[macintologist]

There is absolutely no excuse to have to pay for fullscreen capabilities in the Quicktime player. Think of how embarrasing it is that a switcher from Windows will buy their shiny new Mac only to find out they have to shell out another 30 bucks to fullscreen their quicktime movies


There is NO excuse, absolutely NONE.

[Thinine]

Yeah, we know.

[Chuckit]

I remember back when all the capabilities of QuickTime Pro were in the normal QuickTime Player. I kept the last version like that for a long time.

[TETENAL]

Use iTunes then.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

Use iTunes then.

It's not the same thing. iTunes isn't a standalone player and requires that you add a file to the library in order to play it. By default, iTunes will copy the file to your library first. Also, the controls aren't as versatile as Quicktime Player and the way it plays in your little album art box sometimes, and other times in a window, and simply getting it to fullscreen in the first place is hell of a lot harder than simply going fullscreen in Quicktime Player.

Please. No apologetics.

[Big Mac]

Apple's stinginess over such a small feature definitely engenders ill wll.

[WJMoore]

Well they don't prevent full screen at an API level so there are alternatives like QTAmateur and NicePlayer.

[Mastrap]

Not again.

[kick52]

it does suck.. but there is a dashboard widget that switches windowed/full screen for you..

cant remember what its called.

[Uncle Skeleton]

"OMG You have to pay to watch quicktime movies in fullscreen!!11one It should be free"
"It is free, in any of a dozen 3rd party apps"
"OMG No Apple should provide it themselves"
"They do, in iTunes"
"OMG No it doesn't have the swell OSD controls that QT has"
"Since when do you deserve the best of everything without paying the measely $30"
"I like to bitch about stupid crap."

Get over it. More Windows users probably know about iTunes than know about QT anyway.

[Salty]

Just use niceplayer

[rickey939]

Will Apple go out of business because of this? Again?

[Philip J. Fry]

Originally Posted by rickey939 

Will Apple go out of business because of this? Again?

By then maybe Rickey will finally retire

[mrmister]

You can all complain, but people rant about this because it is cheap, dumb and annoying. Until Apple changes, people will continue to grumble. Deal.

[rickey939]

Originally Posted by Philip J. Fry 

By then maybe Rickey will finally retire

We can only hope!

[Amorya]

I suggested this in one of the WWDC feedback sessions, and got a round of applause from the audience. Apple knows we want it, at least!

[Uncle Skeleton]

Apple did change, they added it to their new favorite multimedia system, iTunes.

People always grumble about things, from file-system cut/paste to having to eject disks from software rather than just yanking them out like in windows. It doesn't mean they're right.

[Chuckit]

It also doesn't mean they're wrong. In this case, it's silly and miserly to intentionally disable fullscreen playback in QuickTime Player.

[mrmister]

Amen.

[JKT]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Apple did change, they added it to their new favorite multimedia system, iTunes.

People always grumble about things, from file-system cut/paste to having to eject disks from software rather than just yanking them out like in windows. It doesn't mean they're right.

In this instance though, it is completely braindead on Apple's part. Just look at the responses here - all of them tell you to use software other than Quicktime. In other words, Apple is driving people away from its own software into the arms of its competitors. This has a huge impact on we Mac users because it means that it diminishes Quicktime's market share potential and websites are discouraged from offering formats compatible with Quicktime. Instead we end up with crappy wmv or Real media and, with wmv especially, it is a third rate experience on the Mac because its playback isn't even supported by Microsoft.

The situation is even worse on the PC because the only real alternatives to Quicktime are Real Player (hideous) and OSS such as VLC and Mplayer (far, far lesser mindshare). People are effectively forced into the arms of WiMP by the stupidity of this decision. I'll also hazard that far more people have decided that they will avoid using the Quicktime player as much as possible compared to those that elected to pay for it just so they can go fullscreen.

[Uncle Skeleton]

You're putting way too much importance on QT (the application). It hasn't had a substantial update since version 3 (what was that, ten years ago?). If anything, the remarkable features of QT (the file format) have been getting more and more shafted since then. Meanwhile, iTunes, which didn't even exist back then, has been getting more and more ridiculously large over that time. It's clear at a glance that at an application level, iTunes is getting 10x (if not 100x) more development time than QT (the application) is. The point is, it only makes sense to assess Apple's "braindead-ness" by the applications it's actually developing. You don't blame them for not supporting Applescript when they've moved their focus to Automator. And you shouldn't blame them for not supporting QT (the application) when they've clearly moved their focus to iTunes for playing movies, including QT (the file format).

[macintologist]

Another thing that really needs to change with the Quicktime plugin is that it should have the ability to go to fullscreen, much like Realplayer and Windows Media plugins can. Have you ever used Windows Media on an embedded site on a Windows PC? it's so nice how you can right click and go fullscreen as the movie loads/streams. I wish the Quicktime plugin could do that too, but now you're stuck watching the movie play in that crappy 320x240 view, OR you could *wait* for it to finish loading, then save it and play it fullscreen.

....oh shi... you need Quicktime Pro to do that

[Uncle Skeleton]

The Real and WMP plugins do that in OS X? Or just in Windows? Are you going to complain that browser windows can't go full-screen too?

FYI, you can zoom the whole screen in to make your browser-sized movie fill it. control-scroll in 10.4.8, or cmd-opt-+ (or something) before that.

[Tiresias]

Use VLC.

[Lew]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The Real and WMP plugins do that in OS X?

Yes

[richwig83]

why not get a dodgy registration code???

sorry if this isnt the done thing!

[rjt1000]

I prefer using freebies VLC or Mplayer both of which do full screen and have better controls.

But if you are stuck on Quicktime, arent phobic about AppleScript and want full screen for free:

Macworld: Mac 911: Full screen for free

[slugslugslug]

All these possibilities are fine and all, but while Macintologist was being a bit overly-strident, he had a point that most other posters neglect. He said Windows switchers, but it pretty much applies to anyone who's casual about their computer use. Out of the box, a Mac launches Quicktime Player when you double-click most QT-compatible movie files, and it uses the QuickTime plug-in on the web. A lot of people might never find out about other options, because it's not obvious where to get them (or how to make them, in the case of AppleScript).

So while I don't think the whole QT Pro thing is gonna send Apple out of business, I do think it should be easy for, say, my parents to play a movie full-fullscreen on the day they get a Mac.

[pyrite]

Originally Posted by WJMoore 

Well they don't prevent full screen at an API level so there are alternatives like QTAmateur and NicePlayer.

big deal. its direct PC counterpart is Windows Media Player which does full screen, as ANY FREAKING VIDEO PLAYER should. It's a stubborn, embarrassing decision

[Tiresias]

But really, what's the reason behind it. Is it because Apple wants to make more money selling Quick Time Pro? Really?

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by Tiresias

But really, what's the reason behind it. Is it because Apple wants to make more money selling Quick Time Pro? Really?

How much money DO they make on QT Pro licenses, anyway?

It certainly must be a HUGE amount, otherwise they really would be offering it for free, wouldn't they?

[Tiresias]

Ah well. Don't PC users have to buy all their software whereas Macs come with iLIfe?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

Ah well. Don't PC users have to buy all their software whereas Macs come with iLIfe?

Most PCs these days come with some sort of bundled software.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

Use VLC.

VLC is fine, and has a nice playlist function (which is something else QTP definitely needs).

But VLC playback doesn't look as good. Also, VLC doesn't support WMV3 while Flip4Mac does.

As for using iTunes for video playback, I keep my larger movie files on an external hard drive.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You're putting way too much importance on QT (the application). It hasn't had a substantial update since version 3 (what was that, ten years ago?). If anything, the remarkable features of QT (the file format) have been getting more and more shafted since then. Meanwhile, iTunes, which didn't even exist back then, has been getting more and more ridiculously large over that time. It's clear at a glance that at an application level, iTunes is getting 10x (if not 100x) more development time than QT (the application) is. The point is, it only makes sense to assess Apple's "braindead-ness" by the applications it's actually developing. You don't blame them for not supporting Applescript when they've moved their focus to Automator. And you shouldn't blame them for not supporting QT (the application) when they've clearly moved their focus to iTunes for playing movies, including QT (the file format).

I don't think there's a single statement in here that's true. QTP was seriously updated with Tiger, for instance.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You don't blame them for not supporting Applescript when they've moved their focus to Automator.

I would. AppleScript is still a lot more flexible and useful than Automator, although it has more of a learning curve. Two different solutions to two different problems.

[zerostar]

This should be included and FREE. My 2�

[Detrius]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

VLC is fine, and has a nice playlist function (which is something else QTP definitely needs).

But VLC playback doesn't look as good. Also, VLC doesn't support WMV3 while Flip4Mac does.

As for using iTunes for video playback, I keep my larger movie files on an external hard drive.

No, QuickTime Player does NOT need a playlist function. That would be a horrific user interface blunder. If QTP has a playlist function, then what if you want to save it? What if you want to make more than one playlist? What if you want to add music to the playlist? Well, all of that is what iTunes is for. If you don't want your movie copied, hold down the option key. iTunes references the original.

Also, iTunes full screen is VERY different from QTP full screen. If you have more than one monitor, it becomes abundantly obvious. With iTunes, all monitors are blacked out. You can't control this. It's also not as easy to pick which monitor gets the video. With QTP, you can play a DIFFERENT video on each monitor. If you only have one monitor, it's all the same. If you have two, iTunes is very lacking in functionality.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Detrius 

No, QuickTime Player does NOT need a playlist function. That would be a horrific user interface blunder.

I think Apple could (and should) implement playlists in QTP with one button.

Basically, that button would work like the loop button in iTunes, with 3 settings: Loop off, loop on, and loop all. What's loop all, you ask? It would loop all the videos in the folder that the open movie resides in.

Thus, you'd manage your "playlists" in the Finder. Simple, eh?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I don't think there's a single statement in here that's true. QTP was seriously updated with Tiger, for instance.

Updated? yes. "Seriously updated?" no. It got minimal recording abilities, that's the only new thing. All other changes were just moving interface elements around.

The API got a big update, some effects of which are seen in the App (like pitch-corrected fast forward), but the API is not the App (which I specifically said I was talking about, as did you).

The API being updated far more than the app indicates the update was driven by something outside the app, like for instance iTunes integration (and Spotlight).

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

You don't blame them for not supporting Applescript when they've moved their focus to Automator.

I would. AppleScript is still a lot more flexible and useful than Automator, although it has more of a learning curve. Two different solutions to two different problems.

They can't support everything. They're not still supporting OS 9, because they've moved on to OS X, even though 9 was better for certain situations (two different solutions to two different problems). You might blame them for that too, but it's not realistic to expect otherwise. They can't continue to develop all technologies that cross their path indefinitely.

They certainly handicapped QTPlayer in the past by not giving free full-screen support, and maybe that is the reason QTPlayer's mindshare isn't good enough to make them want it to be their flagship media player anymore, but I think it's clear that they have decided QTPlayer is not their best bet, and iTunes is, and so they're focusing their attentions on iTunes.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Detrius 

Also, iTunes full screen is VERY different from QTP full screen. If you have more than one monitor, it becomes abundantly obvious. With iTunes, all monitors are blacked out. You can't control this. It's also not as easy to pick which monitor gets the video. With QTP, you can play a DIFFERENT video on each monitor. If you only have one monitor, it's all the same. If you have two, iTunes is very lacking in functionality.

Thanks for pointing this out. These are the kinds of specialty features that one would expect from a (cheap) "Pro" application. They are exactly what the "pro" moniker implies these days.

[stefanicotine]

Upon installing Final Cut Pro, I was surprised to learn that my Quicktime was suddenly registered as a Pro app. Neat to know that Apple at least hands out a free, automatic license if you buy any of their pro software.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Updated? yes. "Seriously updated?" no. It got minimal recording abilities, that's the only new thing. All other changes were just moving interface elements around.

Off the top of my head, updates included:

Cocoa re-write
Live re-sizing
Full-screen transport controls
iSight recording
AV control panel functions
export de-interlacing
configuration-free streaming

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Updated? yes. "Seriously updated?" no. It got minimal recording abilities, that's the only new thing. All other changes were just moving interface elements around.

It was a vastly larger update than simply not disabling fullscreen playback would be. In fact, since they rewrote the entire player, they had to go through extra trouble to disable it again.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Cocoa re-write
Live re-sizing
Full-screen transport controls
iSight recording
AV control panel functions
export de-interlacing
configuration-free streaming

I don't think this is the place to get into Cocoa-is-not-better-than-carbon arguments, so I'll suffice to say that a couple of mac programming guide sites have had a cocoa quicktime player as a beginner/intermediate exercise for ages.

Live re-sizing is in the API, not the player. The functions of fullscreen controls, AV controls and deinterlacing were there in previous versions just in different places (the full-screen controls are the same controls as non-fullscreen ones, just moved to a new transparent window). Recording I mentioned, and streaming I don't really know or care about.

Decisions to offer new functionality haven't been common at all in a long time.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

It was a vastly larger update than simply not disabling fullscreen playback would be. In fact, since they rewrote the entire player, they had to go through extra trouble to disable it again.

No one ever suggested it was technically difficult to offer full-screen for free. The issue is at the roughest design level. They may not be sitting around brainstorming about how to change the QT Player interface for the same reason they're not thinking about changing the MacPaint interface; the app is effectively EOL. Design decisions are being made about iTunes, because people like iTunes. People hate QT (player).

If you want to complain that QT Player is the default application for playing movie files, I'd agree. Apple has had a lot of oversights and lack of polish everywhere in the last 5+ years, because of constantly being in the midst of some huge transition, and default-app specification is exactly the kind of stupid but important thing that gets forgotten until the last minute.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I don't think this is the place to get into Cocoa-is-not-better-than-carbon arguments...

That wasn't my point. I don't belong to the Cocoa-or-die camp.

Making a basic player in Cocoa is easy. But rewriting QTP in Cocoa was not trivial. A player like NicePlayer is only 3MBs, but QTP is 25MB.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

They may not be sitting around brainstorming about how to change the QT Player interface for the same reason they're not thinking about changing the MacPaint interface; the app is effectively EOL.

Tell me another one.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

People hate QT (player).

People naturally complain about nagware, lack of full screen, and lack of playlists. I think it more accurate to say people have a love/hate relationship with QTP.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

They can't support everything. They're not still supporting OS 9, because they've moved on to OS X, even though 9 was better for certain situations (two different solutions to two different problems). You might blame them for that too, but it's not realistic to expect otherwise. They can't continue to develop all technologies that cross their path indefinitely.

Oh come on, that is the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. OS X was intended as a new version of the OS which replaced OS 9. It was the same kind of product - an OS, and it was intended to serve the same purpose as OS 9, just hopefully better. Unless you're trying to imply that Automator is supposed to be a new version of / a replacement for AppleScript, that analogy makes no sense at all. AppleScript is somewhat like HyperCard, roughly, where Automator is more like QuicKeys. AppleScript's not just better for "certain situations", it's more powerful, period. You can write entire apps in AppleScript, and you can control other applications in enough ways that Automator isn't even in the same ballpark. Automator doesn't even have variables or conditional logic. It's intended for novices who lack the ability/time to learn AppleScript and want something very simple to use, to do very basic things. It's not the same type of product as AppleScript, nor is it a replacement for it. A lot of the Automator actions are written in AppleScript, for crying out loud. Saying that Automator should replace AppleScript is like saying iMovie should replace Final Cut Pro or something. Actually, since Automator is more like a front-end for AppleScript, a better analogy would be that it's like saying that the Aqua GUI is intended to replace the Darwin kernel. Don't see that happening, do you?

As for "QuickTime Player hasn't been updated in years despite having just been completely rewritten," I think that one kind of refutes itself.

[JKT]

There reason why I dislike QTP is because it can't do fullscreen without a hack. If it did fullscreen, I would be very, very happy to use QTP as it offers the best scrubbing and fast forward control of all the Mac media players*.

I would really hate to have to use iTunes as my media player. It doesn't offer any of the fine controls that QT has, you can't loop films and you can't view more than one film at a time.

* Which is why I do use QTP as I do have a hack that allows me to view things full screen. However, it is an annoying workaround...

[spice003]

or you can just get the serial# from a website which has serials for this kind of stuff. pm me for the site if you want.