[Superchicken]

Didn't Jobs say that QT7 was going to allow the normal player to play video full screen? So why is it showing up as a PRO feature under Tiger?! I was seriously looking forward to this... and while I'm glad they dropped the nag screen... it seems like the whole app is just an add for the Pro version! This is pretty frustrating.

[demograph68]

STEAL IT.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Superchicken

Didn't Jobs say that QT7 was going to allow the normal player to play video full screen?

Did he say QT7 was going to allow this for free? How did you think this guy became a billionaire?

[Luca Rescigno]

Having to pay so much for QuickTime Pro is utterly retarded. Steal it. I did.

[turtle777]

Yep. John from Ars Technica is right:

This is just criminally stupid.

http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10.4.ars/16

-t

[ReggieX]

AppleScript it: http://www.steelskies.com/download/Q...Fullscreen.zip

[ironknee]

how do u resize the window from medium to full screen like jobs showed in mwsf?

[demograph68]

command+f goes to full screen

command+3 goes to large

[spatterson]

I don't feel that there is a huge issue paying for the upgrade. You get many features that come in handy, besides full screen...

EDIT: Isn't steeling bad...

[macintologist]

At the very least a Quicktime 7 Pro license should be bundled with every bought copy of Tiger

They did that with Mac OS 8.5 Every purchased copy came bundled with a Quicktime 3 code.

[the_glassman]

They should just drop the whole Pro/Regular thing and release Quicktime as the Pro version on Windows and Mac. I think more people would use it on the PC side. Most folks I know hate Quicktime for Windows.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by demograph68

command+f goes to full screen

command+3 goes to large

yeah but if you watch steve's preview,

1) the resizing is from the center of the movie (it enlarges from all sides instead of the bottom right hand)

2) he resized it right up to full screen

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno

Having to pay so much for QuickTime Pro is utterly retarded. Steal it. I did.

I think if you buy the OS and .Mac you deserve Quicktime pro for sure.

[MilkmanDan]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

I think if you buy the OS and .Mac you deserve Quicktime pro for sure.

For sure.

[Mastrap]

^ Agreed. To charge for QT Pro is idiotic.

[cc_foo]

I don�t have QT Pro yet. But I use this script to play movies fullscreen. I use iKey to activate it, but you can use any sort of launcher menu I expect.

tell application "QuickTime Player" to present movie 1 scale screen

[MaxPower2k3]

Originally Posted by ReggieX

AppleScript it: http://www.steelskies.com/download/Q...Fullscreen.zip

doesn't work with QT7.


edit: cc_foo's applescript works. cool stuff. the little floating control widget thing is there, too. it's nifty.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno

Having to pay so much for QuickTime Pro is utterly retarded.

Esp when a lot of those features were free.

Apple should give OS X buyers it for free. And make Windows users pay for it.

[Big Mac]

Yes, it should, at the very least, be bundled with .Mac.

[OwlBoy]

Paying for Fullscreen is stupid.

But paying for the OTHER stuff QT Pro gives you is NOT.

-Owl

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by OwlBoy

Paying for Fullscreen is stupid.

But paying for the OTHER stuff QT Pro gives you is NOT.

-Owl

If Macs come bundled with iLife, it should be bundled with Quicktime Pro.

Apple is stupid.

Although, I wonder how much $$ they get from QT Pro charges, and what it goes towards? I think use of quicktime would increase on the internet if QT Pro were standard. You'd see more Quicktime content instead of Real and WMV. Isn't that what Apple ultimately wants? Wider proliferation of QT?

[OwlBoy]

Originally Posted by macintologist

If Macs come bundled with iLife, it should be bundled with Quicktime Pro.

Apple is stupid.

Although, I wonder how much $$ they get from QT Pro charges, and what it goes towards? I think use of quicktime would increase on the internet if QT Pro were standard. You'd see more Quicktime content instead of Real and WMV. Isn't that what Apple ultimately wants? Wider proliferation of QT?

You can encode video from any of the iLife apps that are applicable...

You can encode music from any of the iLife apps that are applicable...

if your using FCP, I think it comes with QT Pro

-Owl

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by macintologist

If Macs come bundled with iLife, it should be bundled with Quicktime Pro.

Any program that comes bundled with the operating system should be fully functional, not limited. iLife comes bundled with the computer, not OS X itself, so I don't really think it's a proper comparison.

Compare it instead to iTunes, Safari or Mail. Do we have to upgrade Safari to be able to view more than 10 pages per day, for instance? Or iTunes, to be able to play CD's? Or Mail to be able to filter spam? Of course not, they're standard apps, an integrated part of the OS, and they are fully functional as such.

Even on Windows, this is true - WMP is fully functional, there are no paid upgrades to be able to view content full-screen or the likes. (Yes, you have to pay to be able to encode in MP3, but that's not a WMP function at all, you're paying for third party plugins)

You already pay $129 to buy the OS; you shouldn't have to pay extra to get the full usability of it.

[TETENAL]

You all don't fully understand the issue.

For every copy of QuickTime, Apple has to pay royalties for the encoders. On Mac OS the cost for these royalties could be covered by the price of the OS (it would just cost 5 or 10 bucks more then). However QuickTime is also available for Windows. And on Windows Apple has no choice but to charge for the Pro version, or they would lose millions and millions in royalties.

Since Apple has to charge for the Pro version on Windows they also have to charge for the Pro version on Mac or they would be guilty of anti-competitive behavior.

However, the fullscreen mode should be free. That costs Apple nothing on both platforms. It's silly to charge for that when all other media players offer this feature for free.

[ReggieX]

Keep the QuickTime Player from 10.3 and use that one instead.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

You all don't fully understand the issue.

For every copy of QuickTime, Apple has to pay royalties for the encoders.

So then how do Microsoft do it with WMP, for example? Are they losing money on it by paying royalties to encoders but not charging for the program (but then figuring they make so much anyway that they can take a little casualty here), or..?

[spatterson]

Originally Posted by OwlBoy

Paying for Fullscreen is stupid.

But paying for the OTHER stuff QT Pro gives you is NOT.

-Owl

I pay for the export features... I plan on doing a video blog this summer, and will be converting alot of 3gp files to .fla's for my website.

Though I totally agree with alot of these guys, there is good reason in bundling pro with a copy of Tiger.

I paid the 29.99 +tax, and boy did I wish I didn't have to. But this beats the alternative, Sorensen Squeeze.

Originally Posted by Ois�n

So then how do Microsoft do it with WMP, for example? Are they losing money on it by paying royalties to encoders but not charging for the program (but then figuring they make so much anyway that they can take a little casualty here), or..?

You can't compare the features to Windows Media Player to Quick Time. Quicktime Pro has triple the features.

[macintologist]

Here's the solution:

-Drop fullscreen from QT Pro features
-Bundle QT Pro with all purchased copies of Mac OS and iLife, maybe .Mac (and of course all pro-apps)

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/feedback/

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Ois�n

So then how do Microsoft do it with WMP, for example? Are they losing money on it by paying royalties to encoders but not charging for the program (but then figuring they make so much anyway that they can take a little casualty here), or..?

Windows Media Player for Macintosh doesn't play anything but Microsoft's own codecs.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Windows Media Player for Macintosh doesn't play anything but Microsoft's own codecs.

Just as QuickTime for Windows won't play anything but .mov files (they don't have to pay royalties then, either, do they?). On Windows, WMP also plays .avi, .mpg, and many others.

[wdlove]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno

Having to pay so much for QuickTime Pro is utterly retarded. Steal it. I did.

QuickTime 7 is a free download. Don't understand how you could steal the Pro code!

[wdlove]

Originally Posted by ReggieX

Keep the QuickTime Player from 10.3 and use that one instead.

That is what I'm planning on, at least for the forceable future. Just wonder how long the Pro code with QuickTime 6 will be valid?

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Ois�n

Just as QuickTime for Windows won't play anything but .mov files (they don't have to pay royalties then, either, do they?).

A QuickTime movie (.mov) can contain data encoded with many codecs most of which Apple does not own and has to pay royalties for.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

A QuickTime movie (.mov) can contain data encoded with many codecs most of which Apple does not own and has to pay royalties for.

Ah, I see. And Microsoft owns all the .wmv and .wma codecs themselves, then?

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Ois�n

Ah, I see. And Microsoft owns all the .wmv and .wma codecs themselves, then?

As far as I understand it, yes.

[kcmac]

Originally Posted by Ois�n

Even on Windows, this is true - WMP is fully functional, there are no paid upgrades to be able to view content full-screen or the likes. (Yes, you have to pay to be able to encode in MP3, but that's not a WMP function at all, you're paying for third party plugins)

That is some strong argument ya got there...

http://www.versiontracker.com/php/se...macosx&x=0&y=0

Take your pick.

Really people, is this worth complaining about?

[demograph68]

Originally Posted by hayesk

http://www.versiontracker.com/php/se...macosx&x=0&y=0

Take your pick.

Really people, is this worth complaining about?

Yes.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by OwlBoy

Paying for Fullscreen is stupid.

But paying for the OTHER stuff QT Pro gives you is NOT.

-Owl

High-five Owl.

QTPro has so much extra that if you're serious about movie making/editing, you have no problem with the paltry $30 price tag. Casual users of Pro features are usually the ones whining or griping -- people that actually utilize the pro features in their workflow (generally) have no problems paying for such and upgrade.

Maury

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Since Apple has to charge for the Pro version on Windows they also have to charge for the Pro version on Mac or they would be guilty of anti-competitive behavior.

I don't believe any court has ever found offering a software bundle (e.g. Mac OS X + QuickTime Pro) to be anticompetitive behavior. And in a world where Adobe can buy its sole competitor, I really don't think any court woud look at this twice.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

I don't believe any court has ever found offering a software bundle (e.g. Mac OS X + QuickTime Pro) to be anticompetitive behavior.

Then you are wrong.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20041222-4480.html

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by wdlove

QuickTime 7 is a free download. Don't understand how you could steal the Pro code!

Is that a question of moral or of technical nature ?

-t

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Then you are wrong.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20041222-4480.html

this makes no sense.

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by wdlove

QuickTime 7 is a free download. Don't understand how you could steal the Pro code!

The "code" is just the registration serial number that "unlocks" the Pro features. There is no difference between regular and Pro except for that (i.e. nothing more to download). At least I think I'm answering what you are asking

Originally Posted by wdlove

That is what I'm planning on, at least for the forceable future. Just wonder how long the Pro code with QuickTime 6 will be valid?

Forever as long as you stay on QT 6. If you bought a code for 6.x, you own it forever .... it doesn't expire.

On a side note, as many have said:
Dumb to have to pay for fullscreen
QT Pro has enough other things going for it that it is worth every penny. I consider it essential for a Mac user messing with A/V stuff. Even a lot of 3rd party apps have functionality that taps in to QT Pro's export features.
Due to royalties, its unrealistic to ask Apple to foot the bill for Pro versions for everyone (including what I assume is a large number of people who will not use its features). It'd be nice to have the opportunity to buy it at a discount when you buy a new Mac or an OS upgrade.
I bought it yesterday and feel like I've already gotten my money's worth The last license I had to buy was for QT 6 and it was the latest and greatest for 3 years ... $10 a year is just nothing in the greater scheme of things.
There are a myriad of free alternatives if you just need fullscreen.

Buy it now and don't look back.

[jcadam]

Wow, I just bought a QT 6 Pro license last month. I sure as hell won't be paying another $30 just to get the new OS I just bought (Tiger) up to the same functionality I had with Panther + QT6 Pro.

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by jcadam

Wow, I just bought a QT 6 Pro license last month. I sure as hell won't be paying another $30 just to get the new OS I just bought (Tiger) up to the same functionality I had with Panther + QT6 Pro.

With all due respect, why in the world did you just buy QT Pro last month? Didn't you know you'd have to pay again to upgrade to QT Pro 7?

[jcadam]

to be honest, I didn't realize my license wouldn't transfer. Oh well, free keys are easy to find. I feel even less inclined to actually pay for QT Pro now that I know that Apple will simply increment version numbers whenever it feels the need to extract another $30 from its users.
Question: can you remove QT 7 from Tiger and install QT 6 Pro? If the answer is no, then Apple is undeniably WRONG.

[TETENAL]

You can not remove QuickTime 7 from Tiger, but you can continue to use the QuickTime 6 Pro player.

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by jcadam

to be honest, I didn't realize my license wouldn't transfer. Oh well, free keys are easy to find. I feel even less inclined to actually pay for QT Pro now that I know that Apple will simply increment version numbers whenever it feels the need to extract another $30 from its users.
Question: can you remove QT 7 from Tiger and install QT 6 Pro? If the answer is no, then Apple is undeniably WRONG.

Licenses transfer in all cases except between major number upgrades such as 5 to 6 or 6 to 7 (just like each major OS update costs but all the dot increments are free) And, no, this version of QT is clearly not a case of just incrementing the version to generate $$ .. this version is substantially different than the 6.x line of players.
Having said that, it is a bummer that you bought it unwittingly, not knowing that it wouldn't transfer. Maybe you could call Apple and explain the situation to them and see if they'll budge (don't they have some sort of guarantee about items purchased x-number of days before an upgrade ?). Barring that, you could always pirate a serial as you mentioned. I don't think you'll accrue too much bad karma over that one since you did pay for Pro very recently.

[d4nth3m4n]

Originally Posted by spatterson

EDIT: Isn't steeling bad...

only if you can spell it.