I’m happy I spent the $30.

Right now, I’ve got a few minutes to search around, and then I need to figure out how to edit out the first few minutes of my shows.

It looks like QT Pro can do that. If it can, great, I’ll have to pay $30.

I just need to be sure that the software I use can do what I need it to do. Also, I can’t afford to spend all day on this.

I don’t have iLife or any expensive video editors, because I don’t need them. But I do record Skype interviews and I do live webinar-type shows online.

So, if there are alternatives, please let me know, otherwise, I’m going to buy QT Pro.

It might not matter to you but I have a lot to say about my home videos.

But then, thankfully for its consumers, I’m not Apple.

“Adriel — Shouldn’t multimedia production houses be using the ProApps? If I were Apple, I’d do away with QT Pro as a standalone product and integrate its features into both iLife and the ProApps — Logic and Final Cut of all levels. I’m not a ProApps user, but I’d be shocked if the features you describe aren’t already available in those tools. For the pro/am market, there are always the excellent opensource (but not Apple-backed) products MPlayer/MEncoder and FFmpeg, which support everything you mentioned.”

With all due respect, that’s the same ridiculous argument that’s been made regarding the rape and pillage of the once-great iMovie. Who are you to say what tools a pro should use? For me, the ability to record video from my camera directly in QT Pro has been a godsend. It never worked right in iMovie for some reason. Just because you personally don’t use the advanced functions of QTP doesn’t mean they don’t have value to those of us that do. If you don’t want to pony up the $35, fine. For myself and others, it’s a great bargain.

QT (Pro) is a great product, and the $30 fee is really nothing more than a minor annoyance. It would be nice if it were dropped, but I’d much rather see them concentrating on converting QuickTime to Cocoa (much of it is still Carbon)

@ Adriel — Point well taken. There are indeed times when it’s best to pull out a touch-up brush. But your analogy only reinforces my underlying point that the functionality that QT Pro provides should be freely included with the ProApps and with iLife.

My point isn’t so much that there’s no need for what QT Pro offers, but that it’s poor form for Apple to charge $30 atop the price of iLife and the ProApps — these products should subsume QT Pro, perhaps in the simple form of one one of the .pkg files that are included in the .mpkg (metapackage) that’s installed), but not as a separate product called “QuickTime Pro”.

@Stephanie — As I just said to Adriel, isn’t it a bit insulting for Apple to tell its pro customers, “Yes, you just paid $1300 for Final Cut Studio and another $1000 for Logic Pro. But to actually do what you want, you need to buy a $30 license for QuickTime Pro, too.” It’s more insulting than new car dealers that charge upwards of $75 for floor mats.

As for those who use non-Apple multimedia apps, such as those from Adobe or other vendors, again, having the functionality of QT Pro rolled into iLife (which should be preinstalled on multimedia creators’ systems) will alleviate that issue as well.

@ everyone — Let’s raise the ante. If Apple really cares about QT Pro (cost of patent licensing and what-not) and still sees it as a revenue generator, then I suggest this: Roll QT Pro’s features into iLife, stop bundling iLife with new systems (also lowers patent licensing costs), and lower the cost of iLife to, say, $39.99—$49.99. Not everyone uses iLife, but those who do would appreciate the lower price and not having to fake QT Pro with iMove, GarageBand, or third-party apps.