Red warns users of Quicktime 7.4 upgrade

As QT 7.4 also breaks playback for certain files as well as SRT subtitling for AVI (using Perian), I've downgraded back to 7.3.1. Apple really screwed this one up.

Apple seems to have lost its interest in backward compatibility. I call it Appnesia.

We pro media users have seen it now for years; for instance, the inability to open a Final Cut Pro project file -- even within main interger releases! Add one dot-release and you're relegated to XML project transport to transfer to an older FCP version. That's kid stuff. That little Gotcha can shut down an offline-to-online workflow for a day or more.

Apple should get a memory, and test everything possible. Avid has trumped them for years on this level.

Would someone please explain why a "professional" who makes their living with computers would apply any update from any source update without thoroughly researching and testing the update before it is applied? Wouldn't someone who claims to make their living from such systems have a test system set up to make sure things go soothly before going live with an update?

Yet every time an update comes out one reads post after post from so-called pro users who are now dead-in-the-water with their projects and are screaming at Apple for help (after going on a ranting tirade first of course).

Doesn't sound like professionalism to me.

Yes of course, every professional artist has one extra computer just for test purposes. Really, that's how it works. So if you're on the road with your laptop and you want to update your iPod touch - which means you have to install QT 7.4 - you need to pull your second laptop out (hey...remember, every pro ALWAYS travels with an additional test-laptop!) and do your update there. Ooops, After Effects doesn't render anymore, nor does C4D. Oh well, let's face it, Apple doesn't really care anymore about the pro segment. It's not nearly as lucrative as the promised land of, say, movie rentals. So now we have Quicktime checking our media every 10mins to make sure the DRM is valid. Hurray.

And isn't it always a catch-22. Apple releases an update. Do you update or wait? Let's say you wait. Then there's a security patch released. Do you update that? No, because it requires the first update. But, then when someone claims there's a 'threat' (using the term loosely, of course) in the wild, people claim it's a non-issue because Apple's already supplied a patch.

Well, they have, but that doesn't mean everyone has installed the patch, because they can't because patches are usually made for the latest version of the OS, not previous versions.

Oh, and maybe someone should point out to lkrupp that most software can get updates without it breaking functionality or causing incompatibilities with integrated or other software. Yet, for some reason, esp. with Quicktime, Apple has such a hard time getting this to happen.

Maybe Apple should think about breaking out all the iTMS specific code from quicktime, so it can be what it used to be, rather then being your iTMS Fairplay software that requires updates and patches everytime Apple decides to update the iTMS or iTunes.

[Would someone please explain]

Certainly. I don't make a living with computers; I make a living as a filmmaker and editor working digitally. Professional editors often do an offline edit on their own systems, which they gleefully upgrade to the latest and greatest. And then take the entire project and supporting media to an ONLINE facility running $500/hour for broadcast finishing, HD mastering, etc. Offliners usually call ahead to confirm both FCP systems are the same general version -- but they forget about Apple Appnesia, only to find the project generated by their newest FCP CANNOT LOAD into the expensive online system-- even though the difference in versions is one damn dot release-- i.e. 6.0.1 to 6.0.2.. It's happened to me. And it delayed an online session. And it happens all over the place. XML export/import is the only way out. (And of course, being profesisonal, I now include an XML file of the project on a disc, in case.)

And like I say-- Appnesia is kid stuff. Avid nailed this gotcha years ago; you can load any project into any current version release and usually two releases or more backward without choking. The FCP team has been made aware of the issue like years ago. I don't blame them; I chalk it up to corporate policy.

Someone commented how professionalism means that you make enough money to have multiple systems lying around to test updates on and such..

Well, just because you're paid to do something doesn't mean you have the extra cash to buy redundancy for everything. Some people are doing very well financially, most are not. More and more often these days, economics are driving creative professionals to make the most of less equipment.

When that fact is combined with the software industry's growing practice of releasing Beta code as Final code - using the public as beta testers - then we get more of these situations where updates wreak havoc on people who need to get projects done.

So we arrive at the real lack of professionalism. We pay Apple for hardware and software that works. We pay them under the assumption that their products HAVE BEEN TESTED in a realistic range of uses. We pay them assuming that if they didn't do so themselves, they've contacted people who make the software we use so THEY can test an update's functionality.

It's obvious with this and many other updates, neither of these things happened. So with that in mind, why do companies like Apple charge so much for their software products? They really need to test more, to justify these costs.

One clarification on my previous post:

I bring up economics causing us to do more with less, relating to individuals and small companies. This hinderance is not so much a factor when the "professional" is a multi-national multi-million dollar company like, say, an Apple or an Adobe.

These "professionals" are in a much better position to buy test rigs and people to run them through the paces. A freelance video editor is not. There is a vast difference in available resources and so also, a difference in responsibility.. who should carry the burden of testing and who ends up doing it.