 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / Applications / Mac Applications / May 2005QuickTime registration number
Since I installed Tiger it seems my registered QuickTime now is no longer registered. Where can I find the registration number or do I have to buy it again? > Since I installed Tiger it seems my registered QuickTime now is no longer > registered. Where can I find the registration number or do I have to buy it > again? Yes, you have to buy a new one. It is a major upgrade.  SignatureSteven >> Since I installed Tiger it seems my registered QuickTime now is no longer >> registered. Where can I find the registration number or do I have to buy it >> again? > >Yes, you have to buy a new one. It is a major upgrade. That's a real pain in the arse when I only bought QuickTime Pro 6 a fortnight ago. :-( I'm rather annoyed that the Software Update on my Panther box did not warn me that this would downgrade me from the Pro to the normal version. Is it possible to go back to version 6 without resorting to a backup? Tim > I'm rather annoyed that the Software Update on my Panther box did not > warn me that this would downgrade me from the Pro to the normal version. It did warn you. It was quite explicit in the Software Update dialog box telling you about the upgrade. > Is it possible to go back to version 6 without resorting to a backup? Yes. Apple has posted a QT6 downgrader for just this purpose. SignaturePlain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed. No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow? http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting > Since I installed Tiger it seems my registered QuickTime now is no longer > registered. Where can I find the registration number or do I have to buy it > again? Buy it again, or put v6 back unfortunately. SignatureFreeMiNT http://sparemint.atariforge.net/sparemint/ [Free your mind...] Team Atari http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/stats/team/team_21046.html L. Pursell http://www.bright.net/~gfabasic/ [AtarIRC, GFA-Basic, Hades060] > > Since I installed Tiger it seems my registered QuickTime now is no longer > > registered. > Buy it again, or put v6 back unfortunately. Argh, Apple frustrates me so much sometimes. The things it enhances in the Quicktime Player should be included out of the box. They'll include iMovie HD and iDVD, but not a video player that'll go full-screen? Ridiculous. I hope they'll abandon the whole "pro" thing soon. Full-screen playback and cut-and-paste should not be add-on features. It's as bad as Dell charging extra for a "deluxe" version of their photo program to do things like red-eye reduction. SignatureGarner R. Miller Clifton Park, NY =USA= >> > Since I installed Tiger it seems my registered QuickTime now is no longer >> > registered. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > full-screen? Ridiculous. I hope they'll abandon the whole "pro" thing > soon. Seems to me, that people who want premium functionality are welcome to not pay for same. > Full-screen playback and cut-and-paste should not be add-on features. So write something and give it away then. > It's as bad as Dell charging extra for a "deluxe" version of their > photo program to do things like red-eye reduction. The consumer is free to buy, or not buy, upgrades. How is this a problem? > The consumer is free to buy, or not buy, upgrades. How is this a problem? QuickTime as a technology is deeply embedded in the operating system. The consumer has bought an upgrade of the OS -- which indeed she is free to do or not. Yet she can't access all QT features because using the fully-fonctionnal QuickTime player requires to pay an additionnal $30. How come that paying $130 for upgrading to Tiger doesn't entitle you to play movies full-screen, or copy/cut movies ? SignatureSerge Pajak > How come that paying $130 for upgrading to Tiger doesn't entitle you to > play movies full-screen, or copy/cut movies ? There is a very, very, very simple answer! Apple has chosen to make certain features of QuickTime free and certain features available for a charge. This, to my knowledge, has always been the case. I believe that in our society it is generally the seller that determines the terms, not the buyer. SignatureJames L. Ryan -- Taliesinsoft > There is a very, very, very simple answer! Apple has chosen to make > certain features of QuickTime free and certain features available for > a charge. This, to my knowledge, has always been the case. I believe > that in our society it is generally the seller that determines the > terms, not the buyer. While this is certainly true, the seller is generally trying to combine that with good marketing and making the buyer trust him. Selling hardware and an OS pretending to be *the* multimedia machine and then after being paid quite some bucks not even offering full-screen video playing *and* nagging the customer with greyed out "PRO! Pay again!" menu items is somewhat bad marketing. I wouldn't even tolerate this in a shareware app and certainly not in a professional product (which QT is a part of). The seller may determine the terms, but it's the buyer alone who decides if he buys again from that seller. Jochem Signature"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery > Apple has chosen to make certain features of QuickTime free and certain > features available for a charge. Actually, every features of the QuickTime technology can be used for free, but Apple has chosen that its QuickTime Player would not offer all of them until the user pays an additionnal fee. Basically we are paying once for the underlying technology (with the OS), and another time for the GUI that let us access it. Wow! > This, to my knowledge, has always been the case. No, until QuickTime 2.5 the QuickTime Player would let the user access every feature available with the installed version of QuickTime. QuickTime 3 was the first QT Player to differentiate between free and paid users. SignatureSerge Pajak Seems to me that since it's an integral/integrated part of the Apple product it would be included in the price of the new OS...I dunno, I'm new to this Apple thing and just wondered about it thinking I may have deleted it by accident or something...I went ahead and bought the new license. Thanks for the info... On 5/3/05 4:14 PM, in article 1gw0a3e.16tjc8y1jpenouN%serge@alussinan.org, >> Apple has chosen to make certain features of QuickTime free and certain >> features available for a charge. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > QuickTime 3 was the first QT Player to differentiate between free and > paid users. > > Apple has chosen to make certain features of QuickTime free and certain > > features available for a charge. > > Actually, every features of the QuickTime technology can be used for > free, but Apple has chosen that its QuickTime Player would not offer all > of them until the user pays an additionnal fee. Saving a movie that is playing in your web browser has little to do with QuickTime Player. > Actually, every features of the QuickTime technology can be used for > free, but Apple has chosen that its QuickTime Player would not offer all > of them until the user pays an additionnal fee. Does anyone else make a QT-compatible Player which lets one get at the rest of the features? They're all *there* - just inaccessible, right? Apple provides lots of stuff for which there is no interface and some wonderful developers out there write programs, both free and paid, which let us get to them. Maybe Apple is just trying to offer an opportunity for third-party developers to do more with this, too. SignaturePlain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed. No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow? http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting > Does anyone else make a QT-compatible Player which lets one > get at the rest of the features? Indeed ... some are free too. In relation to full screen viewing, for example, there is Fullscreen Movie Player X ... check out Versiontracker. SignatureAdrian >> The consumer is free to buy, or not buy, upgrades. How is this a problem? > > QuickTime as a technology is deeply embedded in the operating system. > The consumer has bought an upgrade of the OS -- which indeed she is free > to do or not. Yet she can't access all QT features because using the > fully-fonctionnal QuickTime player requires to pay an additionnal $30. As I understand it, whe you upgrade to Tiger you are given the option to upgrade QuickTime, with a verbose message described here today telling the user the implication of deciding yes or no. Is that true? > How come that paying $130 for upgrading to Tiger doesn't entitle you to > play movies full-screen, or copy/cut movies ? Were you given an option to upgrade to 7 and did you see that dialog, or no? > As I understand it, whe you upgrade to Tiger you are given the option > to upgrade QuickTime, with a verbose message described here today > telling the user the implication of deciding yes or no. Is that true? Once you have spent $130 on a new OS advertised as the most advanced multimedia-capable OS ever, you are indeed "given the option to upgrade QuickTime" -- how nice! And this option is even so generousely given to you even if you already paid for QT Pro, since all previous keys are not valid any more. My two points are that: i) some features offered only with QT Pro can reasonably be considered as basic. Interestingly enough, if you assumed that your new, innovative features-stuffed operating system would allow you to play movies full screen out of the box, you are wrong, and ii) don't assume that because you already paid for QT 6 Pro maybe some months or weeks ago you'll be entitled to QT 7 Pro, as new keys are needed. The retail box and the marketing pages are not especially verbose about that, obviously. SignatureSerge Pajak >> As I understand it, whe you upgrade to Tiger you are given the option >> to upgrade QuickTime, with a verbose message described here today [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > you even if you already paid for QT Pro, since all previous keys are not > valid any more. My question stands - was the 6 to 7 upgrade mandatory, or were you given it as an option? Did you have the option to stay with 6-pro vs 7-free, and chose to disregard the question, or were you not asked what you wanted to do? > My two points are that: > i) some features offered only with QT Pro can reasonably be considered > as basic. Well, the seller decides that, don't they? > Interestingly enough, if you assumed that your new, innovative > features-stuffed operating system would allow you to play movies full > screen out of the box, you are wrong, and > ii) don't assume that because you already paid for QT 6 Pro maybe some > months or weeks ago you'll be entitled to QT 7 Pro, as new keys are > needed. If I buy a 2003 Ford, I don't assume that Ford will give me a free car in 2005. > The retail box and the marketing pages are not especially verbose about > that, obviously. Some people will go out of their way to feel picked on, obviously. Were you given the option at tiger install time, or not? > My question stands - was the 6 to 7 upgrade mandatory, or were you given > it as an option? Did you have the option to stay with 6-pro vs 7-free, > and chose to disregard the question, or were you not asked what you wanted > to do? Tiger comes with QT 7 non-pro, if you already have QT 6 Pro you must reinstall it, gain some of the QT 7 features, since the underlying technology is QT 7, but not all, since the player you are using is QT 6. Which means that buying the OS is not sufficient to have a full-featured access to the QuickTime technology and Player, and you should be ready to pay an upgrade to QT 7 Pro. > > i) some features offered only with QT Pro can reasonably be considered > > as basic. > Well, the seller decides that, don't they? That it can be considered as basic ? No, this is up to the user. The seller decides virtually all the rest. > > ii) don't assume that because you already paid for QT 6 Pro maybe some > > months or weeks ago you'll be entitled to QT 7 Pro, as new keys are > > needed. > If I buy a 2003 Ford, I don't assume that Ford will give me a free car > in 2005. I didn't mention a free QT 7 at all, I said that I wished the QT 7 Player be included in Tiger just like the QT 7 technology is. Which means that it is not free in the least, it is paid with the $130 operating system price. In this case it is a rather natural assumption, as the OP illustrates. SignatureSerge Pajak > > Once you have spent $130 on a new OS advertised as the most advanced > > multimedia-capable OS ever, you are indeed "given the option to upgrade [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > My question stands - was the 6 to 7 upgrade mandatory, or were you given The thing is that Tiger is advertised all over the place as "including QuickTime 7". Differentiating between "Pro" and "free" is silly inasmuch as QT's never free - it's part of the OS and the OS isn't free. Maybe calling it "Pro" vs. "standard" is better terminology. > > i) some features offered only with QT Pro can reasonably be considered > > as basic. > > Well, the seller decides that, don't they? It would seem. I've never disagreed with Apple's right to do this. I only suggest that it's really quite petty and looks miserably amateurish, especially the *way* in which they've done this. If one updates to QT7 and runs QTPlayer, Apple puts all the "Pro" features in there - with really obnoxious "Pro" tags on them - and grays them out. They sit there taunting and testing and suggesting in a way that I expect Apple to be way above. It's rather like crippleware shareware instead of a packaged commercial product. > > Interestingly enough, if you assumed that your new, innovative > > features-stuffed operating system would allow you to play movies full > > screen out of the box, you are wrong, and I don't really remember, since I've had Pro for a long time - was QT6 able to play full screen without upgrading to Pro? Obviously QT7 isn't. But I thought QT6 allowed this and that Pro mainly added things like copying clips and "save as" and such. Seriously - Full Screen playback is an absurd thing to consider a "Pro" feature. > If I buy a 2003 Ford, I don't assume that Ford will give me a free car > in 2005. And if I buy a new 2005 Ford, doesn't it seem safe to assume that it'll come with features that nowadays appear to be standard? I can see leaving out format-conversion and clipping, but full-screen playback? > Some people will go out of their way to feel picked on, obviously. Feeling superior today, are we? As I said, I paid for Pro. It's worth the extra $30 to me. But Apple's not above criticism. They did something really cheesy and amateurish here and I hate to seem them do that since they really are a better company than this. SignaturePlain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed. No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow? http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting >> > Once you have spent $130 on a new OS advertised as the most advanced >> > multimedia-capable OS ever, you are indeed "given the option to upgrade [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the OS and the OS isn't free. Maybe calling it "Pro" vs. > "standard" is better terminology. Did you get presented with the option, or did it do it without asking and/or telling you it was doing it? Nobody seems to want to answer that, so I can guess the answer. >> > i) some features offered only with QT Pro can reasonably be considered >> > as basic. > >> Well, the seller decides that, don't they? > It would seem. I've never disagreed with Apple's right > to do this. I only suggest that it's really quite petty > and looks miserably amateurish, especially the *way* in > which they've done this. Why? You bought a premium version of a program. That program had a major revision done to it. You can keep your old premium version, or upgrade to the new "lite" version, both for free. Just because you bought it once doesn't mean you get free upgrades for life. > If one updates to QT7 and runs QTPlayer, Apple puts all > the "Pro" features in there - with really obnoxious "Pro" > tags on them - and grays them out. They sit there taunting > and testing and suggesting in a way that I expect Apple > to be way above. It's rather like crippleware shareware > instead of a packaged commercial product. It's a demo of the pro version, yes. This is nothing new, or unique to apple. Yes, I don't want to pay for the pro package because I don't care about those features, but maybe if I see them in a dragdown menu, greyed out with a "pro" tag next to it, I might say "Hey, maybe I should shell out for the pro version". > Seriously - Full Screen playback is an absurd thing to consider > a "Pro" feature. In your opinion. To Apple, it's a feature that someone might think is important enough to pay for. As you do, and as I don't. >> If I buy a 2003 Ford, I don't assume that Ford will give me a free car >> in 2005. > And if I buy a new 2005 Ford, doesn't it seem safe to assume > that it'll come with features that nowadays appear to be standard? Yes, you got _standard_. You didn't get _deluxe_ for free. > I can see leaving out format-conversion and clipping, but > full-screen playback? You've made that point over and over. Got any others? >> Some people will go out of their way to feel picked on, obviously. > > Feeling superior today, are we? No, just sick of people bitching about not getting handed software for free. > As I said, I paid for Pro. It's worth the extra $30 to me. And I'm glad you did, because I won't. > But Apple's not above criticism. They did something really > cheesy and amateurish here and I hate to seem them do that > since they really are a better company than this. You're blinded here. It's another product, and unless you buy (a) with an understanding of getting (b), expecting (b) with (a) is unrealistic. I got a free iMac when I bought 10.1, maybe I should whine loudly that they didn't give me another free iMac when I bought the tiger upgrade. It's exactly the same as what you're doing. > > The thing is that Tiger is advertised all over the place as > > "including QuickTime 7". Differentiating between "Pro" and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and/or telling you it was doing it? Nobody seems to want to answer that, > so I can guess the answer. It's not relevant. > > But Apple's not above criticism. They did something really > > cheesy and amateurish here and I hate to seem them do that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > with an understanding of getting (b), expecting (b) with (a) is > unrealistic. I know and got exactly what I expected. As I said, I knowingly and unhesitatingly paid the extra for Pro. I just think that Apple's done something in an unfortunate way. It could have been handled better. Even just leaving out the greyed out features and "pro" icons in the menus in QTPlayer would have been better. Is there something seriously offensive to you about folks suggesting that Apple could have handled something better? SignaturePlain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed. No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow? http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting >> > The thing is that Tiger is advertised all over the place as >> > "including QuickTime 7". Differentiating between "Pro" and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > It's not relevant. Why is it irrelevant? I really want to know the answer. I have QTpro 6.5.2 on Panther, haven't yet installed Tiger. Will I get the choice to stay with 6.5.2, or do I _have_ to upgrade to QT 7? Beverly SignatureMany a smale maketh a grate -- Geoffrey Chaucer > >> > The thing is that Tiger is advertised all over the place as > >> > "including QuickTime 7". Differentiating between "Pro" and [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Beverly It seems like until now you will have to upgrade to and pay for QT7 Pro. A number of people is clearly very annoyed at this practice. In fact an update that works out as a downgrade is a bit thick. If you install a new engine in your car, you normally would not have to pay for installing four new wheels, would you? Nevertheless, some think that removing functions is normal and acceptable. They should have kept all pro functions under QT6 still available for buyers of Tiger. > Why is it irrelevant? Because it is a narrow, trial-like question that is not meant to inform the user but to conclude that Apple is within its right as a business when it does what it is doing -- which is indeed true, but not relevant. > I really want to know the answer. I have QTpro 6.5.2 on Panther, haven't > yet installed Tiger. Will I get the choice to stay with 6.5.2, or do I > _have_ to upgrade to QT 7? Tiger comes with QT 7 non-Pro, and: - the QT 6 reinstaller won't run on Tiger. See [1] - QT 6 Pro keys are not valid for QT 7 Pro [1]<http://www.apple.com/support/downloads/quicktime652reinstallerformac .html> In addition to those standard choices, you can try to keep the QT 6 Player Pro (just the player) and run it atop Tiger-QT7. SignatureSerge Pajak >> Why is it irrelevant? > > Because it is a narrow, trial-like question that is not meant to inform > the user but to conclude that Apple is within its right as a business > when it does what it is doing -- which is indeed true, but not relevant. Is that your way of stating that I will get the choice of staying with 6.5.2 and not upgrading to 7? If it is, your statement is very circuitous. If you aren't stating what I've inferred, then could you explain what you are stating? SignatureMany a smale maketh a grate -- Geoffrey Chaucer > > Why is it irrelevant? > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > In addition to those standard choices, you can try to keep the QT 6 > Player Pro (just the player) and run it atop Tiger-QT7. Yes, but you cannot run QT6 from your browser for instance. Which means that you cannot save anything. Only movies already on your HD you will be able to save with QT6. All other movies will start up in QT7. >> > The thing is that Tiger is advertised all over the place as >> > "including QuickTime 7". Differentiating between "Pro" and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > It's not relevant. It most certainly is. You have a deluxe version of 6 installed. Presumably, you knew that, because you go on and on about it. During the install, you were either given an option to blow away that which you installed and install 7-basic, or you weren't given that option. Which is it? If you were given the option and chose to disregard it, or didn't bother reading it, or just said "screw it" and went ahead anyway, then you've got nobody to blame but yourself. If, on the other hand, Apple just installed 7 over 6-pro without asking you if that was OK, then it's a problem with Apple's installer. Originally, I asked that question in the hopes of finding out who screwed up. The deafening non-answers I've got from that question make the answer quite clear. >> > But Apple's not above criticism. They did something really >> > cheesy and amateurish here and I hate to seem them do that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> with an understanding of getting (b), expecting (b) with (a) is >> unrealistic. > I know and got exactly what I expected. As I said, I knowingly > and unhesitatingly paid the extra for Pro. > I just think that Apple's done something in an unfortunate way. > It could have been handled better. You mean, like saying "Hi, I've got 7 here, but you have 6 pro already, do you want to install 7 or not" you mean? > Even just leaving out the greyed out features and "pro" icons > in the menus in QTPlayer would have been better. Why? How would non-pro-owners know what they're missing then? > Is there something seriously offensive to you about folks > suggesting that Apple could have handled something better? No, it's about whining that you didn't get something for free. > >> Did you get presented with the option, or did it do it without asking > >> and/or telling you it was doing it? Nobody seems to want to answer that, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > away that which you installed and install 7-basic, or you > weren't given that option. Which is it? I've said several times that Apple has made it explicit in the update process that the QT6 Pro license wouldn't work on the QT7. This has *nothing* to do with my point that what Apple's doing is cheesy. I've never said that they didn't have the right to do this, nor that they've hidden the fact that QT6 Pro licenses aren't good for QT7. I did say and repeat - what they've done is cheesy and beneath them. > Originally, I asked that question in the hopes of finding out > who screwed up. The deafening non-answers I've got from that > question make the answer quite clear. Nobody really "screwed up" unless, maybe, it's their marketing department. I don't figure that they make a heap of money off of the QT7 Pro licensing and I wonder if the confusion (particularly about full-screen viewing) is worth what they're making from it. I think it's a poor business decision. That's all. You keep responding to that criticism of Apple with criticism of *me*. Okeeey. SignaturePlain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed. No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow? http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting >> >> Did you get presented with the option, or did it do it without asking >> >> and/or telling you it was doing it? Nobody seems to want to answer that, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > work on the QT7. This has *nothing* to do with my point > that what Apple's doing is cheesy. It's also not what I'm asking. Did it tell you it was blowing away 6-pro to install 7-basic, or did it do it without advising you and/or asking permission? >> Originally, I asked that question in the hopes of finding out >> who screwed up. The deafening non-answers I've got from that [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > You keep responding to that criticism of Apple with > criticism of *me*. Okeeey. You keep not answering a very clear direct question. Why is that? > The thing is that Tiger is advertised all over the place as > "including QuickTime 7". Differentiating between "Pro" and > "free" is silly inasmuch as QT's never free - it's part of > the OS and the OS isn't free. Ehh? My Quicktime 6 player was completely free, and not part of the OS... on Windows. SignatureRichard W Kaszeta rich@kaszeta.org http://www.kaszeta.org/rich > Ehh? My Quicktime 6 player was completely free, and not part of the > OS... on Windows. I think you missed the rest of the thread. This isn't the issue being discussed. Yes, the player is free but ..... SignatureAdrian > > Ehh? My Quicktime 6 player was completely free, and not part of the > > OS... on Windows. > > I think you missed the rest of the thread. Nope. The person I responded to said that none of it was free. > This isn't the issue being > discussed. Yes, the player is free but ..... Ehh? The whole of Quicktime except the Pro player, including the SDK is free on Windows (I've written plenty of apps that use Quicktime as a backend to read and write quicktime movies, and none of it costs anything). Same with Mac. SignatureRichard W Kaszeta rich@kaszeta.org http://www.kaszeta.org/rich > Ehh? The whole of Quicktime except the Pro player, including the SDK > is free on Windows (I've written plenty of apps that use Quicktime as > a backend to read and write quicktime movies, and none of it costs > anything). Same with Mac. Yes it's all free on the Mac too. It's just that some features in Quicktime Player only become active if you pay for Pro version or if you use alternative front end software to access the free installed Quicktime components. The original complaint was that in QT7 (unlike QT6) the free Player now has the full screen movie display feature disabled ... a surprising ommission. However there are freeware alternatives which offer this functionality. In fact I would guess that if you took the QT6 Player out of the Applications folder at the time of the auto-upgrade you could continue to use it with QT7. (This is an old trick which started with QT3 when people held onto their QT2.5 Player because it allowed access to greater functionality than the hobbled QT3 Player. In those days you could do editing and recompression just using the free Player. SignatureAdrian > It would seem. I've never disagreed with Apple's right > to do this. I only suggest that it's really quite petty > and looks miserably amateurish, especially the *way* in > which they've done this. Fully and strongly agree: Entirely Apple's right to do this if they choose to. But when ordinary users stumble onto what's going on (especially if they've just paid for a QT Pro "upgrade") it comes across as a very petty, cheap little scam, with the added income not worth the damage it does to Apple's stature. > If one updates to QT7 and runs QTPlayer, Apple puts all > the "Pro" features in there - with really obnoxious "Pro" > tags on them - and grays them out. They sit there taunting > and testing and suggesting in a way that I expect Apple > to be way above. It's rather like crippleware shareware > instead of a packaged commercial product. in QT 6 they had a reminder ad that ran whenever you started QTPlayer, right? Is the new method better or worse than that? > > If one updates to QT7 and runs QTPlayer, Apple puts all > > the "Pro" features in there - with really obnoxious "Pro" > > tags on them - and grays them out. They sit there taunting > in QT 6 they had a reminder ad that ran whenever you started QTPlayer, > right? Is the new method better or worse than that? Oh, yeah - good question - I'd forgotten all about that stupid advertisement. I'd say, actually, that this is worse. The old way, you'd see the ad when you started up the player, click the "go away" button, and not be bugged anymore. This way, you're kind of bugged about it every single time you pull down a menu. SignaturePlain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed. No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow? http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting > > The consumer is free to buy, or not buy, upgrades. How is this a problem? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > How come that paying $130 for upgrading to Tiger doesn't entitle you to > play movies full-screen, or copy/cut movies ? Because Apple believes that most people do not want to pay for it? Since QTPro revenue goes straight to Apple, rather than being split among distributors, to get an additional $3 per OS purchaser, they need to raise the price of the OS by something like $5, or so, in order to make the same revenue stream. (Assuming about a tenth of the people buy QTPro keys - true for the programmer types I work with.) There is clear resistance above $129, so the new $134 Tiger with QTPro would probably not sell as well. Further, people already whine about having to pay for the OS development. Any time you are about to say "I should have gotten this for free", ask youself where the money would come from. As a rule, software costs money to write. Scott > Because Apple believes that most people do not want to pay for it? Yes of course, if Apple can have people pay again for the GUI of the core technology that they just bought, there's no reason not to. Still... SignatureSerge Pajak > > Because Apple believes that most people do not want to pay for it? > > Yes of course, if Apple can have people pay again for the GUI of the > core technology that they just bought, there's no reason not to. You are not listening. Apple believes that raising the price of MacOS X to $134 from $129, and including QTPro, would result in fewer sales and angrier customers. They may be right, they may be wrong. I suspect, based on the number of people I know personally who have complained about QTPro not being included (1), the number who have bought QTPro (3), and the number who have complained about the upgrade price (5), out of a sample of 30, that raising the price would tick off more people than giving away QTPro would make happy. As far as myself, I just wish it would not ADVERTISE QTPro every damn time I launch the QT viewer. Scott >> Yes of course, if Apple can have people pay again for the GUI of the >> core technology that they just bought, there's no reason not to. > > You are not listening. Apple believes that raising the price of MacOS X > to $134 from $129, and including QTPro, would result in fewer sales and > angrier customers. Well, that might be their thinking... > They may be right, they may be wrong. I suspect, based on the number of > people I know personally who have complained about QTPro not being > included (1), the number who have bought QTPro (3), and the number who > have complained about the upgrade price (5), out of a sample of 30, that > raising the price would tick off more people than giving away QTPro > would make happy. Well there ya go then. > As far as myself, I just wish it would not ADVERTISE QTPro every damn > time I launch the QT viewer. Well, how is that different than watching TV and seeing a commercial? Or, do you get in a lather about that too? Click "no thanks" and use the demo software they gave you for free. > > As far as myself, I just wish it would not ADVERTISE QTPro every damn > > time I launch the QT viewer. > > Well, how is that different than watching TV and seeing a commercial? Because in this case, we paid for the program, not advertisers. How would you like it if, every time you put the key into your Chevy, the engine wouldn't start until you listened to a Cadillac ad over the radio, encouraging you to upgrade? > Or, do you get in a lather about that too? Click "no thanks" and > use the demo software they gave you for free. It's not demo software, it's their "basic" software, which was *included* in the purchase price of the OS. If I paid for HBO and they interrupted my movies every 15 minutes to advertise Cinemax, you bet I'd be ticked off. SignatureGarner R. Miller Clifton Park, NY =USA= > How > would you like it if, every time you put the key into your Chevy, the > engine wouldn't start until you listened to a Cadillac ad over the > radio, encouraging you to upgrade? Given the omnipresence of advertising these days, I suspect the only reason this doesn't happen is that they haven't thought of it yet. (Or maybe they'd let you start the engine, but the ad would still play, with the radio On-Off and Volume buttons disabled.) > If I paid for HBO and they interrupted my movies every 15 minutes to > advertise Cinemax, you bet I'd be ticked off. You've never rented one of those DVDs that disables the fast-forward controls so you're forced to watch all the previews before you get to the movie you rented? >> > As far as myself, I just wish it would not ADVERTISE QTPro every damn >> > time I launch the QT viewer. >> >> Well, how is that different than watching TV and seeing a commercial? > > Because in this case, we paid for the program, not advertisers. I never paid for quicktime basic, it came as a free demo of a commercial product. > How > would you like it if, every time you put the key into your Chevy, the > engine wouldn't start until you listened to a Cadillac ad over the > radio, encouraging you to upgrade? But I paid for my car, so it's not the same thing, is it? >> Or, do you get in a lather about that too? Click "no thanks" and >> use the demo software they gave you for free. > > It's not demo software, it's their "basic" software, which was > *included* in the purchase price of the OS. I guess that depends on how you look at it, and if your goal is to use a product, or to just complain. > If I paid for HBO and they interrupted my movies every 15 minutes to > advertise Cinemax, you bet I'd be ticked off. See above. > I never paid for quicktime basic, it came as a free demo of a > commercial product. http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/quicktime/ I paid $129 for Mac OS X, and Quicktime is an advertised feature of the product. SignatureGarner R. Miller Clifton Park, NY =USA= > > I never paid for quicktime basic, it came as a free demo of a > > commercial product. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I paid $129 for Mac OS X, and Quicktime is an advertised feature of the > product. Yes, and you got QuickTime. You even got *QuickTime Viewer Basic* with Mac OS X. Now, if you want QuckTime Viewer *PRO*. You need to pay extra for that. It is not part of *QuickTime*, it's the PRO version of *QuickTime Player*. You really should learn the difference in the 3 separate products. SignatureRodger > Yes, and you got QuickTime. You even got *QuickTime Viewer Basic* with > Mac OS X. Now, if you want QuckTime Viewer *PRO*... Have you read the entire thread? Let's refresh: Dave Hinz writes: > Click "no thanks" and use the demo software they gave you for free. I answer: > It's not demo software, it's their "basic" software. He responds: > I never paid for quicktime basic, it came as a free demo of a > commercial product. To which I responded that it's not a free demo of a commercial product, it was included as an ADVERTISED FEATURE of the very commercial Mac OS X 10.4 product, which I bought for $129. My issue is not that the feature set is reduced -- that's fine. My issue is the irritating advertising within the program When I watch ad-sponsored TV, I expect advertising. When I use a program I paid for, I expect to be free of it. > You need to pay extra for that. It is not part of *QuickTime*, it's > the PRO version of *QuickTime Player*. The Quicktime Player is part of the Quicktime product. The player is included in the product demos for Mac OS X in the link you quoted, as a demo of basic -- not Pro -- Quicktime functionality. > You really should learn the difference in the 3 separate products. You really should learn to read the context of the discussion before jumping in and assuming I don't know the difference. The basic player is part of the Quicktime product included in the $129 package I bought. A stripped-down version of a product is not the same as a demo version. To use your phrase, "you really should learn the difference." SignatureGarner R. Miller Clifton Park, NY =USA= >To which I responded that it's not a free demo of a commercial product, >it was included as an ADVERTISED FEATURE of the very commercial Mac OS [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >included in the product demos for Mac OS X in the link you quoted, as a >demo of basic -- not Pro -- Quicktime functionality. I agree, to an extent. My issue with it is that they seem to have contracted Microsoft's disease of not being able to tell whether something is part of the OS or not. If they want to charge for QuickTime Pro as a separate product, that's fine. But look what happens when you upgrade to Tiger. You're not allowed to update Tiger without updating QuickTime, and therefore losing your Pro key. That's really not on, and very much a tactic worthy of Redmond. If it's part of the OS, it should be charged with the OS. If it's a separate product, then it should be upgradeable independently from the OS. Tim >> To which I responded that it's not a free demo of a commercial product, >> it was included as an ADVERTISED FEATURE of the very commercial Mac OS [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Tim Hi, I don't think they make good money as Real from Quicktime sales and I suspect some of "suits" there make the decisions. Look all the stuff Real does to get rid of its old "evil" image. Apple does them (same errors) years later. Real moved to opensource as far as it can, got rid of popups, messengers and they made the application least bugging. Even after all, they are still called spyware (I am a radiopass subscriber) What they got in return? 1.800.000 paying customers (yes, million) every month for content. Of course, lots of them are sports/adult fans. I bet it makes much better money than bugging their customers for "plus" on each menu they click. They moved to "service" type which is sadly the future of all applications (commercial) Whatever excellent features it may have and its format itself is universal standard, asking for money for fullscreen playback just gets flames and evil smiles from users. The issue is security too. 90% of Quicktime users will use it for playback. If you bug them for fullscreen, you push them to crack sites. So, the 10% chance of some evil trojan hits users skyrockets to 100%. Thats for playing fullscreen on world's best 2d accelerated system. I would say again: No need to "crack" quicktime or get 7 for playback only. Any application has access to quicktime framework (Real 10, VCD X etc) will play fullscreen for you, with fullscreen controls. After I figured it can't get the format I use at workplace (TV) for carrying some stuff to home, I am moving back to 6.5.2 for instance. It was getting Automatically before, now sends me to some webpage :) Where do I remember such thing from? :) Ilgaz Ocal > > As far as myself, I just wish it would not ADVERTISE QTPro every damn > > time I launch the QT viewer. > > Well, how is that different than watching TV and seeing a commercial? > Or, do you get in a lather about that too? Click "no thanks" and > use the demo software they gave you for free. This is what I don't understand about this part of the thread. With QuickTime 5 and earlier everytime I launched QT Player I got the 'Upgrade to Pro' banner. After upgrading to QT 6 and later QT 7 I got the banner once the first time QT Player was launched and then never again. Is it just me? Did I inadvertantly check the magical don't annoy me preference button somewhere? > > The consumer is free to buy, or not buy, upgrades. How is this a problem? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > How come that paying $130 for upgrading to Tiger doesn't entitle you to > play movies full-screen, or copy/cut movies ? HERE...HERE!!!! >> The consumer is free to buy, or not buy, upgrades. How is this a problem? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > How come that paying $130 for upgrading to Tiger doesn't entitle you to > play movies full-screen, or copy/cut movies ? Forget copy cut.. Fullscreen is a comedy. I'd say ignore all "it sux" etc type reviews on versiontracker etc and download "realplayer 10", will have fullscreen capability with video controls and its at its 10th generation. Now opensource (Helix.org) based too. I am fine with it here. Ilgaz Ocal >> Argh, Apple frustrates me so much sometimes. The things it enhances in >> the Quicktime Player should be included out of the box. > >Seems to me, that people who want premium functionality are welcome to >not pay for same. For all the back-and-forth in this thread about the right to get paid and charge what one wants and all the usual Adam Smith business, there's been little discussion of what I see as the key point: is it reasonable to count things like Show Fullscreen as "premium functionality"? I'm not arguing, or will I argue, whether this is within Apple's purview. Of course it is. Their software, their features. But when they will expose Double Size or resize-by-drag, is it reasonable to charge a quarter of what they charge for _an entire operating system_ to expose Show Fullscreen? I'd say no way. No way, no day, no how. That's laughable. That said, there are additions to QT7 that make the existence of a Pro upgrade quite sensible. There are patent licensing requirements that must be met and shipping a functioning MPEG-4 encoder with every free copy of QuickTime would be bad business sense. If QT Pro were the wrapper around _those_ features I doubt this conversation would even be taking place. Jim, license to encode Signature"I regard NASCAR the same way I regard gay porn: I know it exists and I know some guys like it; I just don't want to see it." -- Z. B. Goode There are patent licensing requirements that > must be met and shipping a functioning MPEG-4 encoder with every free > copy of QuickTime would be bad business sense. If QT Pro were the > wrapper around _those_ features I doubt this conversation would even be > taking place. They do ship a free MPEG-4 encoder with Quicktime 7. (Not MPEG-2 encoder or decoder, though, and I believe that's still a separate purchase from QT Pro). And apparently all of Quicktime Pro's functions (well, most) *are* just wrappers around functions that are available in the public Quicktime API. (See http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10.4.ars/16 ). So any old schmoe could go ahead and incorporate Quicktime full-screen playback into another player. - geoff > They do ship a free MPEG-4 encoder with Quicktime 7. (Not MPEG-2 > encoder or decoder, though, and I believe that's still a separate [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > schmoe could go ahead and incorporate Quicktime full-screen playback > into another player. Which, of course, has long been available .. take a visit to Versiontracker. SignatureAdrian > >> > Since I installed Tiger it seems my registered QuickTime now is no longer > >> > registered. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Seems to me, that people who want premium functionality are welcome to > not pay for same. People did pay for QT6 Pro! In Tiger you are not even left with your own choice. You are robbed of Pro. That is theft, t h e f t. As QT7 is part and parcel of Tiger it is not a separate product, but an integral part of Tiger. That was the choice of Apple. > People did pay for QT6 Pro! In Tiger you are not even left with your > own choice. You are robbed of Pro. That is theft, t h e f t. See, this is the kind of thing that's just absurd. It's not theft. It *is* your own choice. And Apple *is* explicit about what's going on, if you read materials as you do an upgrade. I think it's a poor business decision on Apple's part and that it generates an unfortunate bad taste. And I think they chould have done it, even after they decided that that $30 was worth it, in a much classier fashion. But it's *not* "theft" by any stretch and claiming that it is just undermines the reasonable discussion about how sensible it was for Apple to have done. SignaturePlain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed. No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow? http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting > > People did pay for QT6 Pro! In Tiger you are not even left with your > > own choice. You are robbed of Pro. That is theft, t h e f t. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > just undermines the reasonable discussion about how sensible > it was for Apple to have done. When you upgrade to Tiger, you don't have a choice. You just lose you QT6 Pro. You lose your save function. I donot want the rest of the upgrade. I want to KEEP WHAT I HAD. That is a normal thing. Apple was not explicit about Tiger and QT7. >> But it's *not* "theft" by any stretch and claiming that it is >> just undermines the reasonable discussion about how sensible [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > upgrade. I want to KEEP WHAT I HAD. That is a normal thing. > Apple was not explicit about Tiger and QT7. So you are contending that you were not given the option of upgrading or not? Why, then, has someone posted the actual text of the notice here? Which one of you is wrong? I agree it's not a good practice, but it's worse than what Dell does. When Apple upgrades my QT, it never tells me it is taking away functionallity. It also took away the MPG2 add-in I paid $20 for. With the Dell situation, they give an underpowered app and offer a pricy upgrade. Apple just took without asking. I am thinking of suing. I lost $50 on my "upgrade." > I agree it's not a good practice, but it's worse than what Dell does. > When Apple upgrades my QT, it never tells me it is taking away [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > pricy upgrade. Apple just took without asking. I am thinking of > suing. I lost $50 on my "upgrade." The QuickTime 6 MPEG 2 decoder works in QuickTime 7. You do not have to buy it again. > > Since I installed Tiger it seems my registered QuickTime now is no longer > > registered. Where can I find the registration number or do I have to buy it > > again? > > Buy it again, or put v6 back unfortunately. I don't know if QuickTime 6 will run on Tiger. Tiger comes with QuickTime 7 which is a major upgrade. So add $29.95 to the cost of running Tiger. SignatureDeeDee, don't press that button! DeeDee! NO! Dee... Hi, > Steve Wills wrote : > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Buy it again, or put v6 back unfortunately. Yes, I reinstalled QuickTime with : http://wsidecar.apple.com/cgi-bin/nph-reg3rdpty1.pl/product=05841&platform=osx&m ethod=sa/QuickTime_6.5.2_ReInstaller.dmg under OSX 10.3.9 with success. Best regards, -- François LE COAT Author of Eureka 2.12 (2D Graph Describer, 3D Modeller) http://eureka.atari.org > Since I installed Tiger it seems my registered QuickTime now is no > longer registered. Where can I find the registration number or do I > have to buy it again? Presumably, you mean your paid licence for Quicktime PRO. Your license is no good for QTPro 7.0, whether you got QT7.0 as part of Tiger or if you upgraded your QT under 10.3 (as I did). Under 10.3, you can revert to QT6.5, but I don't think that's possible under Tiger. I paid the $30. It's really a very cheesy way for Apple to do this - apparently, all the QTPro features are actually already there, built-in to QT - paying the $30 just unlocks the interface in the QTPlayer to them. It's especially cheesy the way Apple hints that one ought to pay the $30. If you run QTPlayer without having paid for Pro, all the Pro features are *there* - in the menus - with big PRO letters next to them - and grayed out. SignaturePlain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed. No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow? http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting > I paid the $30. It's really a very cheesy way for Apple to > do this - apparently, all the QTPro features are actually > already there, built-in to QT - paying the $30 just unlocks > the interface in the QTPlayer to them. A long time ago DEC used to sell machines that had low, medium and high-end hardware versions. The computers that were delivered were in fact identical: all the capabilities were already there. If you wanted to move up a level you paid the big-bucks upgrade fee and a technician came out and cut a few jumpers. >> I paid the $30. It's really a very cheesy way for Apple to >> do this - apparently, all the QTPro features are actually [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >to move up a level you paid the big-bucks upgrade fee and a technician >came out and cut a few jumpers. IBM still do this. Intel did it with the 486SX processor as well - the FPU was there, just disabled, and the 487 coprocessor was actually a full 486DX which simply disabled the 486SX and took over. Tim Sheeesh! That's a really stupid thing for Apple to do! On 5/3/05 10:31 AM, in article yob1x8obctx.fsf@panix1.panix.com, >> Since I installed Tiger it seems my registered QuickTime now is no >> longer registered. Where can I find the registration number or do I [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > for Pro, all the Pro features are *there* - in the menus - > with big PRO letters next to them - and grayed out. > Sheeesh! That's a really stupid thing for Apple to do! So is top-posting. ;-) Apple sells an OS, and they sell QT. The Pro version has always been a payable product. Every major (integral number) upgrade has had to be paid for so far. With the OS, you get the QT that the OS and apps need out of the box. If you want/need Pro features, you pay. That's simple, isn't it? You pay to uppgrade any other piece of software, QT is the same - in the Pro version. Signature/Z Remove NOT..INVALID to email With top-posting, I can see the new info without having to scroll through a zillion lines of non-trimmed old stuff that I already read. I used to be a fan of bottom posting till I saw the light... > > Sheeesh! That's a really stupid thing for Apple to do! > > So is top-posting. ;-) Signature- Burt Johnson MindStorm, Inc. http://www.mindstorm-inc.com/software.html My thoughts exactly.... On 5/4/05 12:15 AM, in article 1gw081i.qr7begzfmtasN%burt@mindstorm-inc.com, > With top-posting, I can see the new info without having to scroll > through a zillion lines of non-trimmed old stuff that I already read. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >> So is top-posting. ;-) > With top-posting, I can see the new info without having to scroll > through a zillion lines of non-trimmed old stuff that I already read. So then learn to trim. > I used to be a fan of bottom posting till I saw the light... Good way to get plonked around these parts. >> > Sheeesh! That's a really stupid thing for Apple to do! >> >> So is top-posting. ;-) Yeah, you really improved the flow of this conversation, Burt. > > With top-posting, I can see the new info without having to scroll > > through a zillion lines of non-trimmed old stuff that I already read. > > So then learn to trim. You may notice that mine ARE trimmed. Most are not though. If people top-posted, this would be less of an issue. > > I used to be a fan of bottom posting till I saw the light... > > Good way to get plonked around these parts. plonk away, if you get your jollies by being more concerned with format than content... >With top-posting, I can see the new info without having to scroll >through a zillion lines of non-trimmed old stuff that I already read. And after all, courtesy and consideration for others is for losers. Jim Signature"I regard NASCAR the same way I regard gay porn: I know it exists and I know some guys like it; I just don't want to see it." -- Z. B. Goode > Sheeesh! That's a really stupid thing for Apple to do! Just like all other soft/shareware vendors that will have rewritten their app to run under Tiger and who will ask you to pay for an upgrade. Now let's be a bit more serious... Riiiiiight! Everybody's got to give their work for free. What job are you into so that I can come around ask you to do things for me. I'll just pay the first hour, the rest will be free updates. SignatureNos émissions ont pour vocation de rendre le cerveau disponible : c'est-à-dire de le divertir, de le détendre pour le préparer entre deux pubs. Ce que nous vendons à Coca-Cola, c'est du temps de cerveau humain disponible. (P. Le Lay - TF1) > Riiiiiight! Everybody's got to give their work for free. But who is talking about *free* upgrade ? I am not. Tiger is not a free upgrade, and that is fine. The point is that Tiger includes a QuickTime technology whose features the Apple-provided QT Player won't use until you pay an extra fee worth a quarter of the price of the OS. > What job are you into so that I can come around ask you to do things for > me. I'll just pay the first hour, the rest will be free updates. When your job is to write a report, do you get paid first for the report itself and then ask again 25% of that price to your client only so that he can actually read the report ? If so, *you* tell me what industry you're into, so that i) I consider working here, and ii) I don't get to be your client. :-) PS: nothing personal, of course :) SignatureSerge Pajak >> Riiiiiight! Everybody's got to give their work for free. > > But who is talking about *free* upgrade ? I am not. Tiger is not a free > upgrade, and that is fine. The point is that Tiger includes a QuickTime > technology whose features the Apple-provided QT Player won't use until > you pay an extra fee worth a quarter of the price of the OS. Yes, we got your point. They also don't give you an iLife upgrade for free with Tiger, because just like QT, it's a _separate product_. >> What job are you into so that I can come around ask you to do things for >> me. I'll just pay the first hour, the rest will be free updates. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > you're into, so that i) I consider working here, and ii) I don't get to > be your client. :-) So, you're pissed off that you bought something and then someone added features to it, so you have to buy the upgrade if you want it. You feel that because you bought product (T), you should get product (Q) for free. Does that sum it up? > Yes, we got your point. They also don't give you an iLife upgrade for > free with Tiger, because just like QT, it's a _separate product_. No, it is not. Commercially, QT Pro has existed only since QT 3. Technically, the QuickTime Player itself is very small and does not contain much code. It totals ~14MB, of which the resources (the languages, especially the asian one) are ~10MB including only 1.5MB of non-language resources. The Player almost entirely relies on the QuickTime technology which is built-in within the OS. This of course has no reason to be free because it is the actual work done by the Apple developers, and is part of Tiger as the specs shows : <http://www.apple.com/macosx/techspecs/> Other examples are the TextEdit (total 934 KB !) or Preview (2MB) app. Having QuickTime Pro is as ridiculous as having a "Preview Pro" that would unlock features such as PDF forms fill-in, or a "TextEdit Pro" necessary to change fonts. These are not features provided by the applications. When the core PDF engine of Tiger is upgraded, we do not have to pay for an upgraded Preview, the Tiger price includes those changes. When the core text engine is upgraded, we do not pay once for the OS upgrade and again for the TextEdit upgrade. The whole QuickTime Pro thing has no technical rationale. This being said, you may think it is fine for Apple marketing to have consumers pay as much as they are willing to on as many things as marketing can convince them to pay. I'm waiting for the OS upgrade where Preview asks you to pay to rotate a picture... SignatureSerge Pajak > The whole QuickTime Pro thing has no technical rationale. This being > said, you may think it is fine for Apple marketing to have consumers pay > as much as they are willing to on as many things as marketing can > convince them to pay. True marketingwise. Apple is small when it comes to text editing and others so giving away apps that offer more than SimpleText used to is proving your OS offers a lot of fonctions out of the box. Now when you have a complete bag of video apps and you are the leader on the market you are not inclined to give away things that may have people not look at your other apps. Most users dont need QT pro anyway and those who really need it... well they can pay for an upgrade once in a while. Every (how many years?) you pay for upgrade that has nothing to do with the many OS upgrades that happened in between. So people will always grunt. I, myself, find that Spotlight and Dashboard are really too expensive. $129 for a cdm-F unpgrade plus a memory hog to have little apps you rarelly need always launched, that's marketing! Dashboard offers a second level Dock so you can still have big icons in your primary Dock with plenty of apps you dont need, up in ram at launch time. That sums it up. SignatureNos émissions ont pour vocation de rendre le cerveau disponible : c'est-à-dire de le divertir, de le détendre pour le préparer entre deux pubs. Ce que nous vendons à Coca-Cola, c'est du temps de cerveau humain disponible. (P. Le Lay - TF1) > I, myself, find that Spotlight and Dashboard are really too expensive. > $129 for a cdm-F unpgrade plus a memory hog to have little apps you > rarelly need always launched, that's marketing! If you think that that's the main reason to get Tiger, you are missing most of the picture. Like QTPro, Spotlight's visible UI is only the tiniest bit of the technology. The real major stuff is under the hood with the enhanced file metadata and indexing and kernel IO mods which make it all possible. Tiger is a *lot* more than the obvious visible bits. SignaturePlain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed. No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow? http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting >> Yes, we got your point. They also don't give you an iLife upgrade for >> free with Tiger, because just like QT, it's a _separate product_. > > No, it is not. Yes, it is. It's sold separately, just like iLife, iWork, or an iPod. They _give_ you a free demo of 7, just like they gave you a free demo of 6 with the previous version of OSX. > Commercially, QT Pro has existed only since QT 3. The precident for deluxe versions of software costing more than the basic version goes back to at least the 1980's. > Technically, the QuickTime Player itself is very small and does not > contain much code. It totals ~14MB, of which the resources (the > languages, especially the asian one) are ~10MB including only 1.5MB of > non-language resources. What does that have to do with anything? > The Player almost entirely relies on the QuickTime technology which is > built-in within the OS. This of course has no reason to be free because > it is the actual work done by the Apple developers, and is part of Tiger > as the specs shows : <http://www.apple.com/macosx/techspecs/> |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message