Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Apple Businesses

10th Anniversary of Quicktime 412

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the something-to-think-about dept.
An anonymous reader submitted a story about the 10th anniversary of QuickTime which might not seem like such a big deal unless you set your mental wayback machine to 1991 and remember what we didn't have back then. Bits from Brian Eno and others. Worth reading.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

10th Anniversary of Quicktime

Comments Filter:
  • by tswinzig (210999) on Monday December 03, 2001 @02:30PM (#2649012) Journal
    ...there won't be a gleeful response from the Linux crowd here?
  • History (Score:5, Informative)

    by jeriqo (530691) <jeriqo@[ ]sson.org ['uni' in gap]> on Monday December 03, 2001 @02:34PM (#2649049)
    Here is an history of QuickTime by a group of QuickTime developers, "Friends of Time" :

    http://www.friendsoftime.org/ [friendsoftime.org]

    -J
  • I remember when people were talking about which was better quicktime or microsoft avi. One of them made files smaller by decreasing resolution of movies, but keeping the same on-screen size. The other decreased framerate. I just remember reading this in a really really old magazine. I still have quick time 2 somewhere. Ah DOS.
  • The Internet (Score:3, Offtopic)

    by eclip5e (19238) on Monday December 03, 2001 @02:37PM (#2649068) Homepage
    I remember back in 1991 when I didn't play "computer games". I played "Video games". I also didn't "Surf the web". I "bbsed". Back then things were more simple. ASCII art, a time when Microsoft wasn't evil, no obscure linux-related jokes, hell, no linux. That was when i played outside too, climbed trees, and didn't have a job (because i was 11).

    Now look at us. I'm sitting here, reading news on a website named after some punctuation, and worrying about if i can talk about the newest Microsoft internet explorer to my boss, or risk being fired, and turned to the police because i know too much.
  • by darkPHi3er (215047) on Monday December 03, 2001 @02:43PM (#2649134) Homepage
    QuickTime is a PERFECT example of something Apple got ***WAY RIGHT***

    they treated it as multiplatform product, ignrored what the competition was doing, updated it frequently to accomodate new technology and changing hardware/software bases, didn't try to make a fortune off of it, and worked with their user/developer base to make sure they got what they needed to deploy it, and treated it as an "open standard" to a large degree

    QT has the most stable and best rendering collection of COCDEC's of any of the video players, and for quality of presentation, QT 3D is still way ahead of the competition...

    the number and variety of the CODEC's available for QT show a mature platform that can do just about anything possible with the hardware available

    i'm associated with a web design company that has done over 200 commercial web sites, including record artists and film sites....

    and 3 years ago everyone of the media companies we did business with always wanted QT, NOW, when we get new "Developer Guidelines", they almost always ask for Real or WindowsMedia...

    we've continued to push QT, but just finished a film site that we were ordered to use WindowsMedia "or else"

    at this rate, WindowsMedia and REAL will not be leaving much room for a competitive product in the next 18-36 months

    Hey Apple, how about QT for LINUX???? can it save the day????

    or is QT going to be another "stranded" product???
    • by BWJones (18351) on Monday December 03, 2001 @03:05PM (#2649325) Homepage Journal
      It is always difficult to be the first and often others capitalize on your success while you are relegated as an also-ran (like so many times with M$ and Apple).

      However, that said, QT is a superior product in many ways and it has every possibility of becoming a media platform if of itself. M$ knows this and it scares the hell out of them. This is why they are trying so hard to defeat QT and even tried to kill it a couple of years ago by leveraging Office for Macintosh against Apple.

      Don't be suprised to see QT media devices being produced in the next couple of years. All tying into the "Digital Hub" concept.
      • There are plenty of digital cameras that have QuickTime inside, so the QT media devices are already here. QuickTime is alive and well with media developers. The MPEG-4 file format is QuickTime's file format. If the client that the end user uses is going to be Windows Media because that's what's been included with Windows, well, so what? Microsoft wants to build a rip-off client so they can embrace and extend. So what? Doesn't change the fact that if you are editing or working with rich media, QuickTime will save you time and money and increase the quality of your work. If you are viewing rich media on your computer, you owe a debt of thanks to QuickTime just like text editing owes ASCII.

        And the Amiga guys ... PLEASE! The Amiga was amazing in its day, but it was an analog (TV) thing, not a digital video or multimedia thing. There was no interactivity in the client. Chroma key effects are not what we're talking about here.
      • QT is a superior product in many ways and it has every possibility of becoming a media platform if of itself. M$ knows this and it scares the hell out of them.
        Microsoft knows it has the possibility of becoming a media platform. It doesn't really scare them at all. They're good baby knifers.
    • QT may be great, but reality is that it is not as simple for a Windows user to use as WindowsMedia. We know why:

      1. WindowsMedia player is part of Windows
      2. QT requires a download. Not everyone has broadband. Not everyone is smart enough to install it. (Yes, just double click and reboot. Some moms cannot do this however.)
      3. The GUI is cool but strange.

      What can Apple do about this? I don't know. At this point it may be a battle lost.
      • Actually, QuickTime is part of the MacOS, just as Windows Media is part of Windows. Of course, there are far fewer Macs, but that's besides the point...

        Also, QuickTime doesn't require a reboot nowadays, at least not on Win2K or XP. It is also included on a the CD with a lot of cameras and scanners, which helps, too.

        The UI has issues (it deviates too much from Apple's UI guidelines), but is generally cleaner and easier to navigate than either Real or Windows Media Player, IMHO.

        What Apple does with QT marketing that's really annoying is the relentless shilling for QT Pro that pops up darn near every time you open a document (I won't get started about how they stiffed those of us who'd bought the Pro version with QT3 and then were stuck with QT5 and the OS X upgrade).
        • (I won't get started about how they stiffed those of us who'd bought the Pro version with QT3 and then were stuck with QT5 and the OS X upgrade)

          Hey, your pro license worked for QT3 AND QT4. What are you bitching about? Who else would have let you purchase a license for one product, AND then let you use that license for a completely new version with a ton of new features? I thought it was kinda cool that my pro license worked for QT4 without having to pay more. Also, if you bought QT4Pro, you could use that QT4Pro license for QT5 for no upgrade $$'s

          Jeez, give some people free software and all they want is MORE and MORE. That said, I will agree that it would be nice if Apple would simply allow you to use QT as a player with an option of turning off the advertisement with the understanding that you do not want the Pro features.
          • I bitch about it because virtually all software short of the OS itself is usually a free upgrade. Windows users can upgrade to the latest Windows Media without buying extra software - they don't even have to buy a new copy of Windows to do it. Apple has a tradition of being generous with their software updates, with minor versions usually being free and all the updates that go with it.

            The other thing is that I was a normal MacOS 8.x user. And I paid for QT Pro. When I bought an upgrade to MacOS 9, my QT Pro continued to work. Then I shelled out $120 for MacOS X - now if I want to keep QT Pro, I have to fork out another $30 on top of that.

            I have no objection to paying for the Pro edition - but if each OS/QT upgrade is going to kill my Pro features then I don't expect to pay $30 for the Pro upgrade. Either bundle it (after all, I paid $120 at retail for it) with retail copies of the Mac OS, or charge a hell of a lot less (like maybe $10) for the Pro version.
      • What can Apple do about this?

        Go after the content creation market, which they own. It is definitely an uphill battle, but the fact that Apple drives the creative market has often allowed them to force the market to use a cross platform solution; if graphic design was done on Windows, we might all be using a web page format that you can only use in IE.

      • 1. WindowsMedia player is part of Windows
        ...
        What can Apple do about this?
        A DLL.
    • QuickTime is a PERFECT example of something Apple got ***WAY RIGHT***

      they treated it as multiplatform product, ignrored what the competition was doing, updated it frequently to accomodate new technology and changing hardware/software bases, didn't try to make a fortune off of it, and worked with their user/developer base to make sure they got what they needed to deploy it, and treated it as an "open standard" to a large degree...

      And yet, in the end, Microsoft's inferior technology will again win. Look at the marketshare figures for WinMP vs. Quicktime. More importantly, look at how any large organizations are deploying WinMP streams vs. Quicktime. It's only a matter of time before the non-Microsoft web (including QT-based sites) goes dark.

      Yes, it sucks. But geeks gotta learn that good technology doesn't always win. In fact, in my cynical old age I'd tend to say that the probability of commercial success is inversely proportional to technological quality. But, still, I will continue to fight the battle, even though it seems hopeless, because, in the end, I still have to live with my choices. But it still sucks...

      • Confucious says ... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by kimihia (84738)

        I found this great quote two days ago (thank you fortune()!).

        The superior man understands what is right; the inferior man understands what will sell.

        -- Confucius

        Guess "Windows Media" sells ...

        It's sad, I can play Real and Windows Media under Linux, but can't get Quicktime 5 trailers to work. (Note the '5' - they changed the codec.)

    • Hey, I'm a big Apple fan and all, but even I wouldn't suggest that they did this in APL. C'mon!
    • and 3 years ago everyone of the media companies we did business with always wanted QT, NOW, when we get new "Developer Guidelines", they almost always ask for Real or WindowsMedia...

      we've continued to push QT, but just finished a film site that we were ordered to use WindowsMedia "or else"

      at this rate, WindowsMedia and REAL will not be leaving much room for a competitive product in the next 18-36 months


      And when that happens, I will be a happy man. Windows media is a better product, the compression in aif files is so much nicer than .mov (I know it's a wrapper but most .movs are in the same codec which sucks), and frankly, the only company more evil than Microsoft is Apple. WHY SHOULD I PAY AU$120 TO SEE A HIGH-RES STARWARS TRAILER I CAN'T EVEN SAVE TO MY DRIVE!?!?!?
      • WHY SHOULD I PAY AU$120 TO SEE A HIGH-RES STARWARS TRAILER I CAN'T EVEN SAVE TO MY DRIVE!?!?!?

        You shouldn't, nor do you have to. The shareware version of Quicktime plays the star wars trailers fine. Perhaps you should get a clue, then get Quicktime, then actually try it.

        --Dan
  • Birth of Multimedia (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Alien54 (180860) on Monday December 03, 2001 @02:43PM (#2649136) Journal
    The only thing missing was the duct tape.

    Basically, quicktime allowed the birth of multimedia. The attitudes from the first posters were along the line of "say thank you, and don't forget to kick it as you walk on by"

    Of course, if you really like MS Brand Duct Tape, then keep on kicking.

    It is sort of like bitching at your grandfather:"I wish you were never born". Which is not exactly bright, on several levels.

    • Basically, quicktime allowed the birth of multimedia.

      Lest the Microsoft-loathing zealots of Slashdot forget, the initial release of Windows Media Player [microsoft.com] also took place 10 years ago.
      • Yes, but CD and audio players were not revolutionary back then. Digital video was.

        Media player back then was not multimedia, it was media. It played audio. It played CDs, WAV files, and probably MIDI files (win3.1's version did for sure), but that is not multimedia any more than plain text is.

        --Dan
    • And the Amiga's ANIM and other animated IFF formats that preceeded this by at least two-three years were the birth of what...? QT is undoubtedly a smart system, but it wasn't the first.
  • by SirSlud (67381) on Monday December 03, 2001 @02:44PM (#2649142) Homepage
    .. but criticising QuickTime is like dissing Christopher Columbus. Sure, he may have called everyone 'indians', and been a complete asshole, but we wouldn't be where we are today without him.

    Same goes for QuickTime. Whine all you like about it not being on Unix, but that doesn't take away from the fact that it was the embassador of streaming video for the internet. To this day, without going into the nitty gritty and platform issues, I still prefer the quality of QuickTime over any other format, and will select a QuickTime stream given a choice from any other number of alternatives.
  • by Bollie (152363) <`moc.rettugnaj' `ta' `todhsals'> on Monday December 03, 2001 @02:44PM (#2649146) Homepage
    For those of you who know the difference between QT and Quicktime, take heed! There is hope! I've successfully played some Quicktime movies using WINE. Everybody knows the Crossover plugin [codeweavers.com] from CodeWeavers. I've also had some very good results with the CodeWeavers version of Wine [codeweavers.com].

    Unfortunately some aspects of the UI don't work but the movies play nicely. I can't wait until TransGaming's WineX [transgaming.com] or stock Wine [winehq.com] runs Quicktime movies as good as mplayer [mplayerhq.hu] plays .avi files under my favourite OS!

    Does anyone know exactly how crosspollination between these projects work? I would say that besides GNU and Linux, Wine has the potential to be the most useful piece of code ever created.

  • by Stavr0 (35032) on Monday December 03, 2001 @02:53PM (#2649225) Homepage Journal
    ... and for that, I am thankful. It was quite a feat,back then, to show rendered 3D animation (even if it was postage stamp-sized) with a 33mHz computer and a single speed CDROM.
  • ``The amazing thing about Quicktime is that there was nothing like it before, and everything has been like it since,'' notes PBS commentator Robert X. Cringley. ``Look at the guts of Real Player or Windows Media Player, and you'll see structural copies of QuickTime.''

    Aside from the overblown technological utopianism in this article that would make Theodore Roszak (The Cult of Information) physically ill, we have this man's opinion. Robert X. Cringley, self declared cyber evangelist telling us that QuickTime is the end-all, be-all of ALL multimedia formats. Aside from the fact that he's always prone to blow things out of proportion, Cringley has very little technical knowledge, let alone an understanding of software strucutre (or "guts" as he puts it). (Note he completely ignores that most features found in QuickTime today such as streaming capability and portal functionality were derived from RealMedia's software.) Oh yes, QuickTime has brought about a revolution in digital media! It brought democracy to the web! And nobody has ever duplicated it or surpassed it since! Nonsense.

    This is all just foolishness and people need to calm down. It's a media format wrapper (not a codec like MPEG as most of these Slashfools are contending). That's all. QuickTime didn't start a revolution. It didn't change the world. And it certainly isn't the greatest thing in multimedia today. Similar technologies were being developed by a number of groups at the same time and we have equivalent if not better tools for producing and converging digital media today.
    • by jamie (78724) <jamie@slashdot.org> on Monday December 03, 2001 @03:22PM (#2649454) Journal
      "most features found in QuickTime today such as streaming capability and portal functionality were derived from RealMedia's software"

      I had a QuickTime movie of my rabbits, on my personal homepage in 1995 which, if you had the QT plugin installed, would start playing as soon as it calculated it could reliably play the whole movie without having to pause. The little control bar filled up with gray and then it started playing automatically... very cool.

      Considering that the prototype of pro-quality streaming was QuickTime Conferencing [friendsoftime.org] in 1994, allowing n people each to stream video to n-1 friends, I think you've got your chronology turned around a bit.

      And I don't know what you mean by "portal functionality" but if you mean what I think, that's pretty trivial :)

      "It's a media format wrapper (not a codec like MPEG as most of these Slashfools are contending). That's all."

      Well, that's kind of the point; it wasn't just a codec. At a time when everyone else was doing FLC animation (shudder) or straight-shot MPEGs, Apple envisioned a media format which was extensible and flexible. Its design played well with time. Basically the multimedia revolution has been another case of Apple being the skunkworks R&D department for the entire industry.

      • Apple envisioned a media format which was extensible and flexible.

        Apple envisioned a media format which was maximally under their control, and at that they have succeeded. Quicktime's plug-in architecture was a further attempt by Apple to tie users to its software. Quicktime is a marketing and business construct, not a technical one.

        Technically, there is little reason to put animation, MPEG video, audio, and other features all into the same viewer: the amount of content that usefully mixes multiple formats is negligible. And technically, there is every reason not to have "plug-ins": you want well-defined, standardized codecs, not a profusion of proprietary codecs.

        I'm kind of glad to see Quicktime losing market share to alternatives. While the alternative are just as proprietary, they may show that Apple's gamble is not working in the long term. Maybe if Apple sees itself excluded from its own home turf by Microsoft, Apple will adopt open standards next time around.

        • I think that you're really wrong about this. First of all, you seem to be under the impression that Quicktime is a viewer. This is wrong. Quicktime really isn't analagous to Realvideo or WMP. Quicktime is an architecture for dealing with any kind of media that changes over time, whether it be animation, video, audio, etc. There happens to be a player that ships with Quicktime that may leave a lot to be desired, but the application itself isn't quicktime, merely an application that uses Quicktime.

          To me, it makes a lot of sense to have a plugin architecture for video. I am a professional in the film industry and do a fair amount of editing using Final Cut Pro. In the past I used to use an Avid. I really really like that FCP is based on Quicktime (Avid isn't). With Final Cut, I can edit anything as long as it's quicktime. That means out of the box I can use a little DV camera and edit everything at 29.97fps using the DV codec. If I want to add a professional video board like a Targa card or something, I can, and because the codec for the Targa card is just a quicktime plugin, I can use it in any program that uses quicktime, including FCP. If I want I can add a board that does uncompressed High Definition Video, and as long as my RAID array has high enough bandwidth I can edit that format. If I want to edit something for the web at 15fps and half-resolution, I can do that too because I have codecs that can handle that.

          If we were to do things the way you propose, we'd be stuck using either a few standardized but completely outdated codecs for everything (for distribution), or a seperate editing application for every format and/or vendor (for production -- this is the way it used to be).

          And Quicktime works perfectly fine with industry standard codecs (unlike RealPlayer), so I really don't know what you're talking about.
          • To me, it makes a lot of sense to have a plugin architecture for video.

            Yes, it makes a lot of sense to have a plug-in architecture at the level of your libraries so that application writers don't have to worry about handling different formats.

            But Quicktime goes further: it makes it appear as if files encoded with different CODECs are all the same type and just magically work. Furthermore, Quicktime is commonly used with proprietary CODECs, whether or not that is theoretically necessary. The generality of Quicktime that you correctly point out causes additional problems.

            The net effect is that almost all Quicktime is not archival and cannot (easily) be viewed on anything other than Macintosh or Windows machines. People like you who create the content often don't even think anything is wrong (until 10 years from now, you try to get at your old video files and can't). And people like me who write software for processing video end up with lots of headaches because what works fine on your desktop is a big pain trying to get to work on a server, if one can get it to work at all.

            So, my point is still: Quicktime is a business strategy for Apple, and it's a good one. I don't expect it to go away, but I hope people like you will think more about archival issues and accessibility of their content.

        • I don't think you know what you're talking about. QuickTime runs on a variety of platforms. People think that because the (popular, closed-source) "Sorenson" is proprietary that the whole system is. It's not. Go download [apple.com] all the tech specs, including file format and APIs and such. "Well-defined" and "standard" are two words that definitely apply to QuickTime and its codec platform.
          "Technically, there is little reason to put animation, MPEG video, audio, and other features all into the same viewer: the amount of content that usefully mixes multiple formats is negligible."

          Yeah, who would want to have, like, audio and video play at the same time. Whatever...

          • You're on the right track. Yes, indeed, Quicktime allows many CODECs to be used. In particular, it allows proprietary, undocumented CODECs to be used. And that is why Quicktime content often ends up in proprietary, undocumented formats. By supplying both the container and a number of proprietary CODECs, Apple gets a great deal of control and a lucrative business.

            MPEG-2, on the other hand, is a complete format for audio and video. It does not allow you to "plug in" arbitrary CODECs, which is why content in it ends up being conformant with a published specification and will remain accessible in the future. MPEG-2 is not state-of-the-art anymore, but it is good enough for a lot of content. And rather than replacing it with something like Quicktime, we should be replacing it with another documented video compression standard that does not allow proprietary plug-ins. (I'm not sure MPEG-4 fits the bill, but we'll see.)

            (Incidentally, you do not need Quicktime to combine MPEG audio and video streams; MPEG formats contain both.)

            • MPEG2 is proprietary though - you have to pay license fees to decode it (big ones for the audio).

              If you want archival files, QuickTime is your best choice as the file format is documented, and you can archive in a standradised format like JPEG, H263 or DV if you choose.

              Its format is designed for editing, whereas MPEG isn't.
    • most features found in QuickTime today such as streaming capability and portal functionality were derived from RealMedia's software

      1. That isn't "most features" that is one feature (two if you rally consider "portal functionality" a feature).
      2. QuickTime's streaming technology is drastically different from Real's; It uses some of the same codecs as non-streaming video and really helps blur the line between streaming and non-streaming video, making the different versions of the video much easier to manage. QuickTime also uses the RTSP standard.
      3.QuickTime's streaming technology delivers at least 4x the clarity of the same video encoded with the Real codec at the same bitrate, so in any event you have to admit that QT streaming video runs circles around Real and WM
      4. QuickTime Streaming Server is open source, so you can go look at the "guts" yourself and stop your reflexive Apple-bashing

      Oh yes, QuickTime has brought about a revolution in digital media!

      True; the sarcastic parts of your post seem to be more accurate.

      And nobody has ever duplicated it or surpassed it since!

      I think a large part of the article was about how many people have duplicated it. QT still ships with the best codecs, integrates more technologies, and lets content creators do more, so player notwithstanding it is still the best video technology.

      It's a media format wrapper (not a codec like MPEG...

      That is why it was such a revolutionary technology, although Apple does take a role in the development of some of QT's important codecs, the reason QT allowed multimedia to spread was that it allowed you to deal with codecs transparenttly, even today most people still just think they're dealing with QuickTime video whether it is compressed with the Video or Sorenson codecs, nor will they be aware if the audio is uncompressed, MP3, PureVoice, or QDesign, or even if the author switches codecs midstream (do that with your "equivalent if not better tools").

      QuickTime didn't start a revolution. It didn't change the world.

      Yeah, that multimedia thing never really caught on.

      The author has a very valid point: QuickTime is one of the very few technologies that was responsible for the explosion of a technology and is still the premier technology for it. Don't try to tell me that there are better technologies for multimedia content delivery; real multimedia professionals are not using MPEG or Real, and WM is almost as big a joke as the current Real codec. Today, Cleaner and the Sorenson codec are the Photoshop of high quality web multimedia, sure there are GIMPs of web multimedia, but don't try to say they are better.

      I know many /.ers can't use real QuickTime, and I really think Apple should create a Linux version, but lets not have a bunch of sour grapes.

  • I miss the old QuickTime installs that would put themselves on a Windows box and be a codec for other media players. (True, the Windows 3.1 insall was hell at first. Manual editing of the system.ini, etc...) What was wrong with following standards? Why do I need this bulky media player now to play Quicktime 3 and above content?

    Quicktime definitly has not gotten better in the 10 years it has been out.
  • It required an expensive video editing system, that included a $10,000 professional video card called a HyperCard

    Wasn't hypercard the popular freebie utility included with Macs back in the late 80's? Was the name later reused for a hardware device?
    • Wasn't hypercard the popular freebie utility included with Macs back in the late 80's? Was the name later reused for a hardware device?

      HyperCard was/is more than a "utility." It was a full-blown programming environment. Call it the BASIC of it's time, but so much more... GUI, object-oriented of sorts, easy syntax, and free.

      I've never heard of a video board called HyperCard.

  • by sfgoth (102423) on Monday December 03, 2001 @03:19PM (#2649437) Homepage Journal
    QuickTime is an API framework for passing data through converters. These converters are called codecs (from encode, decode.)

    Sorensen is probably the highest quality video codec with good compression for QuickTime. But there are a dozen other free codecs, including the widely available H.263 codec.

    QuickTime is available on Linux, it's only the Sorenson codec that is not.

    Given these simple facts, why does the Linux community continue to bitch about the absense of QuickTime for linux? Where are the open-source codecs to replace Sorenson? Why isn't the community insisting that web authors use a more widely available codec than Sorenson?

    Or, to invert the question, why aren't the few open-source codecs that _are_ being developed being developed as QuickTime codecs? Why can't I get OggVorbis as a QuickTime codec? If the open source world built codecs for QuickTime, they would be usable with a minimum of fuss on Mac OS, Windows, and Linux, which would have a huge impact on adoption. Plus, so much of the boilerplate work, like authoring and playback software, would already be done for them!

    It's sad, the opportunity being wasted like this.

    -pmb
    • I think the answer is that the Sorenson codec kicks ass over all other codecs. People will use it because when they export from Final Cut Pro that's what they get.

      If you have a quadruple PhD in math and you would like to create a codec that is not encumbered by intellectual property toll booths, join the Ogg Tarkin project.

    • VP3 (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Wesley Felter (138342) <wesley@felter.org> on Monday December 03, 2001 @03:53PM (#2649657) Homepage
      VP3 [vp3.com] is an open source QuickTime video codec that some people claim rivals Sorenson in quality (I haven't tried it myself).
      • Re:VP3 (Score:2, Insightful)

        On2 (formerly Duck) VP3 is an exceptionally fine codec, certainly a rival for Sorenson Video 3. If the open source want superb QT quality, they should organise an Ogg QT codec and a VP3 that runs under linux? These must be among the simplest OSS projects imaginable! On2 have already made VP3 QT codecs for MacOS and Win32, and will give you the source. Ogg is obviously the same and Apple have a new found interest in OSS and would LOVE to see QT adopted by the linux community. It's up to you developers to do it, how much more help do you need?
  • About the only thing Quicktime was fast at was telling me I didn't have the right version.

    On a windows platform they were better than REAL, but not WMV
  • Converting a single three-minute music video from videotape to a digital video could literally take several days... It required an expensive video editing system, that included a $10,000 professional video card called a HyperCard, a Macintosh and a laser disc player.

    Admittedly, I originally presumed Apple's graphical programming language (based on an index card metaphor) was hardware, but that was when I was in Jr. High. These guys could use some fact checking.

  • An open question:
    My familiarity with this field is week, but I acknowledge the need to maintain an accurate history free from marketting hype. It was my understanding that the Amiga with the early VideoToaster cards was the first consumer-targetted machine with video editting capabilities, and that the capabilities of Video Toaster was well beyond anything QT could do for several version.

    I couldn't find the exact dates on the Video Toaster inception, in my brief search, but I know the amiga was circa '85. Is it that the Toaster isn't considered a consumer-grade video editting tool, or that it is hardware as opposed to QT, or that it came out after 1991 or that the amiga is simply forgetting in a corner of modern computer history?
  • The article refers to something called a "HyperCard," although HyperCard was a trademark of Apple's well before 1991. HyperCard, in many ways, explored the possible functions of the WWW, and helped people learn to program in HyperTalk. However the article says: It required an expensive video editing system, that included a $10,000 professional video card called a HyperCard, a Macintosh and a laser disc player. Well, Hypercard and Quicktime both kick lots of ass. That is all.
  • 1- Who told anyone they couldn't write their own movie-player? Once the architecture is installed, any app on your system has access to that architecture. I have had multiple movie players on my system, including Peter's Player that would load a whole movie into memory to ensure no skipping back on my slower proccessors and hard drives. This includes Sorrensen and any other codec you can get for Quicktime. Once it is installed, it is available to all applications.

    2- Quicktime for Java is available from the regular quicktime installer. Go install the thing and write a movie player on Linux., or for your other java-enabled portables. I don't know what you're complaining about!

    3- Quicktime is the basis of the next mpeg standard precicely because it is widely available and a great architecture for combining all kinds of different media. It is robust and scalable (very tiny streams all the way to HDTV). This is not a closed platform, and will only become more open when mpeg4 is finalized. Sorrensen is licensed, but there are just as many other small-compression formats you can get for free that plug-in to the QT architecture just as well.

    4- I use different operating systems for different things. Unix has traditionally been great for server things, Macs for graphics and multimedia, and Windows has been good for keeping Tech Support staff, Security Experts and Lawyers gainfully employed. I am so happy under MacOS X to have a Unix server AND Quicktime AND a decent GUI. I'm not saying it's better for anybody else, but I really like it. If I didn't like it, or I wanted to continue to use other OSes as well, or thought Apple charged too much for hardware, I wouldn't be running it-- but I also wouldn't be complaining that they should give it all away for free.

    -The Minister of Quicktime

If money can't buy happiness, I guess you'll just have to rent it.

Working...