Apple patent application reveals teleprompter tools for iMovie and Final Cut Pro X

“Yesterday, the US Patent & Trademark Office published a patent application from Apple that revealed their intent to add a new teleprompter feature to both iMovie and Final Cut Pro,” Jack Purcher reports for Patently Apple.

“Sometime in the future you’ll be able to both film yourself on an iPad while reading your very own script like the pros,” Purcher reports. “This is Apple’s second patent relating to future iReporter tools for iOS devices.”

“Is it a trend? Well, last March, KBTV anchor-reporter Mike McNeill was the first person to shoot a news segment using the iPad 2 and Apple may want to tap into this new trend relating to Street Reporting,” Purcher reports. “While this type of reporting won’t be mainstream anytime soon, it surely has its place in impromptu situations or for informal video casts.”

Read more in the full article here.


    1. Of course a left wing liar won’t tell us about Alzheimer’s Reagan using teleprompters, or dyslexic G H W Bush using teleprompters, or Cheney’s puppet, George ( WMD) Bush using teleprompters. Always spread ignorance and hate.

        1. In a (probably) futile effort to steer this discussion away from the poison of the American political vitriol, here’s my take.

          A few weeks ago, I had helped my daughter do a project for her school (6th grade), where she produced a short documentary film about a neighbourhood in Queens, NY called “Little India”. She interviewed some people, narrated the picture and spoke on-camera. I had printed cue cards for the on-camera stuff, but would have totally loved to have had the prompter software in the iMovie. There are some alternative solutions that can do the job in a pinch (, but having it inside the iMovie would make it so much easier to produce on-screen talking head material that looked professional.

      1. Bush rarely used a teleprompter, he preferred note cards. Try some facts.

        Most speakers use some form of notes/teleprompter to keep track of their speeches, especially when it’s a longer speech. The Republicans have made this a point to make fun of Obama, but it’s pretty silly overall. However, Obama does very poorly when he does not have a prepared speech.

  1. Every Republican President since the invention of the TelePrompTer has used one.

    Every. Single. One.

    Prominent TelePrompTer at the CPAC conference now going on.

    Is that all you right wing lunatics have? Something that isn’t even true?

    GOP: Ignorance gone to seed.

    1. Correction: Every President — Republican and Democrat. However, Bush preferred note cards over the teleprompter. Clinton used a teleprompter but was very comfortable not using one, and he had a teleprompter malfunction during one speech and he continued with a slight pause, and resumed using it once it was fixed. Reagan gave speeches well before teleprompters were invented, but he used one as well.

      The difference with Obama is that he has not shown an ability to give a good speech without a teleprompter; in fact, he has been very poor without a prepared speech and teleprompter. He is a skilled orator, but only with a prepared speech.

      If Obama had to debate Lincoln-Douglas style (debating for hours without a prepared speech) he would be in serious trouble. Clinton and Reagan would have done very well. Bush was not a good public speaker, but he did effectively communicate his important points.

  2. Yep, that’s the first thing I think of when I think of teleprompters: politics.


    I think you guys keep getting lost on these threads. This is about Apple, remember?..

  3. OMG. Get over a president using a teleprompter. It’s technology that everyone uses in the industry and no one is going to stop using it. Would it be great if a president could recite line from line a 1000 word speech. SURE. But why freakin spend all that time memorizing words when you can just write it down and then show it on a screen. Probably cuts down spending 10 hours on it, to 2 hours. So you can spend that 8 hours doing something more important.

    1. Sure there is use…

      Then there is abuse!!!

      I searched for Google results just using the “name” and the word “teleprompter” and that is it and found the following ‘hit counts’ listed below.

      It is safe to assume that the combination of the word teleprompter and a President’s name stories occur mostly during their term. In retirement or prior to becoming President, sure they use teleprompter to give speeches but what, a couple of dozen speeches a year during retirement and a few thousand a year as a State Senator from IL or Governor from Texas or Arkansas?

      Googled: Barrack Obama, teleprompter = 4,780,000 results (3 1/2 years in term) – sure there are more stories about O and teleprompter but who’s fault is that? I direct you to the link above where a teleprompter is set up in from of six graders! You get what you deserve…

      George W. Bush = 2,790,000 (8 years term)

      Bill Clinton = 2,980,000 (8 years term)

      George H. W. Bush = 4,730,000 (4 years term)

      Ronald Reagan = 2,840,000 (8 years term)

      Jimmy Carter = 2,980,000 (4 years term)

      1. I dont know if your trying to rebuttal my point or not. But just mentioning that a president does thousands of speeches a year , I think proves my point that it would be illogical to try to memorize these speeches. Maybe the problem is is that he shouldnt be doing thousands of speeches a year. That comes to like 3 to 6 a day. If you arent reading a teleprompter at that point, your not a human. And from what I saw in the classroom, he gave a speech using prompters, but then he sat down with them and talked mono y mono. Doesnt sound that bad to me in knowing he does thousands of speeches.

  4. Presidents don’t have time to memorize 30 minutes speeches and be able to recite them without flaw (and pundits from each side LOVE to jump on any tiny, unimportant error. Look at Bush’s flubs and Obama’s mispronunciations — things that don’t matter but get way too much attention).

    If an iPad can be a tool to anyone in this manner, great! More sales for Apple, and very likely fewer errors in speeches.

  5. This patent application did NOT “reveal[] their intent” to add a specific feature to a specific product or products. Patents merely mean that, if granted, they can stop others from doing this.

    Apple may or may not add a teleprompter feature to iMovie or Final Cut, but a patent application doesn’t prove they intend to do it. Apple patents a lot of things it never actually does.

    I get tired of having to post this comment on every patent story here, but it’s because the website Patently Apple consistently overstates what patents are. Why not be honest? Patently Apple could have said “reveals that Apple _may be_ adding teleprompter features to iMovie, since this application clearly shows they have the capability.” That is honest, and I would think wouldn’t reduce traffic to their site. Overstating reality just makes you look like another sensationalist rumor site.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.