I think CDH is more likely, though XWO is not out of the question either if we are to believe that OPS will be available in Snow Leopard. I think that's going to be in the server package only, under the heading WXO.
My point: Don't use acronyms.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple to Integrate 'QuickTime Pro' Features in Snow Leopard?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think CDH is more likely, though XWO is not out of the question either if we are to believe that OPS will be available in Snow Leopard. I think that's going to be in the server package only, under the heading WXO.
My point: Don't use acronyms.
Oxford Concise:
3. Accept or receive
4. Acquire or assume
New Oxford American Dictionary (OS X)
1. [further definition --WC] Gain or acquire (possession or ownership of something)
American Heritage:
1. To get into one's possession by force, skill, or artifice
10. To accept and place under one's care or keeping
Merriam-Webster:
6: to transfer into one's own keeping
11 a: to obtain by deriving from a source
12: to receive or accept whether willingly or reluctantly
Need more?
No argument there. Under U.S. law you are correct, but you're only allowed to use a limited sample, not the entire work and only close to that for short arts.
The behaviour and social relations (if you want to call it that) involved are different from the case where, say, I steal your car and now you have to take the bus!
Don't get me wrongI'm not saying that there isn't a difference; this is plainly evident in that the legal definition of "theft" doesn't include IP. I'm just really tired of the rationalization of theft because the object isn't physical. I wish people would just own up to what they dostealing is stealing is stealing. The problem is that, psychologically, people don't want to admit to themselves that they are stealing, it's a hard pill to swallow because everyone knows "stealing is wrong". Rationalizing it allows people to sleep at night.
Just about everyone with a computer or photocopier is guilty of thisme included. Let's just call it what it is
Don't get me wrong—I'm not saying that there isn't a difference; this is plainly evident in that the legal definition of "theft" doesn't include IP. I'm just really tired of the rationalization of theft because the object isn't physical. I wish people would just own up to what they do—stealing is stealing is stealing. The problem is that, psychologically, people don't want to admit to themselves that they are stealing, it's a hard pill to swallow because everyone knows "stealing is wrong". Rationalizing it allows people to sleep at night.
Just about everyone with a computer or photocopier is guilty of this—me included. Let's just call it what it is
Okay, I guess we're just down to semantics at this point. But if "copyright violation" is as bad as you say, shouldn't the term "copyright violator" have the same moral and linguistic impact as "thief"? Just because I'm saying it shouldn't be called theft does not mean, necessarily, that I'm saying it's "less evil" or anything.
It could even be worse. Maybe someday thieves (of physical stuff) will say, hey, don't call me a "copyright violator" I'm not that bad, I'm just a thief!
By calling them different things, we as a society can then evaluate them differently, otherwise we *must* equate them. So, I guess I'm really making a linguistic argument here, not a moral one. Rape and murder are both horrible, awful crimes, but we still distinguish between them, and they have different consequences (horrible in both cases, of course.)
At last.
There has been no sane reason for charging extra for an app as simple as QTPro. An app I consider providing core basic functions needed in a modern OS.
OS X comes with a lot of other and far more advanced apps. And they are all free.
Praise to Apple.
There has been no sane reason for charging extra for an app as simple as QTPro. An app I consider providing core basic functions needed in a modern OS.
OS X comes with a lot of other and far more advanced apps. And they are all free.
Praise to Apple.
If you're referencing iLife, it doesn't come with OS X.
I'm not sure what other apps you would be talking about.
It doesn't come with OS X - but it comes with every Mac; so I understand his point.
And that's your problem right there. You should be seeing them as "potential customers." After all, they have a desire to use your software. It's your job to work out why they don't want to pay for it, and turn them into paying customers.
"Piracy" has built software empires. Do you really think that Adobe or Microsoft would be so large today without illicit copying? I know hundreds of people who pirated Photoshop or Office in college, and went on to become paying customers once they got a job, because that's the software they were used to using. If they hadn't have pirated, they would probably be using something else today, like the GIMP, or Neo Office, or some other competitor's product.
Having someone pirate and use your software is far better than having them not use it at all. If nothing else, it gives you word-of-mouth advertising, as the pirate tells their friends about your product.
I don't think so. Scribes have been copying information since the written word was invented. What would be alien to them, though, would be the concept of "copyright" and the idea that you couldn't just copy information freely.
This might be why Apple decided to make iWork serial free in the latest version. Sure, it's easier to pirate, but it also helps them compete against MS. I bet they are thinking they'd rather someone pirate it than not use it at all, as you say.
Ah, but how is "Intellectual Property" (from ideas through to software) actually property? They are non-excludable and non-rivalled. You cannot exercise dominion over them.
The very reason we have intellectual property legislation is to give the legal appearance of property to something which is NOT property.
So, if you want to use a natural law argument that piracy is theft, then you should also accept the natural law argument that intellectual property is not actually property... and therefore stealing it is not theft even in the vulgar definition.
There's also the point Stallman frequently makes that we shouldn't just lump everything into one thing called "intellectual property" since things like copyright, patents and trademarks are all different things, treated differently under the law, and of course are treated differently historically and in society. An argument you could make about one might not hold for another.
Quicktime pro
I think that the reason, if it actually happens, that QuickTime Pro will be included at no charge in Snow Leopard is for marketing purposes. As Snow leopard is mostly a background upgrade, VERY important, it gives Apple something to market for the people who want more bells and whistles to justify upgrading to the new OS.
I think that the reason, if it actually happens, that QuickTime Pro will be included at no charge in Snow Leopard is for marketing purposes. As Snow leopard is mostly a background upgrade, VERY important, it gives Apple something to market for the people who want more bells and whistles to justify upgrading to the new OS.
Good idea on Apple's part... if it's true. Even if it is, though, many Macs won't be able to take advantage of it due to insufficient GPU horsepower, I suspect.
Maybe they've spent this time also providing massive improvements to their graphics drivers? (Hey, I can dream!)
I think Apple's going to have to rewrite their graphics drivers anyway, to enable GPGPU functionality.
I don't, just you - by demonstration, obviously.
Exactly. So when someone is PLAYING CONTENT, which is 99% of what people use QTP for, then by your own logic why "do I want to launch this huge program [...] just to perform some simple everyday tasks"
If you do use QTPro for these tasks, your loss. iSquint uses the x.264 encoder which offers far wider format support, is much faster, and doesn't have Apple's screwed up gamma curve. Apparently you're not terribly familiar with the topics you're (sophomorically) attempting to insult me about.
Maury
I see the point you're trying to make, but... does iSquint use the QuickTime APIs to do any of its conversions? If it does, then the strength of your argument is weakened a little
When I had QuickTime Pro I used it for simultaneous playback of multiple movies/sound files, which has... interesting results, if you do enough files at once.
The difference in performance between an original 4-core Mac Pro and the latest and greatest is limited for everyday tasks. As you can see for yourself in Bare Feets, the raw performance increase (ignoring changes in hard drives and graphics cards) that you get by moving from the Woodcrest (first generation MP) to Harpertown (latest MP) machines is extremely limited, on the order of 10% or less. Getting that performance increase would require a new machine, which is going to be several thousand dollars.
So at that point alone, if you're right and all we get is a 5% increase in performance, the the $80 price is obviously a steal. Duh.
But...
If you think there's only 5% improvement possible in the current OS, then it's clear that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. OSX is, sadly, quite inefficient. Compared to similar Unix-like OS's, Linux or FreeBSD, OSX is dog slow. Educate yourself:
http://sekhon.berkeley.edu/macosx/intel.html
Much of this is due to the IPC system in the kernel, which adds overhead to everything that the OS has to do. Another dog-slow part of the OS is malloc - if they implemented a new version they could improve the performance of every machine by something on the order of 10% for absolutely no cost at all.
Moreover, most modern software on OSX is built using Cocoa, or at least the Core libraries. These libraries are NOT efficient. Minor changes to the string handling and text layout functions would have real-world impacts for every user.
The estimated performance improvements from using OpenCL, GrandCentral and LLVL are hard to guess, but are likely to b MUCH greater than 5%. Additionally, Apple is putting OSX through a serious weight-reduction process - since much of a computer's performance is determined by throughput, reducing footprint has direct impact on performance.
I think it's safe to say that if current reports of a 30% size reduction in 10.6, along with wider use of LLVL in the libraries, then you should expect a much greater improvement than 5%. But what what I know, as a professional programmer and OpenStep developer?
What I find most amusing is that when a company adds crap that no one uses to their new OS, everyone shouts that they should stop adding crap and just fix what they already have. So Apple actually does just that, and everyone's complaining that they're not adding new crap instead. As teh Steve so eloquently put it, some times you just have to ignore the users
Maury
I see the point you're trying to make, but... does iSquint use the QuickTime APIs to do any of its conversions? If it does, then the strength of your argument is weakened a little
No. As I said, iSquint (or whatever it's called now) uses the public domain x.264 package, which is much better than Apple's. In any case, even if it did use QTPro's libraries, you can do that without a license.
Apple needs to focus QuickTime Player on PLAYING QUICKTIME. That's 99% of what it's used for. If you allow yourself to get distracted making the program do "other things" (whatever those may be) then the 99% of its use suffers. If you don't, and focus on the 99%, then you end up with half-assed functionality - like what QuickTime Pro offers now.
Maury
Agreed, but...
They can't, legally. If they are going to legally play DVD's on the MacOS, they need to support CSS decryption and that requires a separate "secure" program.
Yes, I realize that the CSS ship has sailed and the DVD companies may as well just remove it entirely (IMHO the freakin' nasty file system will stop most people from successfully copying a DVD with or without CSS), but that's just not going to happen.
I would prefer that all media, no matter what the source, open in QuickTime Player. But it's just not going to happen due to overlapping legalities. QuickLook is another matter entirely...
Maury
Speaking of constantly upgrading thingees which shudda been free by now, when is Roxio Toast 10 Titanium expected to arrive?
I just can't wait any longer to Share The Next Generation of Disc Burning!
It is out. If you bothered to check their website: http://www.roxio.com/enu/products/toast/titanium/overview.html
Got released a month ago.
DO it
This is smart, without quicktime pro is needed for fullscreen ( automator can be used with a script to get around that) so to have convenient fullscreen you need to buy quicktime pro, but if you have your mac serviced and your harddrive is wiped you loose your quicktime pro upgrade and have to buy it again. that happend to me and i didnt buy it again. The advanced features of quicktime pro are not advanced by todays standards and should be included by default like the other media players i have used. as it stands quicktime is somewhat independent of apple. they should merge or apple should come standard with its own brand player. because having an OS that cant play a video in fullscreen out of the box is a joke.
This is smart, without quicktime pro is needed for fullscreen ( automator can be used with a script to get around that) so to have convenient fullscreen you need to buy quicktime pro, but if you have your mac serviced and your harddrive is wiped you loose your quicktime pro upgrade and have to buy it again. that happend to me and i didnt buy it again. The advanced features of quicktime pro are not advanced by todays standards and should be included by default like the other media players i have used. as it stands quicktime is somewhat independent of apple. they should merge or apple should come standard with its own brand player. because having an OS that cant play a video in fullscreen out of the box is a joke.
A similar thing happened to me, except that it only took having QTPro wiped out just once.
The flaw in Apple's system is that the updater for Quicktime on a "one dot" (not "dot one") upgrade will overwrite a QTP license with a non-Pro QT version, which logically is flat-out wrong.
The analogy would be to have Adobe Acrobat (Full license) v7.x wiped out by Acrobat Reader v8.0
I've been "desiring" to buy the QT Pro upgrade for awhile now, but ever since Apple incremented to version 7.5, my decision was that Apple would promptly roll out v8.0 within 2-3 months of me finally biting the bullet. As such, I'm not going to pay anything until I see QT 8 (or QTX) rolled out.
...and while Snow Leopard buyers may get a free copy of QTP in their new OS, it also begs the question as to what's going to happen to PPC owners who (presumably) can't upgrade to 10.6?
If QTX goes free, it also needs to be on the PPC.
-hh