option is to have them come back again, or take it with them, and (hopefully) return it themselves.
QT has been jumping on the iTunes/iPod bandwagon for a while now, and the video iPod just takes it to the next level.
Content creators have always loved QuickTime, its general users (WinTel users, mainly) that have not embraced it for playback. Although you could argue that it is content distributors and Apple's reluctance to create a QuickTime DRM platform that has hindered it.
However, now everyone is becoming content creators. You RIP your CDs and now you encode your movies too. New users are exposed to the Mac experience and the end-to-end ease of taking your movie, exporting it to iTunes, and taking it with you on your iPod. All relatively seamlessly.
Sure, it'll sell some more QT Pro licenses, but I think this workflow will drive more users to Mac.
As soon as a program is required for hardware to do it's advertised task (ie: play video, therefore encode video) you'd think the core program for this would be inclusive of the high price you pay for the ipod. Therefore, encoding should be free in Quicktime. I have Pro, but I still think that Pro does nothing that the free version shouldn't. If it's really 'Pro', you should be able to do basic cut and paste video and audio within it.
As soon as a program is required for hardware to do it's advertised task (ie: play video, therefore encode video) you'd think the core program for this would be inclusive of the high price you pay for the ipod. Therefore, encoding should be free in Quicktime. I have Pro, but I still think that Pro does nothing that the free version shouldn't. If it's really 'Pro', you should be able to do basic cut and paste video and audio within it.
heh. the interesting thing is why are those people buying quicktime pro? to watch Lost full screen in quickTime 7? i think not. this could be evidence that there is a huge number of users with illegal content they're happily "export to iPod"-ing while the dumbass movie and tv studios still argue about dinosaur DRM and dinosaur physical formats. where apple is neatly poised to strike when said dumbass studios wake the frack up and smell the torrents.
Dell are currently selling their Inspiron 9300 17" laptop for $2,368. That price includes a four year, at home warranty. Apple's 17" PowerBook costs $2,848 with a 3 year, return to base AppleCare warranty.
Dell's offers change all the time, but on the whole, their extended warranties seem to be cheaper and better (at home vs. return-to-base)
HAHAHAHAHAHA Ever get them to come to your home in a reasonable time frame. HAHAHAHAHA I'd rather return to base.
The developement costs of Quicktime are paid for by the purchase of Apple's computers, iPods, iTunes web site, and software sales of all of the programs that depend upon it.
Don't think so, I believe that Steve would quickly move to have each product stand on its own merits. While the sales of iPods do drive the sales of Quicktime, the sale of the pro keys should pay for the development of Quicktime. This is good news from an accounting standpoint, in that Apple may no linger have to subsidize QT. I think that this way the budget for QT could be larger now that the minimum has been surpassed.
Quote:
Quicktime should be thought of as a part of OS developement.
Agreed, QT is becoming something that is the heart of the future for the Mac, so it is part of the OS by default. Unless we want Macs without any multimedia features, just about all multimedia features in the Mac OS are through QT and its frameworks.
Quote:
Also, many of the features in "Pro" are unlocked by both freeware and shareware programs, so why charge for them?
I pay for it because I'm able to buy what ever I want, but for many, even the $30 is more than they want to spend.
Agreed, I can see $erialBox for extensive trials and training of expensive pro apps, but then why? I mean that if you are making money from these apps, why risk your business? As far as QT is concerned $30 is a steak dinner for me, I can afford it, I'm sure others can too.
Quote:
If Apple added more high end features, they could drop some of the more common ones, and the ones the third parties pull out, and charge for those features without getting so many people upset about another "Apple Tax".
Look for this to happen in a big way and very fast. QT7 did a great number of things, first it replaced the old API with new more modern ones that the developers needed, and QT needed to move forward. I cannot stress enough how much work this must have been. Second QT7 added support for H.264, no small feat. Now think about this, suppose that you were working on the H.264 team and knew that all of the old API were changing and everything under those API was being updated. Talk about trying to work on a plane while it is in flight, it appeared to me that they not only worked on the plane they menaged to change the wings while the plane was in flight. So what you are asking Apple for is like cake walk compared to what they just did, but are things that are still needed.
Dell are currently selling their Inspiron 9300 17" laptop for $2,368. That price includes a four year, at home warranty. Apple's 17" PowerBook costs $2,848 with a 3 year, return to base AppleCare warranty.
Dell's offers change all the time, but on the whole, their extended warranties seem to be cheaper and better (at home vs. return-to-base)
I believe that Dell just lowered earnings projections and said that service related charges were the reason. Perhaps if it is too good to believe, it is. I do agree that Apple should do more, like going to 4 years, but with all of the Apple stores that do repairs and have it ready for you the next day, or that is what Apple says, then what is the difference. I guess that I would rather drive it there, shop, pick it up, shop. I understand that others will be different, but maybe the savings on shipping to people like me may lower costs enough for Apple to enhance the service for all.
[B]Don't think so, I believe that Steve would quickly move to have each product stand on its own merits. While the sales of iPods do drive the sales of Quicktime, the sale of the pro keys should pay for the development of Quicktime. This is good news from an accounting standpoint, in that Apple may no linger have to subsidize QT. I think that this way the budget for QT could be larger now that the minimum has been surpassed.
Pro is not a product. That's the whole point. It's part of the OS. It's part of Quicktime itself. It's just an unlock code. It doesn't "give" anyone anything that isn't already there.
Quote:
Agreed, QT is becoming something that is the heart of the future for the Mac, so it is part of the OS by default. Unless we want Macs without any multimedia features, just about all multimedia features in the Mac OS are through QT and its frameworks.
You seem to agree here that it isn't a product.
Quote:
Agreed, I can see $erialBox for extensive trials and training of expensive pro apps, but then why? I mean that if you are making money from these apps, why risk your business? As far as QT is concerned $30 is a steak dinner for me, I can afford it, I'm sure others can too.
Can afford it, and thinking that you should have to pay for it are two different things. The people who can afford it most are being given it for free. But those who need it least, or who can afford it least are being told that they should pay for it for the one or two features that should be part of the software or hardware they just paid for.
Quote:
Look for this to happen in a big way and very fast. QT7 did a great number of things, first it replaced the old API with new more modern ones that the developers needed, and QT needed to move forward. I cannot stress enough how much work this must have been. Second QT7 added support for H.264, no small feat. Now think about this, suppose that you were working on the H.264 team and knew that all of the old API were changing and everything under those API was being updated. Talk about trying to work on a plane while it is in flight, it appeared to me that they not only worked on the plane they menaged to change the wings while the plane was in flight. So what you are asking Apple for is like cake walk compared to what they just did, but are things that are still needed.
Most of the changes to QT 7 were codec additions. Not a great deal else changed. The big changes were in 6.
Most of the changes to QT 7 were codec additions. Not a great deal else changed. The big changes were in 6.
Dude, you could not be more wrong if you tried.
QT7 brought some massive changes to the API set (it introduced QT kit), and totally re-vamped the audio-handling side of things.
It's a common mistake for people to think that QuickTime is just the player. Granted, that hasn't changed much QT6 --> QT7 (although there have been some very nice additions), but under the hood there has been more change than ever before.
QT7 brought some massive changes to the API set (it introduced QT kit), and totally re-vamped the audio-handling side of things.
It's a common mistake for people to think that QuickTime is just the player. Granted, that hasn't changed much QT6 --> QT7 (although there have been some very nice additions), but under the hood there has been more change than ever before.
Apple revamped QT in 6. 7 doesn't have as many improvements as that.
I know it's not just the player. I think everyone knowsthat.
I know it's not just the player. I think everyone knowsthat.
O.K. I'm sorry for implying that you didn't know that. But if you go to VersionTracker and read some of the dumb reviews over there ("it won't play my bastardised DivX/mp3 pron AVIs!!!! QuickTime suxors!!!!!!!"), you'll realise that really not everyone does know it.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Apple revamped QT in 6. 7 doesn't have as many improvements as that.
Perhaps this is more debatable than I thought.
I'm not sure how providing a complete set of entirely new APIs, properly supporting more than two channels of sound, and sample rates greater than 44.1 KHz for the first time, could be considered as less improvement than QT5 --> QT6. To be honest, It seems that my view of the QT5 --> QT6 transition is the same as your view of QT6 --> QT7.
Comments
Originally posted by Mr. H
Well, yes, it would be nice if the Pro license could be more granular, and you could pay on a per-codec basis. Also, you would have thought it shouldn't be too hard for Apple to enable the "export to iPod" without enabling any other features. A key to unlock that feature could then be included with the purchase of a full-size iPod, and sold to others for $5.
I agree that having to pay for full-screen is a very bad joke. It's probably the reason that loads of PC users think that QuickTime is crap.
That's right. On ARstechnica, Anand, and others, there's always the same 3 or 4 guys (different on each site, of course) who are Mac baiters. They butt into every discussion. Whenever Apple pulls something like this, we never hear the end of it. They even convince others that the "Mac Tax" is on everything you get from Apple.
Sometimes I think that Apple should drop these small annoying fees and chalk it up to customer relations.
Just thought of this:
Any program that Apple gives you, or esp., and program that you BUY from Apple should automatically open those features that IT needs to function up to the advertised potential. After that, those features should be available to any other program you have. But not the rest (other than full screen, movie correction etc.).
If a program such as FCP, which I use, requires numerous features from Pro so that they just give you a license, then Pro IS available to everything else.
The reason why I say this is because I don't know about you all but I work monday-friday and I'm not taking a day off to wait for some Dell rep. Applecare also lets you speak to ...ahem shall we say a "native" english speaker.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Onsite warranties for laptops are rather daft aren't they? If I can carry my laptop in then shouldn't I do that?
The reason why I say this is because I don't know about you all but I work monday-friday and I'm not taking a day off to wait for some Dell rep. Applecare also lets you speak to ...ahem shall we say a "native" english speaker.
That service includes evenings and weekends.
Edit:
Also, it is often the case that a computer in need of repair is still usable, it may be just one feature that is broken. A return-to-base warranty means that you are without your computer whilst you wait for it to be shipped to apple, fixed, and sent back. Onsite warranty means you are only without your machine while the engineer is looking at it.
Originally posted by Mr. H
That service includes evenings and weekends.
Edit:
Also, it is often the case that a computer in need of repair is still usable, it may be just one feature that is broken. A return-to-base warranty means that you are without your computer whilst you wait for it to be shipped to apple, fixed, and sent back. Onsite warranty means you are only without your machine while the engineer is looking at it.
Assuming that they can fix it there. Sometimes they can't. Then often the option is to have them come back again, or take it with them, and (hopefully) return it themselves.
Content creators have always loved QuickTime, its general users (WinTel users, mainly) that have not embraced it for playback. Although you could argue that it is content distributors and Apple's reluctance to create a QuickTime DRM platform that has hindered it.
However, now everyone is becoming content creators. You RIP your CDs and now you encode your movies too. New users are exposed to the Mac experience and the end-to-end ease of taking your movie, exporting it to iTunes, and taking it with you on your iPod. All relatively seamlessly.
Sure, it'll sell some more QT Pro licenses, but I think this workflow will drive more users to Mac.
Originally posted by 666
If it's really 'Pro', you should be able to do basic cut and paste video and audio within it.
You can, and I have many times. It's one of the best utilities for quickly trimming a video or audio file.
Originally posted by 666
As soon as a program is required for hardware to do it's advertised task (ie: play video, therefore encode video) you'd think the core program for this would be inclusive of the high price you pay for the ipod. Therefore, encoding should be free in Quicktime. I have Pro, but I still think that Pro does nothing that the free version shouldn't. If it's really 'Pro', you should be able to do basic cut and paste video and audio within it.
Heh, heh. you don't have as many options in Hell.
That's why you're there.
Originally posted by Xool
I think .Mac should include a QT Pro key. It would be one more incentive to buy it. Although I bet many .mac subscribers are already QT Pro users.
I think a lot of things should have it.
But Apple simply wants it as a source of income.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Dell are currently selling their Inspiron 9300 17" laptop for $2,368. That price includes a four year, at home warranty. Apple's 17" PowerBook costs $2,848 with a 3 year, return to base AppleCare warranty.
Dell's offers change all the time, but on the whole, their extended warranties seem to be cheaper and better (at home vs. return-to-base)
HAHAHAHAHAHA Ever get them to come to your home in a reasonable time frame. HAHAHAHAHA I'd rather return to base.
Originally posted by melgross
The developement costs of Quicktime are paid for by the purchase of Apple's computers, iPods, iTunes web site, and software sales of all of the programs that depend upon it.
Don't think so, I believe that Steve would quickly move to have each product stand on its own merits. While the sales of iPods do drive the sales of Quicktime, the sale of the pro keys should pay for the development of Quicktime. This is good news from an accounting standpoint, in that Apple may no linger have to subsidize QT. I think that this way the budget for QT could be larger now that the minimum has been surpassed.
Quote:
Quicktime should be thought of as a part of OS developement.
Agreed, QT is becoming something that is the heart of the future for the Mac, so it is part of the OS by default. Unless we want Macs without any multimedia features, just about all multimedia features in the Mac OS are through QT and its frameworks.
Quote:
Also, many of the features in "Pro" are unlocked by both freeware and shareware programs, so why charge for them?
I pay for it because I'm able to buy what ever I want, but for many, even the $30 is more than they want to spend.
Agreed, I can see $erialBox for extensive trials and training of expensive pro apps, but then why? I mean that if you are making money from these apps, why risk your business? As far as QT is concerned $30 is a steak dinner for me, I can afford it, I'm sure others can too.
Quote:
If Apple added more high end features, they could drop some of the more common ones, and the ones the third parties pull out, and charge for those features without getting so many people upset about another "Apple Tax".
Look for this to happen in a big way and very fast. QT7 did a great number of things, first it replaced the old API with new more modern ones that the developers needed, and QT needed to move forward. I cannot stress enough how much work this must have been. Second QT7 added support for H.264, no small feat. Now think about this, suppose that you were working on the H.264 team and knew that all of the old API were changing and everything under those API was being updated. Talk about trying to work on a plane while it is in flight, it appeared to me that they not only worked on the plane they menaged to change the wings while the plane was in flight. So what you are asking Apple for is like cake walk compared to what they just did, but are things that are still needed.
Originally posted by samiam
HAHAHAHAHAHA Ever get them to come to your home in a reasonable time frame. HAHAHAHAHA I'd rather return to base.
WTF dude?
Originally posted by Mr. H
Dell are currently selling their Inspiron 9300 17" laptop for $2,368. That price includes a four year, at home warranty. Apple's 17" PowerBook costs $2,848 with a 3 year, return to base AppleCare warranty.
Dell's offers change all the time, but on the whole, their extended warranties seem to be cheaper and better (at home vs. return-to-base)
I believe that Dell just lowered earnings projections and said that service related charges were the reason. Perhaps if it is too good to believe, it is. I do agree that Apple should do more, like going to 4 years, but with all of the Apple stores that do repairs and have it ready for you the next day, or that is what Apple says, then what is the difference. I guess that I would rather drive it there, shop, pick it up, shop. I understand that others will be different, but maybe the savings on shipping to people like me may lower costs enough for Apple to enhance the service for all.
Originally posted by Brendon
[B]Don't think so, I believe that Steve would quickly move to have each product stand on its own merits. While the sales of iPods do drive the sales of Quicktime, the sale of the pro keys should pay for the development of Quicktime. This is good news from an accounting standpoint, in that Apple may no linger have to subsidize QT. I think that this way the budget for QT could be larger now that the minimum has been surpassed.
Pro is not a product. That's the whole point. It's part of the OS. It's part of Quicktime itself. It's just an unlock code. It doesn't "give" anyone anything that isn't already there.
Agreed, QT is becoming something that is the heart of the future for the Mac, so it is part of the OS by default. Unless we want Macs without any multimedia features, just about all multimedia features in the Mac OS are through QT and its frameworks.
You seem to agree here that it isn't a product.
Agreed, I can see $erialBox for extensive trials and training of expensive pro apps, but then why? I mean that if you are making money from these apps, why risk your business? As far as QT is concerned $30 is a steak dinner for me, I can afford it, I'm sure others can too.
Can afford it, and thinking that you should have to pay for it are two different things. The people who can afford it most are being given it for free. But those who need it least, or who can afford it least are being told that they should pay for it for the one or two features that should be part of the software or hardware they just paid for.
Look for this to happen in a big way and very fast. QT7 did a great number of things, first it replaced the old API with new more modern ones that the developers needed, and QT needed to move forward. I cannot stress enough how much work this must have been. Second QT7 added support for H.264, no small feat. Now think about this, suppose that you were working on the H.264 team and knew that all of the old API were changing and everything under those API was being updated. Talk about trying to work on a plane while it is in flight, it appeared to me that they not only worked on the plane they menaged to change the wings while the plane was in flight. So what you are asking Apple for is like cake walk compared to what they just did, but are things that are still needed.
Most of the changes to QT 7 were codec additions. Not a great deal else changed. The big changes were in 6.
Originally posted by melgross
Most of the changes to QT 7 were codec additions. Not a great deal else changed. The big changes were in 6.
Dude, you could not be more wrong if you tried.
QT7 brought some massive changes to the API set (it introduced QT kit), and totally re-vamped the audio-handling side of things.
It's a common mistake for people to think that QuickTime is just the player. Granted, that hasn't changed much QT6 --> QT7 (although there have been some very nice additions), but under the hood there has been more change than ever before.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Dude, you could not be more wrong if you tried.
QT7 brought some massive changes to the API set (it introduced QT kit), and totally re-vamped the audio-handling side of things.
It's a common mistake for people to think that QuickTime is just the player. Granted, that hasn't changed much QT6 --> QT7 (although there have been some very nice additions), but under the hood there has been more change than ever before.
Apple revamped QT in 6. 7 doesn't have as many improvements as that.
I know it's not just the player. I think everyone knowsthat.
Originally posted by melgross
I know it's not just the player. I think everyone knowsthat.
O.K. I'm sorry for implying that you didn't know that. But if you go to VersionTracker and read some of the dumb reviews over there ("it won't play my bastardised DivX/mp3 pron AVIs!!!! QuickTime suxors!!!!!!!"), you'll realise that really not everyone does know it.
Originally posted by melgross
Apple revamped QT in 6. 7 doesn't have as many improvements as that.
Perhaps this is more debatable than I thought.
I'm not sure how providing a complete set of entirely new APIs, properly supporting more than two channels of sound, and sample rates greater than 44.1 KHz for the first time, could be considered as less improvement than QT5 --> QT6. To be honest, It seems that my view of the QT5 --> QT6 transition is the same as your view of QT6 --> QT7.