Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Apple Businesses

QuickTime For RealNetworks 136

Posted by timothy from the could-you-please-pass-some-sorenson? dept.
PeterPan writes: "QuickTime for RealNetworks 'RealNetworks has licensed Apple intellectual property for streaming digital video and audio over the Internet in QuickTime. RealServer 8 now supports delivery of QuickTime content to QuickTime players.'" It'd be great to be able to actually watch high-quality QuickTime clips without either proprietary hardware / software combinations or jerky (or space-hogging) downcoversions.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

QuickTime For RealNetworks More

QuickTime For RealNetworks

Comments Filter:
  • They are godsends compared to Windows MediaPlayer (the other alternative), especially from a VOD programmer's perspective.

  • gotta agree with this guy. want to know what happens when I try to install quicktime? I can't get the piece of crap to run. i get "plugin errors" in my browsers. i get blue screens. same goes for RealPlayer. sometimes i wonder if microsoft has done anything intentionally to screw them up because I've never had a problem installing software anywhere near the problem i get with these two.
  • Apple has played a certain amount of lip service to the open source/Free software movement, but largely with technologies that are probably more beneficial for Apple to have as open source, rather than being beneficial to the end users

    That's what every other commercial company in existence does and will do. They open technology for three reasons: they have no more uses of it, they want market to catch the thing so that the'll control the market or they want to force competitor's technology off the market (the latter two is really almost the same). I do not see any "public good" or "end user benefit" amnog those three, do you?
    The only people who can make anything for end user benefits are end users themselves.

  • ...In my experience, both of them tend to conflict with other applications/snap up the rights to play certain files without consent.
    Without consent? I installed RP8 (beta?) recently and went through all the options; yes, it asked to be my mp3 player.

    I said "no".

    It is now... not my default mp3 player. (Hurrah!) I recall doing much the same thing with QT4; it asks, I say no. It really is that simple.

    Or did I download the "Friendly Well-Behaved" edition of each by accident?
  • Well, realserver is not quite a pain in the ass, it runs perfectly fine on linux. I have noticed no significant problems.

    With a complete package real supplies some video4linux supported capture cards, and they have an encoder for linux, so you can perfecly capture/encode real on linux.
  • A final sentence bashing Apple in some sort of ill-informed way is included for free with every occurance of the Apple icon on Slashdot stories. That's just the way it is. Lots of current Linux users are former MS-drones and they can't shake all the past propaganda.

  • real server itself is a pain in the ass.

    Nahhhh, it isn't that bad at all. You can even get a free (As in beer) copy of Real Server Basic (Limited number of streams, 10 i think, but hey) and have a play around. I havn't had a chance to play with it really well yet anyway, although i did manage to run Real Producer in X, streaming the content to a Real Server on Localhost, and then get two friends to connect to the stream via. a lowly 36.6kbps modem. And that was on a K6 233 with 32Mb, with Netscape running. Just gotta wait until i get a Cable Modem, then i'll let you all know how i got on with some real bandwidth ;)
  • So you're saying that Windows users have never figured out how to bypass date protected software.

    Don
  • Would that bethe viewer that you can download, but never burn on CD and take it home?

    I can download at work. I can view movies at home. I cannot download at home... So I cannot view QT movies ecause the silly people do not allow you to just download the f&*king install and take it home (like you can do with MS's downloadable stuff).
  • As if MS has not done such a thing in the past. MS has a track record for dirty dealing. I can see why people distrust them, and think that there is sabatoge if a third party app that competes with an MS product won't perform well on Win.

    A bad reputation is for ever.
  • Love em or hate em - I need some facts. Apple QT allows interactivity through wired movies - good news QT quality is mostly poor - bad news MPEG quality is superior but does not support movie interactivity - true ? Real uses MPEG - trure Thanks for clarification
  • I've seen a few screen shots of the Media Player 7 beta, and I've seen it running on a few machines (normal users can download a beta of the player itself). I've refused to download it because I know it's beta and probably subject to the problems you mention above. However, you refer to "skin mode;" does that mean that there is a way out of skin mode? Can I use the old interface from Media Player 6?
  • It does do something if you have quicktime pro.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • http://slashdot.org/articles/00 /03/15/0715227.shtml [slashdot.org]

    Real licensed the windows media codecs too, so Microsoft only can blame themselves
  • It'd be great to be able to actually watch high-quality QuickTime clips without either proprietary hardware / software combinations...

    I suppose this is referring to running QuickTime on a Mac, perhaps a bitter statement in regards to the fact that there is not a QuickTime player for Linux. QuickTime 4 does run under Mac OS and Windows. Aside from that, QuickTime is far more open than RealPlayer. I've seen many programs, both on the Mac OS and Windows which utilize the QuickTime libraries - movie players and non-linear video editing applications, mostly. The QuickTime libraries can be called and used from other programs, and not just confined to the QT4 player.

    Because of this, at least on the Mac, there are QuickTime players, using the QT4 libs, but not the QT4 interface, for people who don't like the brushed metal UI/look.

    It is a bummer (for me as well) that there is no QuickTime player/libraries for Linux, but Apple doesn't owe you a thing. Next time, think before you tag something biased and uninformed onto the post.
  • Given that quicktime for BSD based OSX is currently heavily under development, QT for Linux should be a lot more viable.

  • If you've looked at MS's latest beta of WMP, they are trying to adopt a lot of the features that make RealPlayer and QT so cool, plus some like lookup from CDDB for titles if you're playing an audio CD. They *do* intend on competing.

  • Coincidink? (Score:3)

    by jovlinger ( 55075 ) on Monday June 12, 2000 @03:34PM (#1007238) Homepage
    Did anyone notice the name of Real Media's representative?

    Jenny Sorenson
    RealNetworks

    Probably just a coincidence.

    Johan
  • Oh yay!&nbsp We can use RealNetwork's proprietary software to play media streams that are created with Apple's proprietary software.

    Excuse me for not getting the least bit excited about this.

  • Yeah, favors like non-scriptability and shitty codecs. Just ask someone who *develops* for all three which ones they like -- not to mention which ones offer real power -- and you'll understand why WMP has such a low portion of the streaming market.

  • You can.. sort of.

    There is a skin that looks and acts like the version 6, but there is that evil giant button in the bottom right-hand corner.

    It's really stupid like that.

    Rami
    --
  • No, actually, dehydrated mothers in Central Africa with HIV and cholera are the most pathetic people on Earth.Get some perspective, d00d.

    Apple zealots are no more pathetic than Linux zealots or Winbigots.

    My point, and I think it's well understood in this community, was that Windows' underlying structure confounds smooth operation for third-party and Micros~1 stuff alike. What is emerging to my mind is that Linux zealots for all their vaunted technical expertise are as stymied as any other novice when it comes to systems they're not familiar with. A little humility is in order for all of us.
  • >It'd be great to be able to actually watch high-quality QuickTime clips without either proprietary hardware / software combinations

    Don't be ridiculous. If QuickTime was open, M$ and everyone else for that matter would steal it's secrets in a second. There is NOTHING wrong with proprietary hardware or software.

    "Nice, but I wish I could watch/listen without the QT player?"

    Yeah, I wish my Ford Escort drove like a Porsche, but I didn't have to pay $100k. Of *course* you nee the QT player to watch QuickTime? Is it just me or are open source fanatics becomming more and more idiotic?

  • It'd sure help QT get adopted over any competing Microsoft standard, dontcha think?
  • ...as the note says, it would be nice not to have to use quicktime player. Or RealPlayer, for that matter. In my experience, both of them tend to conflict with other applications/snap up the rights to play certain files without consent. Neither program is all that great, as far as I'm concerned.
  • I agree. From my own experience, installnig Office2k makes Netscape unusable until it is re-installed.

  • RealPlayer and Quicktime rank as my #1 and #2 most annoying pieces of software, ever. The thought of them working together makes me cringe.

    They've probably got a team of engineers working on new, unexpected places to put shortcuts, fully integrated networks of "Register Now/ Later" windows, hideously overdone interfaces, and random things to stick in unexpected places in the registry.

    This is the worst news I've had in months.

  • It's not the server, stupid (Score:4)

    by i, Mac ( 1975 ) on Tuesday June 13, 2000 @04:35AM (#1007248) Homepage
    Apple has never intended to make any money on its streaming server software, evidenced by the fact that while MS and Real charge out the nose for theirs, Apple gives away the whole server, with source to boot.

    So for Apple, they get a major boon: RealServer, which is an established media server for many businesses, will now also stream QT files. That means the likelihood of sites offering QT streams will go up, which means more people will use the Quicktime software to view those streams. RealServer gets the ability to cater to millions more people since they can now stream to a client that is included in every copy of Mac OS on every Macintosh sold in the past year or so (and there's quite a few of those, believe me) plus another slew of clients on Windows.

    Frankly, I think Apple is making a good move here. The more people that integrate QT streaming into their apps, the more QT becomes an entrenched standard.

    And for the Qt-on-Linux people: I am almost sure that Apple has looked and continues to look at Quicktime on Linux. It's a shoe-in considering the porting efforts to Darwin.. but consider the effort needed to port QT to Linux. First of all, the video system in Linux needs much work to get it up to the same speed as proprietary systems. Moreover, which windowing system: should they call it kQuicktime or gQuicktime?

    But the most important question: how many of you asking for Quicktime on Linux would be satisfied if that happened? Or would the new Question of the Day on Slashdot be: When is Apple going to Open Source Quicktime for Linux? It's not GPL, so why should I use it? etc...

    If some of us would be thankful for the efforts the proprietary software community HAS made to work with and join the Open Source movement, instead of being so damn jaded and ungrateful, perhaps these companies would be motivated to join the cause wholeheartedly.

    Instead most of us can't accept the fact that companies, like people, change and can mend their ways. Most of us see green and hate it. Most of us can't get beyond our petty prejudices to see the benefits some of these companies bring.

    And until then Linux and the like will continue to be a fringe OS, because we refuse to work with others to improve ourselves.

    Get off your high horse and write a thank you to IBM's Open Source advocate. Or Apple's.. check the Darwin list, there are many of them at Apple.

    Some of you are just so self-righteous it's sickening.
  • If it was open then it would have no secrets for anyone to steal. Using the correct open licence would also ensure that it remained open.

  • How about M$ NetShow (Score:3)

    by LinuxMacWin ( 79859 ) on Monday June 12, 2000 @02:56PM (#1007250)
    The Market Leader in user base joined hands with the market leader in quality. M$ is going to cry hoarse shouting monopoly !!!
  • So for Apple, they get a major boon: RealServer, which is an established media server for many businesses, will now also stream QT files. That means the likelihood of sites offering QT streams will go up, which means more people will use the Quicktime software to view those streams. RealServer gets the ability to cater to millions more people since they can now stream to a client that is included in every copy of Mac OS on every Macintosh sold in the past year or so (and there's quite a few of those, believe me) plus another slew of clients on Windows.

    For the record, RealPlayer ships on all Macs as well. Just thought I'd point that out.
  • Why would Apple liscense their codec to Real, it's their competition... Am I not reading this right? Or are they shooting themselves in the foot.

    I know QT isn't the most popular streaming medai, but what a way to go...


    ...and I'm not sure we should trust this Kyle Sagan either.
  • Um. Sure you can.

    http://asu.info.apple.com/swupdates.nsf/artnum/n 11474

    this page provides a link to a website where you can download the full installer. This is intended for people behind firewalls who have difficulty running the netinstaller, but will work great for your purpose.
  • RealNetworks let Apple have the rights, but at what cost? And what favours will they have to do back?

    This seems like a story where patents really work, but I'm sure RealNetworks isn't just doing this because they're nice guys.

    If I, or any other low-brow programmer wanted to do something related, what would it take to get the rights as well?
  • There is about a 0% chance that Mac OS X makes QT for Linux more viable. Linux doesn't have the graphics architecture (Quartz) that Mac OS X does. Until Quartz is ported to Linux (sometime after Satan skates to work), there ain't no easy port.

    -jon

  • Only if the producer of the clip wants it too.. they can disable it so you can't save it any easy way anyway ;-)
  • This has to be good from the standpoint that it should bring quicktime to Linux. However, I don't think this is assured. I would like to have access to quicktime content. On the other hand this brings more proprietry technology to the Linux platform or at least has the potential to. I guess this is what we have to face as Linux becomes more popular. I don't think any of us can draw conclusions for the entire community so we just have to wait and see what happens and how people react.

  • Has anyone noticed? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Has anyone noticed that there is actually very little discussion going on on Slashdot? Granted, we see a lot of posing and ex-cathedra pontification, but very vew people actually listen to what others are saying. It reminds me of a contest where the highest rated post wins.

  • No doubt. The quicktime player has to be one of the worst pieces of software ever written. If the same guys are working on OS/X, I fear for Apple.

    What genius decided to have the player "silently fail" if you launch a .mov that it doesn't know how to play? (it just brings up a bar -- and waits). But if you do a File->Open, then it will say that it doesn't have the CODEC.

    Probably the same geniuses that have it scream at me to upgrade "now or later" everytime I run it.

    Or possibly the same Einsteins that make wacky controls that are totally different from every other Windows application. Isn't it in the Apple style guide that, above all, everything should work consistently?

    I really like how it dumps garbage in the first frame from whatever was previously in the video buffer. Hmmm; no other application does that, why does Quicktime player?

    Of course, I could also bring up the icons that make absolutely no intuitive sense, but that's common to every Apple application, so that goes without saying.

    Sometimes I really wonder what goes through some engineer's minds.


    --

  • It'd be great to be able to actually watch high-quality QuickTime clips without either proprietary hardware / software combinations or jerky (or space-hogging) downcoversions.

    HUH? I don't get this comment....

    Go here:
    http://publicsource.apple.com/projects/streaming/ [apple.com]

    Darwin Streaming Server 2.0.1 includes minor performance and reliability enhancements. Download compiled binaries below (requires acceptance of the APSL):

    FreeBSD 3.4 (server and proxy)

    Red Hat Linux 6.2 (server and proxy)

    Solaris 7 (server and proxy)

    Windows NT Server/Windows 2000 Server (server)

    This is equivalent to QuickTime Streaming Server 2.0.1 for Mac OS X Server.

    --------------------

    Maybe I'm being dumb here (is the poster just talking about playback?) but you clearly can serve Quicktime content without proprietary hardware and software solutions.

    Sure, you need to be able to encode it first, but the Sorenson codec is a whole other problem. If we had that then these guys:

    Quicktime for Linux [linuxave.net] would be having a much easier time of it!

    What's really needed is a shit hot open source video compression codec. Anyone know of such a beast?

    AndyT


    Lord Pixel - The cat who walks through walls
  • So let me get this straight, instead of using a high-performance open source RTP-RTSP server to serve quicktime (darwin streaming server), you now have the option of paying out the nose for a proprietary one (real)?

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

    And seeing as how Darwin runs on these platforms:

    FreeBSD 3.4 (server and proxy)
    Red Hat Linux 6.2 (server and proxy)
    Solaris 7 (server and proxy)
    Windows NT Server/Windows 2000 Server(server)

    AND real player can play RTP-RTSP streamed media anyway, why on earth would you bother with real's server at all?

    go figure
  • pushing video is just pushing a lot of pixels. you dont *have* to have a PDF based GUI. all you need is X. acceleration and fancy GUI stuff doesnt help with video...and i dont think anyones going to make QT aqua specific.
  • QuickTime 4 plays all of those media types except for Real. You could already be down to 2.
  • "Quicktime for Linux, Quicktime for Linux... give us a free player!" The mantra is getting old.

    The whole argument for Open Source is that "you can do it better, cheaper, and faster." Yet here you are, begging from scraps from the very company that so many of you have such scorn for. If Open Source is that much better at everything, why isn't there an Open Source video compression codec out there that's comparable with QuickTime or AVI?

    I honestly think it's funny. Slashdot readers seem to be oh-so-ready to tear Apple to shreds regarding everything it does, then turn around and beg like cowering dogs at the dinner table for a free QuickTime player.
  • Does it? Is it on the Mac OS 9 CD? hmmm.. just installed Mac OS 9 on that computer over there.. lemme check.

    Well, it's not installed with Mac OS 9, so maybe Apple's been including it with the new machines. I do know that the iMac I bought in 1998 *bondi*... didn't come with it, but I wouldn't be surprised if Apple included it with new machines. After all, the company does like to allow choice: It's the only major operating system that ships with two major graphical browsers. :)

    (And DON'T anyone start going on to me about choice. Some people are so into customizing via text files that they can't use a control panel.)
  • The people who would want to do this are distributed streaming networks like InterVU (part of Akamai now), RBN, and any of the other "deliver to the edge" networks who have already bitten the bullet and paid Real for the licenses, have the hardware and software in place,and can now stream QT as well as Real from the same boxes without additional resources.

    The Darwin server is a fine bit of software, but none of the large distributed streaming networks have it deployed, except for possibly Akamai. Most of the networks have *nix "boxes" (InterVU, for example, has single-board Linux computers in rackmounts at their POPs) deployed for Real delivery, and NT boxes alongside for WMP. They are of the mindset (right or wrong) that these boxes should be single-purpose to keep QOS high and maintenance simple, so they won't want to install another piece of server software on something already dedicated. With this announcement, they can plan to upgrade to Real 8 (which they have already invested in, so it isn't as easy as dumping one for the other -- you can probably imagine the piles of money that get thrown about in the high-end streaming game; it scares me sometimes) and deliver two formats from the same server. It's actually a good deal for Apple's distribution and a nice selling point for Real and its larger customers.

    I've just finished up a couple months' surveying the field of distributed streaming networks for my employer, but since they are only interested in who's deployed RealServer (they flirted with WMP but MS wouldn't come around on the business/marketing side of things), I didn't ask about QT much until the end of discussions, and most of the firms said "Oh yes, we have plans to deploy it in the [near] future."

    Of course, had I asked if they were planning on deploying streaming string cheese to keep the viewers fed, they'd have said yes if they thought that's what I wanted to hear.

    YMMV.

    MSM
  • heck i usually just save the file, launch up a text editor, find the URL, and directly download the video from the URL. works great (usually).
  • To respond to all of Mr. Linus Torvalds's viewpoints would take up too much room and time. I would like to address the most heinous ones, though. But first, let me pose you a question: Is Linus actually concerned about any of us, or does he just want to evoke a misdirected response to genuine unresolved grievances? After reading this letter, you'll unhesitatingly find it's the latter. As we organize our campaigns against the worst kinds of soulless heavy metal fans there are and formulate responses to their rhetoric, it is critical that we search for solutions that are more creative and constructive than the typically petty ones championed by revolting imbeciles.

    Let me carry my thoughts on this subject a bit further. I recently heard him tell a bunch of people that society is supposed to be lenient towards foolish simple-minded-types. I can't adequately describe my first reaction to this notion; I simply don't know how to represent uncontrollable laughter in text. In a matter of days, Linus might be diagnosed with a special type of mental illness that is not yet recognized. But for now, be aware that I cannot compromise with him; he is without principles. I cannot reason with him; he is without reason. But I can warn him, and with a warning he must indeed take to heart: He asserts that his vices are the only true virtues. Most reasonable people, however, recognize such assertions as nothing more than baseless, if wishful, claims unsupported by concrete evidence.

    As stated earlier, by allowing him to push all of us to the brink of insanity, we are allowing him to play puppet master. Imagine getting a dollar every time Linus said he wouldn't squander irreplaceable treasures, but did so anyway. You'd definitely be very, very rich. My goal for this letter was to insist on a policy of zero tolerance toward absenteeism. Know that I have done my best while trying always to turn Mr. Linus Torvalds's crude ghastly tricks to our advantage. Let an honest history judge.
  • You can get rid of this notification, at least on the Macintosh. Change the date on your machine to sometime far in the future and then launch Quicktime player. Then quit the player and change the date back. Voila, no more upgrade notifications.
  • Sure, it's free, but you have to pay for Windows 2000 Advanced Server to get it. It's like, oh, I dunno. ASP. IIS.

    QTSS is free, crossplatform and Open Source.. :)

    But you're right, I was under the impression that the MS streaming software cost money. It doesn't have a direct price tag but it still requires an NT server.

  • The quicktime software is free.
    Who in their good sense of mind would
    pay for the Real software in order to
    stream quicktime content.

  • Re:Destined to be the most annoying thing ever (Score:5)

    by pen ( 7191 ) on Monday June 12, 2000 @04:00PM (#1007272)
    I'm not a VOD programmer (whatever that is), so I can't argue with your statement, but I'll say this. Windows Media Player is probably the best program for playing streaming video I've seen to date. It isn't innovative(tm) or special -- it just doesn't do stuff I didn't ask it to do over and over and over again. And it has a fairly standard interface that doesn't flake.

    Here's the problem. Windows Media, to the best of my knowledge, can only be streamed from boxes running NT. I've yet to hear of a Windows Media streaming server that works on something else.

    Now, the question that has been begging for an answer. What's wrong with MPEG? Why can I not just stream MPEG files? All three of the major players understand it, it is automatically streamable, using any HTTPD, so why the rush to use proprietory software? I can understand most websites going with the "trustable" solution, but I've yet to see a single website use MPEG for streaming. Is there a special problem, and does the MPEG group plan on solving it anytime soon?

    --

  • Uh... No. QuickTime can be seperated from it's "integrated player," as you put it. I've seen it as a part of more elaborate applications on Mac OS and Windows, and know on the Mac OS, there are players which people have written in RealBasic (more or less like Visual Basic), which basically hook into the QT libs, and there you go, a QuickTime player, as good as the "official" QT4 player, but with a standard interface.
  • RealNetworks have proven themselves to be liars, thieves, spammers, and dirtballs. I couldn't care less what they come out with--I won't support them. Not now, not then.

  • Hi friends! This is Steve Jobs.
    (applause)

    We've got some really cool announcements about some great, great new Apple technology today at the Santa Clara Fresh Choice restaurant.

    But first, I want to thank all our great fans who have supported our cool Bondi Dinnerware. Without you, we would have had someone else eating dinner with us tonight.

    Now... I'm going to tell you about Apple's great new product. Our VP of Pasta Technology, Randy Whince-Dockers, will demonstrate some really great Zitti with Onion Powder and Tomato Juice. Thanks to our new electric can opener technology, Randy is preparing this fabulous sauce in much less time than our competitors at Burger World could ever hope to imagine... and they don't... even... OFFER a great pasta meal like the one Randy is preparing here right now.
    (applause)

    Tonight, and tonight only, you can buy this incredible pasta meal RIGHT NOW. Just grab a green tray and slide it down to the pasta counter.

    We're offering this really cool meal only to qualified guests at the show tonight. We will begin selling a public beta of this really cool new pasta meal this summer.

  • Personally I believe this is a good idea...cause right now I have 4 different media players. One for MP3s, one for AVI and MPG, another for QT and another for Real Media.
    Now I know MPlayer2 can play MP3s...so that limits you to 3 media players...this relase will now cut you down to 2.
    What we need now is to get a codec released for mplayer2 so it can play them all.
    Or get some other program in there that will be able to use all the codecs.
    But alas, I doubt Apple will give Microsoft the ability to decode its media files.
  • The MS Player can decode QT3 files
    but QT4 decoding is lacking.
  • One less media player you have to have installed now
  • Ummm.... the point is that it shouldn't have been designed so poorly in the first place. You shouldn't need several workarounds to make a basic piece of software function.

    Also, the icons (especially the volume) don't follow the normal conventions - particularly concerning visual information about whether or not the button is enabled... ah yes - Grey32, that's on, but Grey33 is disabled.......
  • I have also seen the "bar" problem with QT. This is why I don't install it on Windows anymore.

    Yes, there are workarounds for all of these unpleasant things - but the problem is, poor software design. It was designed like crap, and the user has to jump through hoops to get it to work the right way, the way they want it. It's as if Bill Gates' research branch had perfected their mind-control ray and had it trained on the development team in Cupertino.

    If it ain't broke, fix it 'til it is!
  • In my experience, both of them tend to conflict with other applications/snap up the rights to play certain files without consent.

    This is changing, thank heavens. A quote from the article about this on MacCentral [maccentral.com]:

    "Also, Apple and RealNetworks have agreed to support the principles of the "Ask, Tell, Help" initiative. The "Ask, Tell, Help" initiative is designed to promote good "Internet manner" by ensuring that each company's player applications will inform and ask the user before changing the user's default player selection for common media formats."

    -Joe

  • VOD is "video on demand" a.k.a. streaming video. Sorry, I sometimes get caught up in the corporate lingo.

    I agree that the heavy adverstising from RealPlayer and QT are annoying as a user, but you get better video quality in return. Which player offers the best tradeoff of these two is up to you.

    AFAIK, WMP streams only from NT. Real and QT stream from a large number of platforms.

  • Where is here?

    I develop internal content at a large Silicon Valley company. We are stuck using WMP internally, competing for mindshare among project sponsors against vendors who use QT and Real for their demos. Demos that can use SMIL functionality, and are much cleaner looking than anything we can churn out.

  • Yeah but you have to pay for Quicktime 4.0 and just from a person point of view, I think the player sucks. Especially when doing full screen. That interface is just a waste of time and resources.
  • should be "personal point of view".....
  • Hey, THANKS... Appears to work. Must be a new feature...

    Of course, I enlisted "postmaster@apple.com" as my e-mail :-) Spam'em, boyz...
  • The thought of them working together makes me cringe.

    I disagree. Having the option of a single tool to play both RealPlayer and QuickTime streams sounds like a good idea to me. Finally they'll stop fighting over who gets to be my default viewer for everything from MP3 to RLE to DVD!

    Both players have awful user experiences, whether it's Quicktime's violating Apple's UI guidelines and asking you every day if you want to upgrade to Pro, or RealNetworks asking you, just one more time, what your connection speed and email address are, and asking if it's okay to contact you with exciting information.

    All in all though, it's easier to herd one cat than two, and just maybe Quicktime will be better implemented in .+n[ui]x environments than it is now.

    Kevin Fox
  • if you tell the browser to save the file instead of having quicktime open it(save thislink as...) then you have the video on your hd and can watch to your hearts content
  • Why is it that I can never seem to reproduce these problems that supposedly make Quicktime this horrible POS myself? Bust be the kryptonite I keep on my keychain.

    >What genius decided to have the player "silently
    >fail" if you launch a .mov that it doesn't know
    >how to play? (it just brings up a bar -- and
    >waits). But if you do a File->Open, then it will
    >say that it doesn't have the CODEC.

    Dunno what you're smokin. I've NEVER had this happen. When I try to launch a movie for which QT doesn't have the CODEC, it just tells me. No "bar" ever appears.

    >Probably the same geniuses that have it scream at
    >me to upgrade "now or later" everytime I run it.

    1) Open your "Date & Time" control panel.
    2) Set the date ahead a few years.
    3) Close control panel
    4) Launch Quicktime Movie Player
    5) Click on "Register Later"
    6) Go back to "Date & Time" and reset the year.
    7) Now you won't see the banner for a few years at least.

    >Or possibly the same Einsteins that make wacky
    >controls that are totally different from every
    >other Windows application. Isn't it in the Apple
    >style guide that, above all, everything should
    >work consistently?

    1) Go to Raul's GUI goodies @:
    http://www.teamdraw.com/raul/stuff/stuff.html
    2) Download and install the fix
    3) do the same for Sherlock II as well, if you don't like the new look.

    OR

    1) Grab a copy of the Quicktime Movie Player ver. 3
    2) Replace Movie Player ver. 4, with ver. 3
    3) The Movieplayer 3 has access to all of Quicktime 4's APIs and CODECs, but has the look and feel of the original.

    For crying out loud! These have been common knowledge forever!!! I think it took all of a week of outrage over the new look (admittedly bad) before people started figuring out the first workarounds.

    >I really like how it dumps garbage in the first
    >frame from whatever was previously in the video
    >buffer. Hmmm; no other application does that, why
    >does Quicktime player?

    Once again, never had that happen to me.

    >the icons that make absolutely no
    >intuitive sense,

    Hm... considering that the "Play" button on Movieplayer looks just like the "Play" button on my VCR.....

    john
  • yeah I know
    But when was the last time you ran into a Quicktime 3 file? These days it is pretty rare...unless you have it backed up somewhere
  • they released the quicktime streaming server under the apple open source license
  • I said Quartz, not Aqua. Apple almost certainly wrote QuickTime for Mac OS X to the Quartz API, just as they wrote QuickTime for Classic Mac OS to the QuickDraw API.

    When QuickTime was ported to Windows, a large chunk of the QuickDraw API followed. People even used it as a limited porting layer.

    The QuickTime movie image is being drawn on-screen via an API. Whether or not it's just "pushing pixels" is irrelevant. Starcraft is just pushing pixels, too. Why isn't it ported to Linux yet?

    If you think that it's trivial to port the Quartz API from Mac OS X to Linux, go do so. The entire API is available on Apple's site. I'll bet large sums of money that you can't do it.

    -jon

  • Agreed.. how will using RealServer make it possible for me to view this stuff [adcritic.com]? Especially with that nice little pop-up window telling me I can't view it [adcritic.com]?

    It's the codec, silly.. not the transport.

    .. and how is fate destined I would post a story about said site above (which of course was rejected because I suq) but another Apple/QuickTime story still makes me able to prove my point? More karma involved than simply /.'s... :)

    (and an OBSlashRant: why the fsck does ExTrans display eat me as &ltb&gteat me&lt/b&gt? Is ExTrans fscked?)

  • That's what they already do. Try talking absolutely literally and you'll be reduced to silence.

    It's only over a second, unconscious and subverbal layer or channel of telepathy that anybody is able to convey any factual content at all. This is why the best of higher education is always achieved by lectures, why the college lecture by the noted scientist or the poet himself teaches so much better than the very same words recited off a script by his TA. It's also possible to pound these thoughts by main force into bound paper. However, obviously telepathy can't possibly propagate over long distances to vast crowds - think about it, if it could, then one lone man's inner thoughts could shake the cosmos - so as a result communication across the internet inevitably suffers, at least when it tries to convey notions more specific than emotions.

    Sincerely WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net

  • Its a streaming file like the realaudio pnm:// protocol. The quicktime transport is documented, theres an RFC for it, but no one has written a program to save streaming quicktime. X-fileget for windows can save realaudio streams.
  • The date and time trick takes less than a minute, and the interface patches are not in any necessary for FUNCTION, only if the GUI doesn't weet your PREFERENCE would you want to bother with them.

    As for the bugs you claim to have found... once again, unduplicatible outside of your little Mac-bashing microview...

    Just for kicks, I've downloaded a M$ mediaplayer file, and dragged it to my Quicktime Movieplayer icon... Popup dialog box saying that the CODEC is unavailabile. No "mystery bar" seen.

    Now... playing a Quicktime movie, stop playback, drag a new Quicktime file onto the icon... Nope... no "garbage in the first frame from whatever was previously in the video buffer" visible here.

    Keep slingin the FUD, microdrone.

    john
  • The quicktime player is a simple (800k) application which makes calls to Quicktime. All of the important code is in Quicktime, which is implemented on the system level. Several hundred applications support Quicktime; it's a very simple way to add powerful video/sound/graphics support to an app. It's an API.

    It really is not comparable to RealPlayer, which is a standalone media player.

  • RealServer does no encoding, so it won't help the cause of getting Sorenson on Linux.

    I doubt that more people will be buying RealServer. Consider that RealServer costs you per stream, but the NetShow and QuickTime servers are free.
  • I believe the original comment were ment about the windows version...

    "... That probably would have sounded more commanding if I wasn't wearing my yummy sushi pajamas..."
    -Buffy Summers
    Goodbye Iowa
  • QT for osX does NOT use quartz, as illustrated on this page [apple.com] , as all the graphics layers (quicktime / opengl / quartz ) are essentially 'plugins' to the whole graphics layer. Aqua, the interface, sits at the topmost level, abtracted from the core graphics technology. This architecture lends itself to having other imaging tech ported to it, like, say, directX =) for more info, try here. [apple.com]

    What does that all mean? It means QT on linux almost guarenteed (why wouldnt apple want that market?)

    Also, i remember reading a few years back that Quicktime for windows is an almost complete port of the mac os. I do not recall to what extent it was, or the validity of my memory, but its food for thought...certainly would be a huge engeneering effort(as i recall, QT uses allmost all macOS toolbox api's)

    I dont know if anyone reading this has seen it, but the new UI for quicktime on osX is way better then its current incarnation. You can see it here [apple.com]

    As far as Apple liscensing[sp] QT pieces, its a win win i think. If MS really just got windows media player support, then it seems like the right thing to do to be in that camp as well.

  • I agree with most of what you said, except this:

    1) Open your "Date & Time" control panel. 2) Set the date ahead a few years. 3) Close control panel 4) Launch Quicktime Movie Player 5) Click on "Register Later" 6) Go back to "Date & Time" and reset the year. 7) Now you won't see the banner for a few years at least.

    Are you serious? You think users should have to be clever enough to do this? Do you think they should have to change their entire system's clock just to keep one application from doing something annoying?

  • The CDDB linkage always makes me nervous. I've been recording a LOT of my vinyl collection to WAV and burning CD Audio disks. Every time I bring up the CD Player in W2K it asks (or it used to ask, before I went in and disabled it from doing so) if I wanted to look up the CD title. Obviously letting it do that would either:

    1. Come up not knowing what CD I am playing

    or

    2. Summon down the enforcers on my townhouse. They'd discover I've dared lace together a network of boxes including the dastardly Linux and NetBSD, and they'd *sob* take away my Microsoft Preferred Customer status. They might even tell Apple one of their poor little SE/30's was being held hostage by NetBSD-68K.

    Since I'm doing an analog-to-digital conversion, what I am doing is perfectly legal even if CD Ripping is found illegal at some point. But it still makes me nervous, and wondering if my identity would go on a list for further action.
  • Clean yes, but is it released under GPL?

  • With M$ pouring in BIG BUCKS into its own, even more proprietary, whinedoze only software, they are probably rather concerned.

    Lets face it, it wouldn't be a big deal for M$ to engulf them. They simply make their software free (done already), spend millions on it, and try to make it attractive to content providers.

    You'd think M$ would be on their best behavour these days..

    Anyway, what this does is give real player larger market share, and the ability to compete with M$, who seem to be developing quickly, in an effort to take over. This is a smart move on real's part - M$ seems to have been catching up.

    Think of the evilness of the M$ plan - the only way to access media is through whinedoze... another good reason to split them up (although I still think it should have a seperate internet section).

  • I realise this may seem like a lot of work, but it will allow you to save streaming videos. The files that you click on to start the stream are links to the actual quicktime movie on the net. Follow these steps and you'll be able to get the movie :

    1. launch a program that allows you to monitor your streams. On the Mac you can use OTSessionWatcher [stairways.com].

    2. click on the link, then it will launch the quicktime player.. you can stop before the streaming is done if you want..

    3. Go back in OTSessionWatcher and search for ".mov".. it'll find the location of the actual file for you.. sometimes if it uses Akamai the URLs are multiple lines long so you have to clean them up a bit. copy the URL

    4. Launch Anarchie or any other good FTP program, do an HTTP GET on the URL you just copied, and that's it.. it should start downloading.

    hope this helps
    Sternn

    I am Dyslexic of Borg
    Resemblance is fertile
    Your ass will be laminated

  • Jeez, haven't you ever even once used mc on a color VGA system?

    mc is the coolest thing. Many a mile to Linux, let mc be your bicycle. It even has a text editor built-in for which to use it you don't first have to earn a bachelor's degree in CS. mc by default shows a real eye-pleasing blue color scheme. Surely that's the referent.

    I'm afraid it must be admitted, however, that they stole, umm, copied that look-n-feel from one of the excellent Mr. Norton's proprietary programs.

    Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net

  • Nothing surprising really.. (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward

    RealPlayer has been known for several things, like having the #1 hardest to download free software on the net [sheepdot.org]. This will just add to something that will put them in the #1 spot for serving streaming applications. Apple probably got a great deal of money for this, and RealPlayer ended up getting a great deal, the support is pretty much free for them as far as client-side goes. For the server-side support, they'll probably just have to deal with people in a similar manner they do with other types of streaming media.

    All in all, I think Apple is relying on OS X server to offer the better support in the long run over RealPlayer, and they know that Real will focus on the PC market, something Apple probably doesn't want to mess with as far as server-side programming goes.

    The result? Quicktime format will be more widespread giving Apple a better position for their free client software, and ensuring that there will always be people buying Quicktime Pro to make movies..

    www.sheepdot.org [www.sheepd...argetblank]

    News for Sheep, Stuff that really doesn't matter..

  • Cringe me makes together working them of thought the.

    DVD to RLE to MP3 from everything for veiwer default my be to gets who over fighting stop they'll finally. Me to idea good a like sounds streams Quicktime and Real Player both play to tool single a of option the having. disagree I.

    Information exciting with you contact to okay it's if asking and, are address email and speed connection your what, time more one just, you asking RealNetworks or, Pro to upgrade to want you if day every you asking and guidelines UI Apple's violating Quicktime's it's whether, experiences user awful have players both.

    Mow is it than environments x[ui]n+. in implemented better be will Quicktime maybe just and, two than cat one herd to easier it's, though all in all.

  • Okay, but I resent being force-fed with Quicktime files, especially when coming from a Linux/Unix server using the `open source' serving software.. Apple has played a certain amount of lip service to the open source/Free software movement, but largely with technologies that are probably more beneficial for Apple to have as open source, rather than being beneficial to the end users. (that's all IMHO, though)

    I should also point out that it is especially important when media files to make sure that they can be read by as many people as possible. Not only do you reach a larger audience now, but you reach a larger audience 10, 100, or 1000 years from now when historians try to read these files again.
    --
    Ski-U-Mah!
    Stop the MPAA [opendvd.org]
  • Maybe I'm being dumb here (is the poster just talking about playback?) but you clearly can serve Quicktime content without proprietary hardware and software solutions.

    Yes, he's talking about playing back the video. Contrary to popular belief (at least in the media and in Public Relations departments), Linux is quite popular with tech-heads for a desktop operating system. This includes the fans of scifi-fantasy movies such as Star Wars, Titan A.E., The X-Men, and many others.
    --
    Ski-U-Mah!
    Stop the MPAA [opendvd.org]
  • You know, every time I end up with an unplayable quicktime movie, I let loose my dismayed cry: "Sorenson!"

    Why, it's becoming almost as recognizable as Seinfeld's "Newman!"
  • > What does that all mean? It means QT on linux almost guarenteed

    LOL

    > (why wouldnt apple want that market?)

    I wish I knew, but all indications thus far seem to show that they are working to distance themselves from Linux...
    --
    Ski-U-Mah!
    Stop the MPAA [opendvd.org]
  • This may be a little off topic but I need to get it off my chest. The internet was started so that computers running a variety of operating systems on a variety of hardware could all communicate with some standard languages. The idea of being able to sit down at any machine and perform work on a remote computer regardless of the computer make and model was ingenious. As long as a computer could talk acording to an open standard language then it could be included on the network.

    Now it appears as thought companies don't really care about the long-term goals (which really are not just fantasies, we've already have all the basic technology for an open network system) of the internet. They just don't know how to make money releasing open specifications of their protocols and formats. On the internet any information which is available should not be in a format which can only be read on systems which have been deemed profitable enough to warrant development.

    I believe if you want to make a new format for distribution on the internet you should be forced to open the specs up. This is what the internet was based on, this is why it caught on, this is what will continue to help it grow.

    I saw a quote a few days ago, I don't remember where or who, that got across the idea that if something on the internet appears differently in Internet Explorer than it does in Navigator (or is not availiable on a certain platform) then we have taken a step backwards.

    I guess I'm just annoyed that I don't have a good Quicktime viewer for Linux, or that I sometime see sites which say I need to install shockwave to view them. In the long run I think technologies such as XML, CSS (and XSL), javascript (EA???..insert Standard name for javascript here, or something like it ) and other open standard protocols and formats are what will expand the internet to the point where it fulfills the vision people have for it.

  • Realserver or player? (Score:5)

    by GrenDel Fuego ( 2558 ) on Monday June 12, 2000 @03:06PM (#1007335)
    From the looks of this, realSERVER 8.0 will allow the SERVING of quicktime files. It dosen't mention anything (at least not specifcally) about realplayer being able to play quicktime movies. This means we still will not be able to view quicktime 4 movies under linux.

    As for quicktime serving, The quicktime server software is already available for free for linux, and from what I've heard from people who've run real server, real server itself is a pain in the ass.

    This however does not mean that you can encode from within linux. The encoding itself must be done on a macintosh (or possible windows, i'm not sure), due to the unavailability of the codecs for linux. I'm not sure how realserver handles the encoding, but this could bring qt encoding to other platforms.

    Didn't I read a few months ago that Real also licensed Windows Media for their servers as well? I suppose more companies will be buying real server.

    I suppose we'll have to see how this turns out, but I think it's basically going to expand an already too big streaming company.

  • It'd be great to be able to actually watch high-quality QuickTime clips without either proprietary hardware / software combinations or jerky (or space-hogging) downcoversions.

    Since when was Real non-proprietary? You can't get Real's codec without their "integrated player." QuickTime is the same way.

    So now instead of just one source for a single-purpose, doesn't-fit-in-with-the-rest-of-the-system media player, you now have two. I suppose this is an improvement, but it's slight at best.

    Schwab

  • More news on MacSlash (Score:3)

    by MacSlash ( 200029 ) on Monday June 12, 2000 @09:33PM (#1007347) Homepage

    I just wanted to let everyone know that we're carrying the story on MacSlash [macslash.com]. Stop on by, and while you're there, check out the rest of the site that's your daily dose of Mac News and Discussion.

    --
    MacSlash [macslash.com]
    e-mail: ben@macslash.com [mailto]

    --

  • Obviously you are not a Beta tester for Windows Millennium (the next 9x derivative). One of the absolute worst 'enhancements' that this bane of software has brought to our doorstep is the new version of the Windows Media Player.

    Things that I HATE about it:

    • It's a full screen application by default. If I don't want this (and I don't) I can choose to use one of the many (terrible) cludgy skins that come with the app. While I am in skin mode, there is a giant freaking button (about 100*100px)right above the system tray. WTF??
    • It replaces the CD player. I repeat: THERE IS NO CD PLAYER. I have to load this stupid program if I want to play a CD. Again: WTF??
    • IT CRASHES UNDER SYSTEM LOAD. Again and Again.
    • UGLY. Did I mention that the thing is ugly? I mean fugly-ugly. Whomever designed this thing should be shot in the head. Twice.


    • And many, many more complaints. Just thinking about it irritates me.

      Rami
      --
  • All three of the major players understand it, it is automatically streamable, using any HTTPD, so why the rush to use proprietory software?

    HTTPD is *BAD* for streaming video, since it guarantees delivery. Although this sounds like a drawback rather than an advantage, it is a characteristic particularly suited for streaming media. Unlike data such as files or emails, which must be delivered in their entirety no matter how long transmission time, the value of streaming media date is constrained by time. If a frame of video is lost then it is worthless because it won't arrive within the correct time frame. Transmitting it again is a waste of bandwidth.

    As you can see, HTTP would be an awful streaming media protocol.

    -
    Ekapshi

Slashdot Top Deals

Truly simple systems... require infinite testing. -- Norman Augustine

Close