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

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 66
    elrothelroth Posts: 1,201member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacOldTimer View Post


    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.
  • Reply 22 of 66
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iVlad View Post


    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.
  • Reply 23 of 66
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,419member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mn_hawk View Post


    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.
  • Reply 24 of 66
    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
  • Reply 25 of 66
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    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.
  • Reply 26 of 66
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,870member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by walshbj View Post


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



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    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.
  • Reply 27 of 66
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post


    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.
  • Reply 28 of 66
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,870member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    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.
  • Reply 29 of 66
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,870member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    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.
  • Reply 30 of 66
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post


    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.
  • Reply 31 of 66
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by elroth View Post


    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.
  • Reply 32 of 66
    @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.
  • Reply 33 of 66
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,870member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    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.
  • Reply 34 of 66
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 5,801member
    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.
  • Reply 35 of 66
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post


    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.
  • Reply 36 of 66
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wobegon View Post


    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.
  • Reply 37 of 66
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mn_hawk View Post


    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?
  • Reply 38 of 66
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    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/
  • Reply 39 of 66
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,870member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    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.
  • Reply 40 of 66
    Maybe someone should point out that developer releases usually come with an unlocked QT Pro, not just Snow Leopard...
Sign In or Register to comment.