Linked by David Adams on Fri 2nd Mar 2012 15:55 UTC, submitted by sawboss
Thread beginning with comment 509488
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: What about "Quicktime Pro"?
by jbicha on Sun 4th Mar 2012 18:10
in reply to "What about "Quicktime Pro"?"
RE[2]: What about "Quicktime Pro"?
by lucas_maximus on Mon 5th Mar 2012 13:47
in reply to "RE: What about "Quicktime Pro"?"




Member since:
2006-07-04
Apple offers Quicktime Pro for which users have to pay to unlock "Pro" (give me a break) features of Quicktime Player. For years, one of those "pro" features users had to pay to unlock was simply the ability to play a video at full screen size. lol
It's not like MS is the only one that does "gimps" features to get users to pay to "ungimp" said features.
As for "building in obsolesence", Microsoft supports their software for long periods of time (too long, lots of the bashers say). Apple's policy is to support only the latest two iterations of OS X. If you have a version older than that, you get no support, no bug fixes, no security updates; can't even run the latest version of Safari. And Apple's policy regarding much of their OS X software (like iLife and iWork) is for their latest versions to run only on the most recent two OSX releases, arbitrarily so, just to force you to upgrade the OS in order to run the latest versions of those apps. Yet Apple gets a free pass from the "tech geek" crowd.
While MS supports XP for 14 years and gets villified for building in "obsolesence", Apple supports any given version of OSX for about 2 years only, and gets praised to the heights. Funny, that.
Edited 2012-03-03 19:29 UTC