Forums | MacLife

mtpalms · 2005-06-02 10:32 pm

QT 7 has some genuinely new features. It's only $30, upgrading the OS is also full price, although granted, previous versions aren't broken by if you choose not to upgrade. You get a lot for $30, and Apple does need to pay for R&D to keep the goodies coming, whether you agree with their business model or not. There are plenty of apps out there you can replace QT 7 with.

I notice old (free) versions of wiretap don't work on any system. That also bums me out, but I'll just have to find new freeware, or buy WTap or something I find better.

I used to use some of .mac's features when it was free, but for $100 a year, the features I can reasonably use with dialup are not worth it. It does not break my heart, nor do I demand that Apple offer .mac 'lite' for free for dialup users.

laughinol · 2005-06-03 2:37 pm

I'll bet if enough folks write to Apple about an application issue, Apple will likely take some form of action. It may not be the action you wish, but _some_ action just the same. <shruggin twice>

Ongakuka · 2005-06-06 10:53 am

I guess Marc has a lot of money to waste. Mind sending some of that money my way?

The POINT is it doesn't matter if QT7 Pro cost only ONE CENT! It is the principle of the matter! Something modern man seems to be loosing touch with more and more every day. I and many others paid for a specific functionality and it has been connivingly stolen back by Apple under a guise of "new features" and "advanced compression".

How would you like it if in the middle of your dinner at a nice restaraunt, the manager walked over, took your plate from from you and said you had to pay for it again? I bet you'd drop a fist in his eye and get your money back. If you wouldn't, you're in clinical denial. Why else would someone feel that they should pay multiple times for something? Or think someone is stupid for being upset that something they purchased was stolen? Or be upset that a $3,000 machine has been given an unremovable "but necessary" upgrade that, due to video card incompatabilities that were conveniantly "overlooked", is now useless resulting in the user being expected to upgrade a video card, et cetera.

Hmm, I wonder how much the GPU makers paid to get the unremovable QT7 working only on their cards? And how much did the advertisers pay to get the "open a webpage without the user's consent" function built in?

畜生！！

Blandford Fly · 2005-06-06 3:52 pm

No, you're right, this IS a big deal. After all $25 does convert to a whopping

Marc · 2005-06-06 3:55 pm

Ongakuka wrote:
I guess Marc has a lot of money to waste. Mind sending some of that money my way?

The POINT is it doesn't matter if QT7 Pro cost only ONE CENT! It is the principle of the matter! Something modern man seems to be loosing touch with more and more every day. I and many others paid for a specific functionality and it has been connivingly stolen back by Apple under a guise of "new features" and "advanced compression".

How would you like it if in the middle of your dinner at a nice restaraunt, the manager walked over, took your plate from from you and said you had to pay for it again? I bet you'd drop a fist in his eye and get your money back. If you wouldn't, you're in clinical denial. Why else would someone feel that they should pay multiple times for something? Or think someone is stupid for being upset that something they purchased was stolen? Or be upset that a $3,000 machine has been given an unremovable "but necessary" upgrade that, due to video card incompatabilities that were conveniantly "overlooked", is now useless resulting in the user being expected to upgrade a video card, et cetera.

Hmm, I wonder how much the GPU makers paid to get the unremovable QT7 working only on their cards? And how much did the advertisers pay to get the "open a webpage without the user's consent" function built in?

畜生！！

quicktime features are not food, Apple is a not a resturant. your analogy is terrible.
And I dont have money to send you. or pay for a QTPro licence all the time either; so use VLC or MPlayer or friggin iTunes for christ sake. Full screen, right there in iTunes. no charge.

deal with it

Ongakuka · 2005-06-06 4:44 pm

I knew the moment I started writing that analogy that you would break out the "it's not food" et cetera retort but I put it to bytes anyway just so I could say this and further illustrate why it is that Apple can get away with this: it's because of ignorant consumers who would rather spend time parading about with their egos and making free thinkers look dumb than keeping big business in check and preserving a consumer driven economy.

Marc, you are not even acknowledging the realities of this conversation, much less what Apple is planning to do to you and your wallet in the next few years.

I mean, the analogy I gave - you're right about one thing: it's not food and Apple is not a restaraunt. That is what makes it's an analogy. You've displayed exactly the ignorance that dominates the media and thereby controls the unthinking consumer's opinions.

The purpose of an analogy in an argument such as this is to simplify a principle to a basic level so that anyone of any intelligence level may comprehend it. In other words, a deinterpolation of a critical concept. Obviously I have hit a wall here with someone in a sort of dissociation and denial that feels that an "it's terrible" supposition is adequate to debunk a properly formed and executed analogy.

You are wrong. My analogy is apt. It's no wonder you don't understand the principle that supersedes this topic. You don't even know or can't admit what an analogy is. How could you understand principle? In any case, here it is plain and simple:

I bought something. It was taken from me. I have a moral and legal basis for being upset about it. You on the other hand have no grounds to be rude to people who wish to talk about their losses with others. That is malicious and unthoughtful and unfortunately for you displays your lack of maturity and pathetic desire to find people who have a wound and pour your acidic thoughts into them.

Now, to anyone else, I suggest you contact Apple and let them know how unhappy you are with having your QT Pro status taken away. I have already spoken with someone and let them know that I will not buy the G5 I was about two months away from buying until they <b>returned</b> my Pro status to me - it's working. I also mentioned that things like this are what drive people with less moral responsibility to piracy (ref. RIAA). A logical thought would be "if they can steal my QT6 Pro, I can in turn steal OSX Tiger" et cetera. (Note: I am NOT suggesting anyone do this - that is wrong. I am suggesting however that you make them aware that bitter people will do bitter things sometimes and that's not in their best interests or yours.)

Last edited by Ongakuka (2005-06-06 4:57 pm)

Ongakuka · 2005-06-06 4:50 pm

Oh, by the way, installing QT7.0.1 on OSX 10.3.9 disabled iTunes altogether. I can't even charge my iPod until I spend $120 on Tiger. These are not just my results. Google this: Problems with QT7 You'll find hundreds of posts, blogs, etc. of people getting screwed when they installed QT7 - not to mention the reinstall that Apple provides DOESN'T WORK so you can't even undo the damage.

馬鹿な畜生！

Last edited by Ongakuka (2005-06-06 4:51 pm)

Forums | MacLife

#26 2005-06-02 10:32 pm

Re: Let's thank Apple for the wonderful gift of Quicktime updates.

#27 2005-06-03 2:37 pm

Re: Let's thank Apple for the wonderful gift of Quicktime updates.

#28 2005-06-06 10:53 am

Re: Let's thank Apple for the wonderful gift of Quicktime updates.

#29 2005-06-06 3:52 pm

Re: Let's thank Apple for the wonderful gift of Quicktime updates.

#30 2005-06-06 3:55 pm

Re: Let's thank Apple for the wonderful gift of Quicktime updates.

Ongakuka wrote:

#31 2005-06-06 4:44 pm

Re: Let's thank Apple for the wonderful gift of Quicktime updates.

#32 2005-06-06 4:50 pm

Re: Let's thank Apple for the wonderful gift of Quicktime updates.

Board footer