Petition Apple for Linux QuickTime 315
Evan Vetere writes "Apple is being petitioned to release a QuickTime client for Linux." Apple has been babystepping around Open Source for awhile now, but multimedia is one area where the veil of secrecy is extremely opaque: the codecs that drive video display and streaming are almost always proprietary. It would be great if apple would lead the way towards fair open standards by releasing an Open Source Quicktime client for Linux. It would do a world of good towards getting it accepted as a standard.
why (Score:1)
MEEPT!!!!! (Score:1)
MEEPT!!!!! will now instruct the fanatical RMS followers in how to be hypocrites.
First, preach against the evils of non-free software. Preach on how eventually free software alternatives will remove non-free software from the world at large. Then repeat the message several times. Until your audience starts chanting "uggha... uggha... uggha... free software, free software, free software." Then and only then may you stop preaching.
Once preaching is complete, you must petition companies to release non-free software for Linux. This will remove the motivation of many programmers who otherwise would have written a free software alternative. But if the non-free solution is already made, nobody will seek to create the free one (and don't give MEEPT!!!!! any bullshit about projects such as "Harmony". The great and glorious MEEPT!!!!! points out that Harmony is DEAD.).
Now, you will be well set on your course to Master Hypocrite. See, the art of hypocrisy swings on two axises. First, one much preach constantly about the virtues of one thing. Then one must openly support another thing.
Today's lesson was brought to you by the letters A, B and F and the number 9.
MEEPT!!!!!
a letter to jobbs (Score:1)
Many of us who use linux also like Star Wars. As you probably know, the trailers for The Phantom Menace were released in quicktime format.
As you probably also know, there is currently no support for quicktime 4 for linux. This situation forces some linux users to purchase an imac just to view the Star Wars trailers.
I know you are a business man, Steve, but wouldn't it be great if linux users didn't have to think about buying an imac just to keep up-to-date on the hype surrounding a movie? I mean, it would be a different story if there were an ultra cool game... something like quake 5 which included the option for a podrace deathmatch that only ran on a mac, but seriously, what are the odds of that happening?
I think I speak for all of us who read slashdot when I say, "we really want a black and white (tux themed) imac". There. Enough said. Please register my vote immediately.
anonymous coward
Apple doesn't own the codecs! (Score:1)
Most of the codecs, such as Sorensen, are proprietary and licensed to Apple by 3rd parties. In the case of Sorensen, it costs $10,000 for a license from Sorensen.
I think Apple wants to make QuickTime as pervasive as possible, but they would have to do some heavy arm twisting of companies such as Sorensen in order to distribute the source.
However, if some of these codecs are not patented, an enterprising hacker may be able to reverse engineer the data formats and reimpliment an open source codec that could plug into a QuickTime for Linux implementation.
The proting on Apple's part should be easy. They have already got it working under MacOS X, which is really a PowerPC version of FreeBSD 3.2. So most of the UNIX coding has already been done.
creative editing. (Score:1)
whoever is organizing this should submit the 50,000 names, and a couple dozen of the most intelligently worded comments.
Re:What about xanim? (Score:1)
Re:Some Linux users have problems (Score:2)
SGI is on life support. They are grasping at anything to stay alive.
IBM dumps a bunch of code out on one of their web pages? No, IBM doesn't care about opensource, sorry. IBM cares about IBM.
Why would Apple be 'concerned' about open source? Don't tell me you think KDE or Gnome are a threat to Apple? More likely the Apple UI group has a few beers on a Friday and loads up Gnome for some laughs at THE POWER OF OPENSOURCE. Chuckle.
Opensource is a non-entity outside of Slashdot and other Linux web pages. Companies have been releasing source code to their products since there were computer companies. The fact that the Slashdot crowd sees this as trend and vindication is merely an artifact of the limited computer news coverage most Slashdoters read. There ARE other sources computer news than Slashdot.
Enjoy the 'Open Source Revolution' while it lasts.
Apple has been burned by Quicktime Source before (Score:2)
Many of you probably won't remember this but about 2-3 years ago Apple sued M$ (one of the many suits of course) over the Quicktime Content of Video for Windows. What happened was Apple outsourced some of the origional Quicktime for Windows Code and that _exact_ code ended up in Video For Windows. By "exact", I mean apple showed the judge the code from Quick time and it was _identical_ to the code from VFW, right down to the last
I could easily see how Apple would be skittish about someone (read M$) getting their hands on the Source again.
SteveB.
Not a very good approach.. (Score:5)
i think they should, but what i'm getting at is that a lot of these comments actually seem to emphasize things that would (IMO) encourage Apple to *not* make QuickTime for Linux..
there also seem a fairly high number of pretty derogatory posts and posts that if were working for Apple, i would read and think "what a bunch of jerks, screw them."
things like..
"Or, you could just exclude millions of users from your worthless, overhyped video system."
or...
"Quicktime on Linux would be nice, even thoug the
uh huh, thanks. or...
"Im going LINUX..........
................follow or perish"
what incentive. how about...
"I'm not too fond of Apple or Mac OS... ugh, user-friendlyness, get it off me!
how does saying, "i don't like you, but do a lot of stuff for me anyway" make sense?
then there's a number of people who pointed out that they switched to PC's from Mac and they miss QuickTime. i'm sorry, but i can't see a lot of sense in supporting the people who ditched you for your competitors..
really people, haven't you ever heard that you shouldn't bite the hand that feeds you? same thing goes for the hand that you're asking for food from.
Don't want a client (Score:3)
What I want to see from Apple is a QuickTime codec library. Something that we could put into an existing project, whether it be xanim or the new media player from the LiViD project. If I'm using the LiViD player for MPEG and for AVI, I don't want a seperate, Apple-made-and-feature-poor player for quicktime movies.
Re:Use a proprietary OS? Say it's not so! (Score:3)
However, what I would *really* like to see is a good, open source streaming video standard. I've emailed maddog at Linux Internation and asked him if LI would be interested in working on such an effort. If not, next week at LWCE I'll talk to a bunch of people from other Linux companies and see if we can't form some sort of Linux Video Group to fund development of that product.
Ideally, I'd like to see something compatible with QuickTime. Right now, Microsoft is giving free bandwidth to online video and audio producers who their multimedia servers *exclusively*. I would not like to see Microsoft end up in total control of the "next hot net thing."
If making a deal with a small devil to keep a bigger devil at bay is what it takes, so it goes. I am afraid that if we don't act very rapidly to come up with a viable cross-platform alternative to MS video, Linux and *nix will be left out of online media entirely.
- Robin
Re:As somebody else said Quicktime != Codecs (Score:2)
~Chris
make mpeg the standard (Score:1)
Re:umm... yoohoo! (Score:1)
Re:Is this correct? (Score:1)
We need to show them user retention (Score:2)
Why is this good for Apple? (Score:3)
- Firstly, there are likely some components of QT that aren't Apple's to give away.
- Secondly, one of the points to QT has been to be an Apple technology, a licensable thing that they have collected fees for.
- Thirdly, Apple makes money from selling computers.
- Fourthly, a "free QT" may be usable by evil competitors to injure Apple. Oh, say, Microsoft?
Pushing Apple to pretend to do something nice for Linux whilst providing incentive for them to play licensing games is just not my idea of wisdom.A "free QT" that doesn't help sell Apple computers and doesn't provide licensing fees is a somewhat worse deal for Apple.
Re:Don't want a client (Score:1)
Linux != x86 (Score:2)
FUD, Glorious FUD... (Score:2)
Strange... I've always been able to save QuickTime movies to this machine. I paid for my version, true, though I was very pissed off at having to do that. However, even that's irrelevant; there are half a billion QuickTime-supporting plugins out there, and nearly all of them DO have a save feature, you can still circumvent QuickTime's little thing there with no trouble at all.
Also, Apple aperantly decided that it's player was so great, that it should be used for everything else as well! After all, I'm sure apple knows more about the PNG format then IE or netscape, right?
Actually, at the moment it does. Have you seen the state of PNG support in current versions of IE and Netscape? It's not pretty. It's quite a shame, really; neither browser supports it fully (or even close to fully, particularly where transparency is concerned).
Mozilla's another matter entirely. But there's also no QuickTime plugin for Mozilla, on any platform. At least, not yet.
Of course, since qucktime dosn't have a save, now I can't save PNG files without some work.
I dealt with this one above.
I don't have quicktime installed, and I doubt I ever will again. I want to use the programs that I think are good, not the ones apple choses.
Then turn off the plugin for those things you don't want it to see. It's a very simple matter, not unlike the work you do to enable the plugin you do want to use.
Re:Don't want a client (Score:2)
If you want to double-size a clip you find on the Web, just save it and open it in the player.
Re:Don't want a client (Score:4)
Um... such as... what? I have no idea of anything I've ever "needed" to do in QuickTime that the client ever kept me from doing.
And, there isn't a real reason to have a different client for QT and AVI and MPEG.
Agreed. However, QuickTime supports both AVI and MPEG anyway, so your point is moot. I've never found Xanim's MPEG playback to be all that great anyway; I use it for AVI but I've moved to SMPEG-based stuff for MPEG playback. So I'd love to see QuickTime ported so I could get back to one program for all of them again.
What I want to see from Apple is a QuickTime codec library.
QuickTime is NOT a codec. How many times do people have to be told that? QuickTime is nothing more than a file format. One which, I might add, is already supported under several libraries. Codecs are another matter entirely. Take Sorenson, for example. It's not a file format. Theoretically, barring the fact that there is no software to do this, you could compress an AVI with Sorenson, if you really wanted to.
MPEG is both a file format and a codec. I never saw this as much of a Good Thing. But MPEG4 drops that and uses the QuickTime file format, leaving the codec as pure MPEG.
If I'm using the LiViD player for MPEG and for AVI, I don't want a seperate, Apple-made-and feature-poor player for quicktime movies.
I haven't seen LiViD's player yet, so I can't comment on that. But if I can use one program for QtickTime, AVI, and MPEG, I'll use it. By the way, what makes everything Apple makes inherently bad, as you seem to imply? For that matter, what features is the QuickTime player missing?
We don't need an Apple QT player... (Score:2)
Paul.
Re:Two different issues. (Score:2)
I have contacted Sorenson about licensing their codec. They responded that Apple won't allow them to license it to others.
It's known that Mark Podlipec (the xanim guy) is pretty competent and doesn't even require codecs to be released as open source; yet Apple still won't let him write one. I personally could care less about "genuine" quicktime for Linux, but I just want to be able to watch all of the trailers.
Go on ya good thing (Score:3)
"If you'd like porting or development help.
I can arrange it, and I if you make or
allow a Linux Quicktime port, I will
make it the "standard" for all Andover.net
streaming video. We have about 2.4 devout
readers on our various sites (notably
including http://slashdot.org and
http://freshmeat.net), and we're starting
to move into video news production, so
this is a substantial offer.
I would also be willing to explore the
use of Mac OS X as our primary editing
platform and, if it works well for us,
will happily publicize the fact that we
use it.
- Robin "roblimo" Miller
Editor in Chief,
Andover.Net
phone 410-799-5725 "
Not a client.. The specs (Score:2)
community. The specs are hidden, and so it will be closed-source. It
may not run when libc changes, it won't change with the time, we won't
know what it does when our back it turned, and we won't be able to
adjust it or to write our own player. We don't need a player, we need
the specs.
Yes, a dynamic library would be much more useful (Score:2)
To give Apple some recognition for their work, all they need to do is add creditsText() and creditsImage() to the API and _recommend_ that client developers invoke these in response to selection of About or Help in their clients.
Re:They'll never do it. (um... *bullshit* :) (Score:3)
If all the qt codecs were open source...
We wouldn't HAVE as many codecs. Think Sorenson would donate their codecs for the good of mankind? They're only bad guys if they *prevent* you - yes YOU - from writing your own implementation of a QT coded. Wasn't it Linus who said people who complain about other's licenses are just whiners. You CAN do something about this if you code yourself.
Microsoft *already* supports QT in Windows Media Player. In fact, it STEALS your file associations and makes itself the default player for MOV's on Windows. That's wrong, but as a registered Apple developer Microsoft has easy access to Quicktime internals. Plus, Microsoft settled out of court for allegedly misusing that access to build a Windows media player that even today is only half as good.
Please, do NOT wish for a Linux version of MS Media Player - they made a version for the Mac, and using a G3/300 it is SOOO slow it actually drops frames and the audio pops. Mind you I've gotten better performance in Quicktime, fullscreen, on a PowerMac 6100/60MHz and only 40 megs RAM.
BTW, the downloadable Macintosh version of QuickTime *also* has the annoying register message. If you upgrade your Mac to System 9 you get a registered player.
By complaining that Apple will never open source the QT player you add further to the internal arguement that Apple shouldn't support a bunch of yammering Linux users who believe all software should be free. If that's your opinion - I respect it - but if you ever buy ANY OTHER software you have no right to complain and you cloud the arguement.
Oh, two things:
if you read the Apple developer docs you can "extend" Apple's Quicktime and make any damn player design you want. There are Perl-based MP3 players for the Mac, that just hook into the QT runtime.
I will bet anything that Apple will support QuickTime Player on Linux sometime between the summer release of OS X Consumer, and say 2 years from now. Why do I believe this? Because Apple wants to sell software, and it would be STUPID for them to handout an x86 Linux player when they are going to try selling their OWN verison of UNIX.
Technological reasons aside, I think a big reason Apple is 'going UNIX' is to fuck Microsoft and their crap NT model. Apple is a FAR better friend to the Linux/OSS community than say Sun, yet people always bitch about Apple Quicktime or the inevitable missing floppy drive.
This post made with Mozilla M13. Yum.
Re:Qt rocks, GTK+ sucks! (Score:2)
My guess is that Apple had it first. I don't think they care though, as they usually don't refer to it as 'QT' (people do).
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
Re:QT is always such bloat (Score:2)
While most people just use it for movie playback, that's not its only use.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
Re:Not a client.. The specs (already free) (Score:2)
"I doubt we'll persuade Sorensen to abandon their technology and release it to the world, but I heard that Compaq at one time was going to license Quicktime for $1/cpu shipped. I'd gladly pay $1 (probably even more) for the right to use a good collection of video codecs. "
Quicktime is free to bundle and use with your apps. The only fee is if you choose to bundle Quicktime Pro (costs at bulk $2 per copy included) or refuse to have a Apple Quicktime Pro ad appear the first time the user starts up an app linking to Apple Quicktime (costs at bulk $1 per copy included). So in most cases it's free.
And it's free to write your own app to access the Quicktime Pro features, the pro upgrade only effects the features of the offical Apple Quicktime Player or the offical Apple Quicktime Plugin. Write your own player and you are free to access these features, AFAIK.
I haven't been paying close attention to Quicktime licenseing lately, so things may have changed, but they might not have.
Re:well... (Score:2)
"But the quicktime player is a fairly hardcore macos app, there isn't even a decent player for OSX yet... I'm betting it wouldn't be quite so easy to strip away the gui and port it."
Very True. Quicktime was orginally built and designed to work on Macs, and many of the orginal Quicktime features were hard coded for the M68k processor (which is the reason for the Quicktime PowerPlug, which appears to simply be a big PowerPC-native hack of Quicktime).
Of course this wouldn't be the first platform specfic software to get new life in other platforms, just look at Linux, an OS at one time designed to run exclusively on the x86. Now, after around 5 years of hard hacking it works pretty good on many non-x86 platforms, I am writting this on a PowerPC Linux machine right now.
Apple is already making Quicktime less dependent on the Mac OS/68k, since much of it now works on Windows and the modern mostly-PowerPC Mac OS.
Re:Don't want a client (Score:3)
"The Linux community is great at writing its own GUI apps (look at KDE and Gnome), so all we really need is a complete libQuickTime.so."
That's basically how it works on Mac OS and Windows (AFAIK).
Quicktime is not a player per se(although it comes with some players/apps), it's an multimedia library (in Mac OS it's called "Quicktime Extension" and in Windows it's "qt40.dll" or something to the same effect).
It includes basic graphic functions (like rotating and scaling of images), several import and export functions, several media (mp3, mpeg 1/2 video, several properity codecs, and a bunch of other standard codecs) functions, and more.
It quite different from RealPlayer, since anybody who writes an app can use Quicktime for free (although if you install it with your software you must run an ad while it installs). So basically Quicktime is an shared library/API that developers may use as part of their applications. Feel free to check out Apple's Quicktime developer documentation for details.
Once Quicktime becomes avalible for Linux, you'll see many multimedia apps to follow it -- since it provides many useful APIs for multimedia apps (even Microsoft Encarda uses Quicktime Extensively). So if you want to create a Mp3 player, you can use the Quicktime software to do so or use Quicktime to create a simple image editing program.
"I don't care much for Windows QuickTime's interface myself..."
Luckly on the Mac OS their is several non-Apple Quicktime Players (such as Adobe Premier [which also does much other stuff], SoundApp [plays Quicktime Sounds], Graphic Converter [uses some of Apples quicktime APIs] and PlayerPro [alternative non-Apple Quicktime Player]) that hook into the Quicktime Extension "shared library" for basic Quicktime Playing, and add features of their own.
Re:Not everything should be open sourced and free! (Score:2)
I just love seeing people plaster their ignorance in regard to PowerPC/MacOS computers all over Slashdot.
When you buy that 1500 dollar Mac you're getting a a whole lot more than you get with a 900$ PC...you get a high-quality sound card, speakers, a ShadowMask ultra-quality monitor, netcard...and best of all you get MacOS, which to tell you the absolute truth from my own personal experience, is certainly more stable, more convenient and better to develop for than Windows 9x or NT.
Quake 2 wasn't ported to MacOS by John Carmack, by the way.
I frequently waste my time replying to fanatic Mac-haters here on Slashdot. I think that most people who write these kinds of comments have no idea what they're talking about. In all likelihood they've never worked in MacOS or owned a Mac.
The fact remains that Apple has survived through years of bad management and faulty business decisions because they, as a company, have inspired intense customer loyalty that rivals that of Linux. Now, I don't know about you folks, but I KNOW that a company that makes "crappy" products does not inspire "intense customer loyalty"...
I am a developer for the MacOS platform, although I use LinuxPPC and SuSE PPC too. The MacOS computer culture is friendly and rich, especially when you think of the fact that Apple users are a small minority.
Apple Computers are, on the whole, good value for money...but look at it this way: in most cases you are paying for using "NOT-Windows". Linux is a clever operating system, but what many fail to perceive is the fact that it is not appropriate for computer-illiterate people. KDE and Gnome are nice, but they both lack the simplicity of Windows and MacOS.
So please try to muster some respect for a company that has throughout the history of computers usually been at the front of innovation and originality in the business. Think before you write, don't write before you think.
Re:We need your support ! (Score:3)
There was a pretty nasty discussion on the Apple QuickTime-talk mailing list last autumn about this exact point, and I can give you quotes from Charles Wiltgen, who used to be the main QT evangelist for Apple over many years, but who left quite recently to go elsewhere. In fact, the thread we were writing was forced shut by Charles, and deemed as off-topic. The discussion can be read here [apple.com], here [apple.com] and here [apple.com]. These are Apple's daily digests of the list. The primary reasons for Apple not having made a cross-platform (why limit it to Linux?) are as follows:
Vendor licencing
Apple wants the vendors to sponsor development of the player to their platform. In the Linux case, this was quite clear. "Red hat is one Linux vendors who just had a very successfull IPO, and there are a few other Linux vendors with plans to do the same." (sic)
I asked for cost estimates. No response.
When mentioning that Apple indeed ported the QT client to the MS Windows platform, the obvious response is that they went from a 7% or so market share to a 95% market share.
Market Share
Apple are not interested in spending millions of dollars (their estimate) on porting the QT Client to Linux because of market share. How many percent more users would they receive by doing this? The amount is negligable. However, I think they shouldn't concentrate on a Linux port alone, but rather a true Cross-platform port. If complex systems like Oracle can be ported to Linux (closed source, even! No need to open that up!) then why not the QT client?
I tried to make it clear to them that their precious market share is exactly why they should invest in spreading the client to as many platforms as possible. He who owns the player, owns the market, right? To this, the general response is that "the future of QT is MacOS X and Altivec".
Ofcourse, if they have the QT client natively on MacOS X, then obviously they should be able to port it to whatever, right?
I tried pointing to SGI's at the time interest in Linux over NT. I tried pointing to various other clients which are available cross platform (Acrobat, Flash, etc) and that have become de-facto standards as a result of increasing accesibility of their clients.
No luck. Linux, and most other Unix flavours are used as servers 99% of the time. For them, the streaming server is perfect. "QuickTime is on every mainstream OS right now, which is what our customers (consumers, content developers, software developers) want."
MacOS X and Altivec
After a while, the list got blocked from Linux/cross-platform discussions, and there was a private mail-discussion about the topic. Charles wrote "It's actually getting really boring, not to mention off-topic. Apple's future is Mac OS X and Altivec, period. Naturally this is Quicktime's future as well."
Charles was notoriously narrow-minded. He truly despised MPEG2-support (that's why there isn't any in the QT client) and in general was quite disliked as such.
Hopefully this time such a petition can get through. But don't count on it.
Not necessarily Open Source (Score:2)
I think I said this in my original submission, but it got cut: The client for Linux does not need to be Open Source, so long as it's available. I know I for one would pay upwards of 30$ for it - though it probably wouldn't cost that much. Just letting us have it, free or not, open-source or not, would win Apple a lot of longhaired fans. And it needs them...
not a good idea (Score:2)
I also wonder why people want this. I have seen very little video in QT format on the web that isn't just product promotion. If people want to sell me something, I think they should put the video into a format I can read. Most content that could be considered informational at all (and I'm using the term "informational" lightly) is in Real format or Windows Media Player format. And much scientific and public video content is in MPEG format.
I think Linux (and the world) needs free, open-source streaming and archival audio and video formats. MPEG and the H.xxx standards are probably the best bets right now, despite some patent issues; both have open source implementations. On the other hand, I think an influx of proprietary media architectures and clients simply takes away the incentive to do things right for Linux, and I don't understand why people who want that kind of software don't just buy a Windows or Mac OS machine (OS X, if you want a UNIX-like kernel).
Re:Not everything should be open sourced and free! (Score:2)
And why not go check out the prices of NT capable systems from major vendors, prior to getting angry at apple? First off, you're comparing the price of a LOW END wintel machine (i doubt you can buy a machine preloaded with NT from a major manufacturer for $800) to the highend of the iMac line. The middle range of the iMac's is $1300, gives you 64 megs of memory, 8 megs of VRAM, a DVD player, USB and FireWire, awesome speakers, and it just looks cooler and runs quieter than anything else.
Wait til Windows 2000 is available. You'll see the average price of machines float upwards again, as it's way too resource hungry for the current crop of $500 PC's.
I'd say you pretty much get what you pay for with your hardware. Mac's cost more, but in general, i feel their archeticture is far superior to that of the lowend crop of windows machines.
It's a secret: (Score:3)
Forget OSS in this case. (Score:2)
Re:Why should Apple? (Score:2)
I have an idea (Score:2)
Is this correct? (Score:2)
So the real problem is that somebody needs to pay for a licence of the sorenson codec, right? If thats the case, and if you don't have to pay a per copy fee (which i guess is the case, or the QT player wouldn't be freely distributed), couldn't redhat, corel, va, or some other company pay for it, so it could be distributed with Xanim, or some better media player?
Re:QuickTime is the tool of the devil!!! (Score:2)
start -> settings -> control panel -> quicktime -> file type associations -> uncheck to your hearts desire. there, that wasn't so hard now was it?
all easily modifiable with regedit too.
Re:why (Score:2)
Aside from that a good reason it should be open source is platform support. If it is open source it will quickly get ported from x86 and PPC (the two platforms Apple is likely to support) to Alpha, Sparc, PA-RISC, MIPS, 68k, etc. If Apple wants to promote QuickTime as an industry standard, having ports to every major hardware architecture would be a great checklist item for them. If they do it closed source, it is a lot of work for them to support multiple platforms. If they release open source the community will do the porting work for them for free.
Another thing is better support of special features of x86 variants. If Apple releases open source, then other people can handle special optimizations for QuickTime on CPU's like the K6 and Athlon so Apple doesn't have to do all that work themselves.
Re:maybe they want it closed (Score:3)
It proves nothing of the sort. What I meant by that is that something is better than nothing. At any rate, Windows users get a 'free ride' don't they?
If all you wanted was a client for linux, you would be satisfied with closed source
Frankly, I don't really use streaming video that much. I really want it to be available for Linux as more of a checklist item, and for other people. Just because I think that having something is better than nothing doesn't mean I am completely 'satisfied'.
At any rate, RealPlayer is already available for Linux. I think Microsoft even did a port of their media player for Linux at one point. Personally I'd rather see QuickTime become the de-facto industry standard than Microsoft's format. I can't say I have that much of a preference between QuickTime and RealPlayer, but both is better than only one.
maybe apple wants quicktime to be closed source!
Maybe they do, but why does that mean that people can't petition them to change their mind?
it's quite possible that they want to keep the secrets of quicktime to themselves,because they don't want assholes to steal it and make money off of it.
Frankly, if people really want to find the 'secrets' of QuickTime, what they have to do is look up Apple's patents and/or reverse engineer Apple's code. How is an open source player going to be stolen and made money on anyway? Apple's code will still be protected by patents and their algorithms will still be protected by patents (which of course is another topic altogether). There are lots of ways for them to protect QuickTime and still do an open sourced version. Your argument just doesn't make much sense.
the complaints are misdirected (Score:4)
we linux users can't play the videos that windows/mac users view with the latest quicktime product. i'm sure apple knows this already, and i guess it's ok to remind them, but i think there's a better idea.
how about the next time you run across a web site that is using a media architecture that _you_ can't view (because you are using something other than windows or macos) *tell the webmaster*!
next time you head over to broadcast.com, and you can't play the "windows media" streams, let them know. email starwars.com and tell them you can't view the trailer that's in quicktime. and so on...
perhaps if the _content providers_ realize that there is a large market that is entirely overlooked, they will pressure the people who provide them technology into doing something smart -- making it accessible to everyone. of course, apple will listen to people (ie, lucasarts) that license ($$) their technology. if not, too bad for them. maybe the content providers will switch to a more widely accepted format.
either way, we win.
- pal
Open source QT? nooo... (Score:4)
I don't see anything wrong with a *nix QT client though. I remember reading that Apple usually has to hold back the release date for each version of QT because the Windows version takes so long. Other platforms would probably only add to that delay, and with streaming taking off the way it is, any kind of delay can be lethal. Just look at the delay between QT4 and 4.1. 4.1 isn't a huge upgrade (afaik, it adds support for vbr mp3s and ads in video streams) but it took a long time; I'm sure much of that delay was syncing the Mac and Windows versions.
handy quicktime link [apple.com]
PS - I love the name "Windows Media Player for Mac." They couldn't just call it the MS Media Player?
___________________
Re:Use a proprietary OS? Say it's not so! (Score:3)
What's wrong with the Darwin Streaming Server? I've been running it on linux for about 3 months, and the latest release even has binaries available for linux and solaris. It's open source, and works on a well documented protocal (RTSP), as well as now being able to stream over HTTP. The only downside now is that you have to "touch" movies to stream them, which means you have to buy quicktime pro or another product that can hint movies (an open source project to be?).
I'm also pretty sure it is independant of quicktime and media format since it's just a streaming protocol, but don't hold me to it.
the bottome line (Score:2)
There are an estimated 10 million linux users out there. I'll bet if this market is opened to playing quicktime movies there would also be a large group of linux users who will then want to make quicktime movies.
Release a quicktime player for linux and sell a quicktime development environment for linux.
Re:Some Linux users have problems (Score:2)
Wrong. SGI and IBM care a lot about open source. So does AOL/Netscape; it appears as if Apple is at least concerned (OS-X).
They just need some handholding; rude Linux users don't function for that at all.
Some Linux users have problems (Score:3)
What is the response of some (lots) of Linux user? We don't want an Apple player. We want specs and source!
Get a grip. Don't you realize that big business doesn't get wise to open source over night? And that there are some people who spent lots of time and money developing Sorensen? Why should we get their work for free?
I just have a problem with the ever growing population of Linux users who can't leave well enough alone.
Re:Sorenson's word on the subject (Score:2)
Thank you for your question about Sorenson Video on unsupported OS platforms. Sorenson Vision has chosen to team up with Apple and their QuickTime
product. Because of this, Sorenson Video is only available on supported QuickTime OS platforms.
If you're interested in QuickTime for platforms other than Mac or Windows, please contact your
platform vendor and let them know that you would like them to license QuickTime from Apple.
Once QuickTime 3 or4 is available on a platform, Sorenson Video will be there as well.
Sorenson Vision Technical Support
The road to a petition-free world (Score:2)
Sorensen (Score:2)
[ c h a d o k e r e ] [iastate.edu]
Re:not a good idea (Score:2)
Someone needs to sit down and look at the available graphics, audio, streaming and video formats (DVD, anyone?
In fact, MpegTV [mpegtv.com] doesn't really kick it unless you renice a few processes up & down, too.
Maybe the problem lies in that while linux is definitely great for being a server, it is also hitting the desktop; and while I don't want an influx of luser newbies wanting it to *be* a desktop OS per-se, I also (a) don't want to run windoze (b) do want to watch my video sources full-screen with decent performance.
So some companies need to open-source their products or at least open the protocols used (I disagree utterly with the "buy it under NDA and do all the linux porting work for Apple quicktime" approach, btw), so we can get on with using them...
Re:Apple doesn't own the codecs! (Score:2)
xanim [pubnix.com] and read what the author says.. He _wanted_ to do a codec and would sign the NDA, sorensen said Apple will not allow them to license it to third parties.
So...
Who has who by the nuts?
Re:Not a client.. The specs (already free) (Score:2)
Many of the codecs are proprietary, mostly owned by entities other than Apple. It would be nice to be able to license these and Apple is the natural conduit for this.
I doubt we'll persuade Sorensen to abandon their technology and release it to the world, but I heard that Compaq at one time was going to license Quicktime for $1/cpu shipped. I'd gladly pay $1 (probably even more) for the right to use a good collection of video codecs.
That is, until someone develops a good free video codec that meets my need. Then I'll keep my dollar, but thats the market working.
QuickTime for Linux would be a major undertaking (Score:5)
And it was never written with portability in mind. QuickTime was only ported to Windows by implementing a nice chunk of the Mac OS API on it. Porting QuickTime to Linux would be a very, very big undertaking.
However, QuickTime will run on Mac OS X, which is less similar (from a technical perspective) to current Mac OS versions that Linux is. It's possible that porting QT from Mac OS X to Linux wouldn't be such a problem.
Alternatively, it might be possible to write something that just played QT- encapsulated Sorenson video streams with QDesign audio tracks (which is what virtually all streaming QT content is compressed with) and didn't do everything else QT does. The QuickTime file format and streaming protocol are both open, so this would be possible with no help from Apple if someone wants to license the relevant codecs from Sorenson and QDesign.
--
As somebody else said Quicktime != Codecs (Score:3)
Quicktime for Linux is available NOW!!!! (Score:4)
umm... yoohoo! (Score:2)
Go get your client here...
http://xanim.va.pubnix.com/home.html
Try RealProducer (Score:2)
For a Linux video editor you should try Broadcast2000. I'd imagine that RealProducer can import
If this works (Score:2)
ps. the reason I use windows as my client is because I do a lot of graphic design with 3dStuido Max, and Lightwave.
Re:Go on ya good thing (Score:2)
All of 2.4 readers? heh, thats pretty funny. But just as an aside, where did you pick this little snippet up?
-- iCEBaLM
Re:Not everything should be open sourced and free! (Score:2)
And you'd be right, all the new quicktime movies use the sorenson codec, every single one of them, even that TIE-tanic spoof did. You cant watch quicktime movies anymore without sorenson, its impossible.
Come on. QuickTime works fine, even if you believe Apple touts it as the end all be all cross platform media streaming format (wow, that's a lot of qualifiers). You're forgeting operating systems when you say 2. I'll leave you to figure out your mistakes...
Make no mistake about it, the player is useless without the right codecs, There's a real player 5 for linux, and it works (almost) fine, I challenge you to play any G2 stream with it, you wont be able to, not the right codec. The G2 Linux player has been Alpha since MAY, and it too is getting venerable (cant use it with icravetv anymore I've noticed).
Streaming media, and really any media for that matter, is all about codecs, you can release a quicktime player for any OS, but if it doesnt support all the codecs, you're toast.
I stand by my original claim, Quicktime is only released and supported on 2 operating systems, I made no mistake.
-- iCEBaLM
Re:Not everything should be open sourced and free! (Score:3)
Apple seems to have and exclusive license on the Sorensen codec, so even if someone wanted to, I dont think they could license it.
The real problem I have with Apple is they bring out their over-restrictive ASPL, and "open source" parts of what they call "darwin" (OS X) and expect people to code for them for free, they also tout QuickTime as the end all be all cross platform internet media streaming format, and its supported on what, 2 operating systems? Give me a break.
Their "open source" strategy seems to be to use as many buzzwords as possible to create mind-share, and maybe they'll sell a couple more G4s.
-- iCEBaLM
Re:Not necessarily Open Source (Score:2)
I sort of doubt it. No matter what Apple does, slashdotters receive it with extreme combativeness and hostility. Apple didn't get nearly enough credit for open sourcing Darwin, QuickTime Streaming Server and Open Play. Apple is also contributing the Apache project on a regular basis, but that hardly ever gets mentioned.
Apple has spent around a decade or so on QuickTime development, and while I think it makes a lot of sense for them to port it to Linux, it's silly for other posters (though not you) to insist that Apple just release it into open source. It's not as if they can sell service contracts on QuickTime Player.
I get the feeling that the Linux community will continually come down on Apple until they switch their hardware line to systems based on x86 with Linux preinstalled, which is unfortunate. We should encourage the development of several platforms to choose from in the industry, not just several flavors of Linux.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Binary Only is acceptible. (Score:3)
Re: are you kidding? (Score:2)
Re:Quicktime for Linux is available NOW!!!! (Score:2)
What we want is a Linux implementation of the codecs Apple has licensed for its player.
Then that's what your petition should say, and it should be sent to people like Sorenson, not Apple.
QuickTime for Linux would be awesome... (Score:2)
I signed the petition, and I hope that they, at the very least make Quicktime available to Linux users, but it would be even better if they released an Open Source QuickTime client for Linux, IMHO.
The new BSD advantage? (Score:2)
DB
Re:No Frickin Way will I buy a QT client (Score:2)
Re:What about xanim? (Score:2)
Re:QT for all! (Score:2)
Re:this computer will be toast (Score:2)
Re:The /. effect is amazing. (Score:2)
Re:We need your support ! (Score:2)
Re:Don't want a client (Score:2)
Re:Keep in mind... (Score:2)
Re:creative editing. (Score:2)
Re:Don't want a client (Score:3)
We need your support ! (Score:5)
--Josh Litherland, LUG@GT
We want corporate support! (Score:2)
Anyway, I wrote a very professional note to Xircom about how disappointed I am that they choose to limit their market to Windows and MacOS users.
I CCed apple in this message, but it bounced. So I pasted the message into their comments page, making sure that I put To: whoever@xircom.com; CC:whoever@Apple.com at the top.
The idea here is to make Apple realize that they are pushing away potential corporate customers (i.e. the ones who pay the bills) by excluding other major OSes.
I think that we need to make Apple's PAYING customers realize that they should demand the release of a client.
I think that this is much more valuable that a bunch of people who are notorious for not wanting to pay for anything (software) clamoring for a free client.
-Peter
Re:Not everything should be open sourced and free! (Score:2)
It's funny that you say that. I've been working for a company for a few months, converting their Mac network to an NT network (so they could use the right software - yeah yeah i know, leave me alone). All i have heard is a shitstorm of complaints about the user interface of the NT system. They want their macs back. In spite of the fact that the folks here are rather intelligent, they bitch about the smallest perceived inconveniences of the NT GUI.
But this is just an anecdote. Maybe you're right in general.
Why should you BE supported? Re:We need your supp (Score:2)
Why is your petition not supportive of OpenSource Operating Systems? Or asking Apple to OpenSource as much of the player as they can?
Why does it only support Linux?
Consider, Mac OS X is based on BSD.
Asking them to support BSD *AND* Linux makes sense, because the porting work to BSD has been done. Linux would be an afterthought, as most of the code for BSD is done.
Use a proprietary OS? Say it's not so! (Score:2)
Is it me, or is it a little strange that Slashdot is willing to use (and endorse!) by far the most proprietary computer product in the industry?
--
Re:Use a proprietary OS? Say it's not so! (Score:2)
First of all, let me apologize for making a flippant cheap shot. I know that there is not an acceptable open source alternative for doing video editing, and I'm sure Slashdot would use one if there was.
I guess my comment wasn't aimed so much at Slashdot but at people who think that Linux is the answer to all problems, and to make them start thinking that applications are more important than operating systems for getting work done. Again, I understand that my point was very subtle and buried in that comment. :)
--
Re:It's a secret: (Score:2)
Or you can use a third-party QuickTime app, and not pay for it. Upgrading to QuickTime Pro only gets you more features in Apple's own QT player software - those features are always available if you use a third-party program.
--
Does it have to be open source? (Score:3)
Okay, I'll agree that an open sourced version would be ideal but anything we can redistribute would be fine with me.
That would allow organizatios like Debian and RedHat to pass out CDs that you can use on many different machines (and your friend's machines, etc).
Can't we allow companies to keep their code private if their products are free (as in beer)?
Linux compatibility = bad for computers (Score:2)
not a good idea (Score:2)
znu is right. QuickTime is a full-blown media architecture (API, file format, codecs, plug-in interfaces for effects and hardware, and the list goes on and on) and porting it to Linux would require dealing with a lot of MacOS legacy issues. Blech.
A much better idea is to ask yourself, in the year 2000, what is it that you really want? Remember, QuickTime has evolved over the last 10 years and many of its original assumptions are not as important today. So, do you want an MPEG stack? Do you want streaming? Do you want to develop video post-production apps? Do you want video conferencing?
QuickTime is a huge system that Apple has to work hard at maintaining on their own OS. You're much better off looking at it as a menu and picking the top 3 or 4 features and working on (or asking for) those.
Sorenson (Score:2)
So, I wrote Sorenson, and their response to me was that they couldn't do anything because of their agreement with Apple, and suggested that I talk to Apple about it. I tried to do that and the only response I received back from Apple was that it was a Sorenson issue and that I should take it up with Sorenson.
Ah yes, the 1990's - the time when corporations believed that "customer service" meant just passing the concern onto someone else.
I for one will be very happy to see something positive from this petition. However I am disheartened that another petition [libranet.com] to encourage greater support for hardware drivers (esp. printers) under Linux seems to be short of its goal!
Two different issues. (Score:5)
A Quicktime client for Linux
A Open Source version without proprietary codecs.
The first of these would be within Apple's abilities, but the second isn't really. They can't give away proprietary codecs they don't themselves own, and the only alternative then is to not use those codecs which ain't gonna happen anytime soon.
And the actual petition just mentions a port, not an open source version.
Might be better than nothing, but on the other hand proprietary standards isn't something very desirable in and of itself.
-- Eythain
http://heroine.linuxbox.com (Score:2)
QT stuff [linuxbox.com]. Has it's own
codecs though (motion-JPEG and others). It might be a start
for others. I've written a player [geocities.com] that uses it,
but my player is evil and doesn't work well.
Dunno if this helps.
Also FWIW, a system to handle binary codecs would
be a goodness. I'm working on one now. There's one in
xanim but IMHO it's too xanim-specific.... Ciao!
Think Different (Score:2)
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
AOL IM: jeanlucpikachu
Other petitions? (Score:2)
I'm not advocating we use petitions like they (meaning THEY) use patents (that is, abuse them), but I think a site that adresses such concerns could be a Good Thing.
Not everything should be open sourced and free! (Score:2)
QT for all! (Score:2)
Go sign now!