10th Anniversary of Quicktime 412
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.
Why do I feel like... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Why do I feel like... (Score:3, Informative)
check:
http://www.heroinewarrior.com/index.php3
History (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.friendsoftime.org/ [friendsoftime.org]
-J
More history at Mercury Center (Score:3, Informative)
I remember... (Score:2)
The Internet (Score:3, Offtopic)
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.
Re:The Internet (Score:4, Funny)
Just reload the page at comments(-1).
(geez.. next time I read
Re:The Internet (Score:2)
QT rocks, an example of APL at it its finest (Score:4, Interesting)
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???
Re:QT rocks, an example of APL at it its finest (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:QT rocks, an example of APL at it its finest (Score:2)
And the Amiga guys
Re:QT rocks, an example of APL at it its finest (Score:2)
Re:QT rocks, an example of APL at it its finest (Score:2)
e.g. You and I know that you can store and manipulate photographs on computer - but lots of people don't think to do that until they see a "My Pictures" folder thoughtfully provided for them. In a similar fashion, the Amiga was fully capable of Quicktime-like feats of multimedia in 1991 (I know, I had several), but it wasn't SOLD as such all that much (thanks largely to managerial and marketing incompetence in CBM, most of America and a fair bit of Europe seemed to think of the Amiga as solely a games machine).
That's a mistake that developers make a lot - they, being smart, can see that one can quite happily use a text editor to make out a shopping list, or even keep a load of lists in a general purpose database, but joe-average-IQ on the street may not even think to do so with the status-symbol computer he just paid a small fortune for, unless there's a "My Shopping List" button for him to click, even if it only opens up a window with a "My Shopping List" titlebar containing a limited text editor component tied to a shoddy little database. There are people in the Windows world who can, and have, paid quite a bit for such products, which one could knock together in 5 minutes in tcl/tk in the linux world.
Microsoft and Apple understand this very well - general purpose tools are often unsuitable for people because people often aren't imaginative enough to use them. As a Very Clever Person, I'm always vaguely disillusioned by the "inside the box" thinking of most people I meet,
but one must recognise that People Are Stupid.
Re:QT rocks, an example of APL at it its finest (Score:2)
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.
Re:QT rocks, an example of APL at it its finest (Score:3, Interesting)
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).
Re:QT rocks, an example of APL at it its finest (Score:2)
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.
Re:QT rocks, an example of APL at it its finest (Score:2)
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.
Re:QT rocks, an example of APL at it its finest (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:QT rocks, an example of APL at it its finest (Score:2)
Re:QT rocks, an example of APL at it its finest (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
I found this great quote two days ago (thank you fortune()!).
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.)
Re:QT rocks, an example of APL at it its finest (Score:2)
Re:QT rocks, an example of APL at it its finest (Score:2)
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
Re:QT rocks, an example of APL at it its finest (Score:2)
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
Re:Quicktime is such a pain because of its player (Score:2)
It's really less to do with the underlying reasons as to why people behave differently depending on their stimuli as what those behaviors are.
Re:QT rocks, an example of APL at it its finest (Score:2)
Yeah, no Microsoft products have EVER sprinkled icons all over my carefully-pruned Start Menu, taskbar, desktop, Favorites... Puh-leeze. The only offender worse than Media Player is Outlook Express, which would probably keep showing up on my desktop if I cracked open the hard drive and cut the area where its bits resided right out of the platter.
And Microsoft keeps on sneaking more and more DRM shit into every successive release of Windows Media Player. One day you're gonna wake up and find that you can't play a lot of the stuff on your hard drive because it's 'not in compliance with licensing,' or some such nonsense.
~Philly
PS- Go ahead, mod me down! I'm at the karma cap!
Birth of Multimedia (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Birth of Multimedia (Score:2)
Lest the Microsoft-loathing zealots of Slashdot forget, the initial release of Windows Media Player [microsoft.com] also took place 10 years ago.
Re:Birth of Multimedia (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Say What You Like (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re:Say What You Like (Score:2)
Or, in other words, the world would be different, which was the point I was making with QT. The net would be different had it not hit the scene. QT ushered in video to the net like Columbus brought in the Europeans. Good enough?
I do conceed that my phrasing was probably not as carefully selected as it could have been, and any apologies if I came off as being discriminatory.
Linux users that yearn for Quicktime! (Score:3, Informative)
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
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.
QT made Myst possible (Score:3, Informative)
An Article With Real Substance^H^H^H^H^H Bullshit (Score:2, Troll)
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.
Re:An Article With Real Substance^H^H^H^H^H Bullsh (Score:5, Interesting)
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 :)
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.
it's not a technical thing (Score:2)
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.
Re:it's not a technical thing (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:it's not a technical thing (Score:2)
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.
Re:it's not a technical thing (Score:2)
Yeah, who would want to have, like, audio and video play at the same time. Whatever...
Re:it's not a technical thing (Score:2)
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.)
Re:it's not a technical thing (Score:2)
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.
Re:A Post With Real Substance^H^H^H^H^H Bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Too bad it's a media program now... (Score:2)
Quicktime definitly has not gotten better in the 10 years it has been out.
Hypercard Hardware? (Score:2)
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?
Re:Hypercard Hardware? (Score:2)
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.
Why no open source codecs? (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:Why no open source codecs? (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
Re:VP3 (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why no open source codecs? (Score:4, Insightful)
You seem to be mistaken about the way codecs are developed. Generally, you develop a codec and create an implementation, and if you want it to be widely adopted you make source available for that implementation (if not completely open source, then you make it available to the standards bodies and their members). The individual developers (Apple in the instance of QuickTime) then implement the codec in their software, in most cases. If Ogg isn't available for QuickTime, that's the result of QuickTime not being popular in Ogg's target audience, as well as Apple not taking the time to implement Ogg (probably because Ogg isn't popular in Apple's target audience, either).
That's a great explanation from the technical implementation point of view, but completely ignores the reality of the end users who actually use software instead of write software.
When you say "The individual developers (Apple in the instance of QuickTime) then implement the codec in their software...", you miss the point of QuickTime.
If the OV developers released their codec as a QuickTime plugin, it would work on Windows, Mac OS, and Linux, in any authoring or playback application that understands QuickTime.
Sure, Apple could do the integration for the OV developers. But why should they?
Apple has given the world an open, extensible architecture for multimedia. And no one is using it, because they either believe they need to own the whole widget (Real), or can't be bothered with anything as mundane as users (OV).
For example, Real could implement their entire business on top of QuickTime, and the user experience wouldn't be any different at all, but Real would suddenly only need to do 1/2 the engineering.
The really sad thing is that Apple would rather keep people using their player, so they can display their nag screens, than make plugins readily available for other players, or make a deal with Sorenson to make the format open to others to make those plugins for them.
The plugins (codecs) that Apple ships work in any QuickTime player. The QuickTime Player that Apple ships/sells is just ONE implementation of a QuickTime player. QuickTime itself is free, and widely available! Apple's QuickTime Player is NagWare for buying Apple's Pro Player, but you can get all of the same functionality from any of dozens of other freeware and shareware player applications.
In fact, you can play QuickTime movies from SimpleText on the Mac! That's about as minimal a player as you can find!
In my perfect world, the Open Source community would realize that QuickTime is a vehicle they could "embrace and extend", ensuring that their platforms are first class multimedia citizens.
After all, QuickTime is just an API. There's no reason why the QuickTime API couldn't be the native multimedia API for Linux, even if they shared none of the codecs!
-pmb
Re:Why no open source codecs? (Score:2)
Quicktime, quick to tell me I don't have right ver (Score:2)
On a windows platform they were better than REAL, but not WMV
Just plug in this $10000 HyperCard... (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Pioneer in digital video? What about the Amiga? (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
probable inaccuracy in article (Score:2)
Quicktime for Java exists (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re:Quicktime and Real Audio are already dead. (Score:2, Interesting)
Isn't MPEG4 based on quicktime?
Plus I would hardly put Windows Media in the same catagory as Quick time
Re:Quicktime and Real Audio are already dead. (Score:2, Insightful)
I mean.. For a player, all you need is a play button and a stop button.
We do not need animated menus or sweet shading. Just a simple old box.
Guis.. There should be an option to "turn all the options off".
Base skin should be no skin. Naked.
Just like a pen does not need some purty little bunnies on it to write effectively.
Still. Happy 10th', QT. You've put on some weight lately, but fortunately I still have an older version on my Lodoss War cds.
QuickTime isn't a codec (Score:4, Informative)
QT doesn't have a codec, precisely. It's a framework. The QT format allows for multiple codecs.
For example, QT for the Mac comes standard with the following codecs for video:
You can also install your own codecs. I seem to have:
There are a comparable array of audio codecs.
Most of the stuff you see on the web these days is Sorenson. But content creators usually don't work in Sorenson; they work in the higher-quality codecs. I'm leaning towards On2VP3 these days, although in the past I was pretty much a straight-up Indeo man.
It also allows you to encode without using a codec, i.e. raw data & Big Files. This is what the really serious editors with the Really Big Drives (Avid and so on) use.
BTW, the DivX ;-) player for the Mac uses a QuickTime framework, and can play the DivX inside QT player.
Re:QuickTime isn't a codec (Score:2)
Oh, don't worry. I only get modded up when I post inflammatory yet well-worded posts, or occasionally when I go off the deep end (most of my 5 posts, I look at and wonder - why?) Mods won't touch that one: I was clear, lucid, and somewhat lengthy. :)
This is why you should read at a threshold of 2. Most of the interesting posts have a value of 2. They are the ones posted by people who write well enough to attract moderators' attention fairly often, but who have lost the moderator on this particular post.
There are exceptions, though: mostly karma whores. Sigh. A few trolls too. Bigger sigh.
Re:Quicktime and Real Audio are already dead. (Score:2, Informative)
Isn't MPEG4 based on quicktime?
MPEG-4 is based on a file format championed by Apple and used in Quicktime. The problem is that the MPEG-4 standard is not yet complete. What WiMP (Windows Media Player) and the others are using is a corrupted form of the incomplete standard. It's the usual embrace-and-extend attack from Microsoft: adopt a standard and then modify it so that it becomes so corrupted and muddled that people have to use your version to do anything.
Once again we see that Microsoft has managed to grab market share through bundling, while the better product doesn't get as much exposure. Quicktime is such a polished product that supports some of the best compression algorithms for video out there, it's a shame that it is not used more.
Re:Quicktime and Real Audio are already dead. (Score:2)
Quicktime is not a compression algorithm (Score:5, Informative)
While the most popular codecs involved will change, Quicktime will be around for a long time to come.
MPEG4 is based off QuickTime (Score:2, Insightful)
You are also confusing codecs or players with QuickTime. MPEG is a codec, Windows media has is wma codec and player...QuickTime is a Media Layer providing all the necessary tools to deal with hundreds of formats and just as many codecs supporting wide ranges of playback and presentation options not just limited to audio, video, graphics, vector graphics, VR...
I could got on, but instead you should go read up at on specifics here [apple.com].
Re:Quicktime and Real Audio are already dead. (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore even with windows if you want support for many of these codecs you still have to go out and hunt down the codec. One of the most annoying things with avi files is the you never know what format they are in. The avi format actually can use as many as 15 separate formats (codecs) which are incompatable with each other.
What I have yet to see anywhere else is a single multimedia layer comprising MIDI synth, picture, video, panoramas, etc.
/rant/
It really is not Apple's fault that Linux developers have payed so little attention to developing Linux based solutions for Apple formats. I finbd it amazing how much of the horrible proprietary windows junk finds it's way to my linux/BSD boxen and how poor support is for Apple things. And then the galling thing is that Apple takes the blame for it here. One example was a suggestion that Apple by using their own filesystem for the iPod was horrible and proprietary and they should have used Fat 32. (reality check here) Apple should ditch their own file format and use Microsofts? kidding, right?
Microsft calls GPL evil, and Apple hires OSS developers and gives source code for core of their _current OS_ away and some of you guys still bash Apple for M$... go figure...
/rant/
It *IS* Apple's fault there's not QT for Linux. (Score:2)
Not to mention that even a closed-source implementation is currently not possible, since Sorenson is only licensing their codec to Apple through an exclusive deal. So unless Apple or Sorenson write a Linux version, there won't be one.
Here's [pubnix.com] a link that mentions it in regards to xanim, and another [zdnet.com] on ZDNet that states "Apple has never released a binary player for Linux or a binary module for the XAnim video and animation player, and it has no stated plans to do so. Moreover, the company won't allow open source programmers to make their own Sorenson-aware players."
So before you bash the hardworking folks who make linux do as much as it does, make sure you have your facts straight.
It's the licensing of the patent, not the patent. (Score:2)
MPEG is patented, yes, but the patent holders have most definitely allowed other people to produce their own proprietary implementations of the MPEG codecs. Additionally, they seem to be very lenient on open-source MPEG implementations. (I don't know if this means open-source versions are legit, or just ignored, though)
And finally, doesn't anonymous name-calling make you feel especially good about yourself? It's folks like you that make
Rant Rant (Score:4, Informative)
It really is not Apple's fault that Linux developers have payed so little attention to developing Linux based solutions for Apple formats.
If the quality of responses here is representative of the Linux/Open Source community at large, and I hope it is not, then it would seem that they can't even comprehend what QuickTime is.
QuickTime is not a movie format, at least in the sense that a LOTR trailer is a movie. It is not a codec. It is not an application with a window. It is an architecture and a set of organizing principles to tie time-dependent data together that negotiates amongst an essentially unlimited number of codecs and data formats.
Now, it just so happens that one common use of QuickTime is LOTR trailers. It also just so happens that a lot of people use the Sorenson codec. It also just so happens that there's a somewhat ugly piece of software called the QuickTime Player 4 (but the previous version still works and is nicer). However, that doesn't define what QuickTime is. Maybe people are confused by the fact that the name QuickTime is used in conjunction with other words. Maybe people are confused by the fact that the word used in QuickTime is "movie," even though Apple goes to great lengths to explain that it is not necessarily a literal movie of image frames. Honestly, though, I would expect a community of hackers to be able to look under the hood.
For the people talking about MPEG4, well, it does begin to approach this level of universality, but that's because it is based on Quicktime, with Apple contributing heavily to the standard! MPEG4 is, to all extents and purposes, a new version of QuickTime with some codecs included.
There is nothing to stop you, me, or any Open Source developer from using the QuickTime architecture and file format to do anything from a movie player to controlling the geometry in a 3rd-person shooter to keeping track of thunderstorm data. However, in order to do that, it is necessary to appreciate the value of an overarching architecture rather than a tool to do a thing in a file format.
I wonder if this lack of what must be called "vision" is emblematic of Open Source. I certaintly hope it is not. However, it would be consistent with some of the problems with making a desktop acceptable to the consumer.
One doesn't need to integrate software to the point of stupidity as does Microsoft. However, to achieve synchronicity in a system of pieces, it is even more important to have architectures and organizing principles on the order of QuickTime.
I can produce an image file on the Macintosh and write drivers for QuickTime and be sure that any reasonably well written image-processing program on the Macintosh will be able to use it automatically without my having to do anything else, and that's just the beginning. Doesn't anyone think this kind of capability would be useful on an open operating system?
Re:Quicktime and Real Audio are already dead. (Score:2)
When Apple licensed the Sorenson codec, didn't they license it under an agreement that forbade its use with other media players? IOW, when they licensed Sorenson, didn't they do so with the specific intention of preventing Windows Media Player and other apps from playing Quicktime movies encoded using the Sorenson codec?
If so, that's hardly open, by even the most generous definitions of open.
Re:Quicktime and Real Audio are already dead. (Score:2)
You completely missed the point. Think back to the state of movie playing on desktop hardware in 1991. Hint: There wasn't one. Quicktime was the first attempt to bring movie playing to personal computers. This was years before the huge full-motion-video multimedia explosion that started in late 1993.
Re:Quicktime and Real Audio are already dead. (Score:2)
Sorry, no. That was a novelty for hardware that almost no one owned (even Amiga owners!). It had no effect whatsoever on getting movie playing to be a desktop standard.
Re:Quicktime and Real Audio are already dead. (Score:2)
Silly troll. I've used Amigas. Great machines. Far too underpowered to really decode movies on stock hardware, though. You could hardly call the Amiga a movie-playing machine.
Re:Quicktime and Real Audio are already dead. (Score:5, Interesting)
The video you're watching in RealPlayer was at one point a QuickTime file
QuickTime is also much more than just streaming video or Sorenson streams. It handles all kinds of media, and a QuickTime movie is actually a wrapper for multiple media tracks. So you can easily add a MIDI soundtrack (just by cutting and pasting) to a video presentation, playing the lightweight music file through the built-in software synth that supports DownLoadable Sounds (DLS). Then you can layer on a Flash movie for an interface, and a spoken narrative in MP3. You can add transitions that are built-into QuickTime itself. All of these tracks exist within the single wrapper file.
Really, you can't overstate how important QuickTime has been and is now to any kind of computer multimedia.
Microsoft's earlier Video for Windows effort was even found in court to contain stolen QuickTime code. The didn't just copy the architecture, they also used Apple code. It's not surprising, but it's just symbolic of how much more of a leader Apple has been on this front.
Re:quicktime? (Score:5, Informative)
I know there are some people out there who are annoyed that Linux is unable to read some Quicktime files out there. That's not Apple's fault at all, rather it is the fault of the compression format used. Most of the Quicktime files are compressed using the Sorenson codec, because of the superior quality and great compression it offers. The problem is that Sorenson holds the patent on the codec and they have only produced a decoder for Windows and MacOS. In order for Linux users to play those Quicktime movies which use the Sorenson codec, Sorenson would have to produce a Linux version of the decoder. There are a few programs out there that can play Quicktime movies, but only the movies that use codecs supported by Linux.
The same thing has happened with AVI on the Mac. There are a few Intel codecs that are used by AVI files which have no Mac version of a decoder. Thus, viewing an AVI on a Mac is kind of a crap shoot. I'm sure that this is a planned thing by Intel. Fortunately AVI seems to be dying a slow death as better formats are appearing.
That being said, Quicktime fully supports mpg. In fact, there are only a few odd or proprietary formats that Quicktime can't or doesn't support.
Re:quicktime? (Score:2)
Sorenson has nothing to do with it. Apple has exclusive licensing rights for the codec. Steve Jobs would rather lose his left testicle than see a Sorenson codec for linux. Honestly - that is all there is to it. People from Apple have posted as much to Slashdot if you care to search the archives. Sorenson has responded as such to queries from the xanim developer.
The patent will not expire for more than a decade, so this one is going to stick. The only tractable solution is to bug every single person that uses the Sorenson codec to please use another codec - like Cinepak or Radius. Sorenson is a really nice codec, but the web was founded on open formats.
Re:what is adb? (Score:3, Informative)
~Philly
Re:what is adb? (Score:2)
10kbps bandwidth with ADB... (Score:2)
Re:what is adb? (Score:2)
Apple Desktop Bus. That thing that the keyboard and mouse (and possibly other things like modems and what not) used to be plugged into. It disappeard about the time the iMac first showed up.
When they switched to a new stanxdard which was based on ADB called USB.
Not many people know that the USB protocol is based on the ADB protocol.
And before Apple started to use USB, USB was better know as "unused Serial Bus'.
Apple was the first to really use it.
Re:10 years and still no Open Source implementatio (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:QuickTime clients are horrible (Score:2)
I am constantly amazed at the Quicktime UI. Apple, without a doubt, has some of the most talented designers in the world. And after so many years to work on it, it still manages to release the most incredibly AWFUL client software for Quicktime.
It's an historical case study [iarchitect.com] in bad interface design! And every subsequent version is just as bad. Clunky UI elements. Inconsistent behaviour. Complete absence of any sort of optimization.
The very awfulness of it is fascinating. It's the roadside car wreck of software development.
hell the current version of the Windows client still hasn't even implemented a full-screen mode...
Oh, it's there. But you have to pay extra for it! Unbelievable.
Re:QuickTime clients are horrible (Score:2)
You have no idea what you're talking about. The release version of Quicktime 4 fixed none of the problems listed. Quicktime 5 still suffers from many of the same problems.
It still brazenly defies one of Apple's own cardinal rules of UI design -- that you should always use common UI elements and dialogs, so that all applications behave consistently. Instead, the Quicktime client does everything with a custom, nonstandard hack, even simply opening a file. The UI community has learned since then that that is not always the case.
You say that like it wasn't already painfully obvious even before the software was released.
RTFM (Score:2)
Re:Yeah right! (Score:5, Informative)
What Quicktime got right (and it saddens me to see people falling over themselves to flame it B3KUZ 1TZ PRUHP1Et4RY) was that they spec'ed a really nice, solid API with architectural room to grow. When Quicktime was released, mainstream personal computers had 16-33 MHz CPU's, maxed out at 8-16 megabytes of RAM, a 32-bit video card cost >$1000, etc.
Quicktime's API was so clean that a video playing application (such as Popcorn or the original Simple Player) written for Quicktime 1.0 in 1991 can still run on top of Quicktime 5.x today, taking advantage of all the codecs written in the interim period. When Apple added PNG support to Quicktime, any program that relied on Quicktime for graphics file import immediately gained the ability to read PNG files, without even a recompile.
Quicktime is not a video player, it is not a streaming plugin, and it is not a replacement for MPEG.
Re:Yeah right! (Score:2)
Re:proof? (Score:2)
The next version of Quicktime will support MPEG4 but not DiVX.
The file format MPEG4 uses is the quicktime file format.
Re:Apple's a Black Hole (Score:3, Insightful)
hey've opened part of it, so far. the streaming server is open source.
Yup, and it runs on Linux, NT and MacOS (X).
Second, contrary to WMP and REAL it is completely free.
And with the MPEG4 codec you'll have the best streaming video solution on the market.
Re:Stoopid mistakes in article (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not an open format ! (Score:2)
I am fed up with this Quicktime !
I am running Unix systems on my machines and I am really fed up to hit the famous: This web page require a quick time plug-in, go to download it !
THERE IS NO QUICKTIME PLUG-IN FOR UNIX
How good can be a format that is not OPEN ????
Developper have to buy the right to code a reader for this format !
This is outrageous ! But, after all, Apple and Microsoft have the same goal... world domination. Microsoft had just done some steps further than Apple. That's all.
I am fed up with this Apache !
I am running Windows systems on my machines and I am really fed up to hit the famous: This IIS server needs to be patched in order to not kill routers and tie up Internet traffic with malicious worms like Code Red and Nimda! Go run Apache if you want a real Web server!
THERE IS NO APACHE WEB SERVER FOR WINDOWS!
How good can be a Web server be that is not running on Windows ????
Developper have to buy a non-Windows computer to run this Web server !
This is outrageous ! But, after all, Microsoft and Linux/UNIX have the same goal... world domination. Microsoft had just done some steps further than Linux. That's all.
Re:yuck (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure, QuickTime isn't perfect, but it's the best alternative, IMO.
Mr. Sharumpe
Re:typical rewriting of history (Score:2)
Video compression had been worked on for years by that point. People were already talking about object-based video compression. The 68020 was being used in desktop workstations running UNIX.
Both then and now, Apple put a nice face on existing technology.
you don't quite understand (Score:2)
You are confusing APIs and streaming/archival formats. I don't care what kind of formats you or Apple use for authoring or in the privacy of your own home.
What I care about is the fact that huge amounts of video data of public interest are being stored in a proprietary format that only Apple has the keys to.
Unless you have pointers to a project working on a cross-platform multimedia architecture then methinks you haven't the foggiest.
See, unlike you, I actually have developed video software. I don't want Apple's "architecture". In fact, dealing with Quicktime has been one of the most problematic issues when developing cross-platform solutions. I want a reasonably high quality, publically documented interchange and streaming format that I can use together with libraries and viewers of my choosing. And I don't want a couple of companies to hold the keys to media content.
Controlling video content is a lucrative business and Apple's business strategy has been deliberate. But there is no reason that the rest of the world should go for that. Video content is too important to leave it at the whims of a couple of big software companies with uncertain futures.
As a "digital media specialist", I think you should think a little further than just the next web site.
Re:typical rewriting of history (Score:2, Interesting)
The point of my MNG comment was rhetorical, and properly expanded/disambiguated would have been soomething like this:
"What suitable replacement options do you have for the Quicktime architecture? MNG?"
Yes, MNG has it's place, and will I'm sure be supported as an import, track, and export media type within Quicktime. We currently have PNG support everywhere that counts, it's not much of a leap. My point was that all the non-Quicktime options out there are primarily distribution formats/codecs, not the all-encompassing media architecture that Quicktime provides. Even if you were wanting to end up with an MNG file there would be benefits to using Quicktime to produce it - namely, the application support and integration of multiple media types available on Mac OS and Windows. Yes, if you just have a bunch of still frames to merge into an MNG this is trivial - but if you want to produce video in an NLE with content coming from a variety of sources, Quicktime is the foundation that makes this happen.
Cheers,
BB
Re:How about a decent plugin? (Score:2)
someone modded my original comment as 'flaimbait'. i think it's a reasonable complaint, after all, the MacOS plugin exposes an object model to AppleScript (hardly a standard) why not expose the same model to JavaScript?
Re:Might be nice in principle, but.... (Score:2)
Well, here I go.. Feeding the trolls again..
If the interface on the client is so horrible, find an undergraduate CS major taking a software design class and having him help you build your own!!! Quicktime is a programming API... The client is just an app that passes calls the API.. Have you ever used a Mac? If you have one available, or can find one to sit down in front of for a few minutes, pop open something like SimpleText and open a movie.. SimpleText will call the Quicktime API and have it play the movie within the SimpleText window.. Then pop open iCab.. iCab is happy as a clam letting Quicktime render images and movies..
The point is, that there's no reason a simple, bare-bones, client couldn't be written that supports playlists, and windows 3.0 type dialog boxes..
As for the 99% cpu at double size option; all I can say is Wow!.. I just popped open one of large pixar trailers on my B&W G3 450 with 64MB RAM and at double size it used about 10% of the cpu at 12.25 fps, and at some size (non-integer scaling) greater than 200% it only used less than 15% of the cycles.. Huh..
Re:1991 (Score:2)
Well, it started around then anyway. I think it's impacted more lives in better ways than id Software or Linux have.
Quicktime on the other hand, was the pioneer of digital video. Without digital video, we wouldn't have DVDs, digital cable, streaming media (not good media anyway), or people digitally filming movies in Australia and sending the recording to California to have special effects added.
I'd rather have the fall of communism, but QuickTime has (indirectly) affected more people in more ways than Linux or id have.
--Dan
Re:1991 (Score:2)
-jfedor
Re:Hypercard? (Score:3, Interesting)
Hypercard is what I used to learn how to program. I did some stuff with BASIC on an Apple][e and C/64 before that, but it never amounted to much.
Hypercard, on the other hand, let you do some seriously cool stuff. Once I got into programming Hypercard it opened up a whole universe to me. It had an API (RCMD) that allowed you to hook C or Pascal programs in, which got me into C, and the rest is history :)
If the rumours of Apple bringing it back are true, then I will be really happy. I can't think of a better way to get kids into programming.
Re:Hi. I'm Brian Eno. (Score:2)
Thank you for the compliment.
This response was, yes, meant to be sarcastic. Brian Eno is one of those guys who people in the music industry seem to attribute everything to. First he invented synth music. Then he invented electronica. Then he invented synthesized drums. On and on and on, like a snowball of stupidity. The guy is basically responsible for nothing. Synth music is over a hundred years old. Electronica was around in the late 1930s. Synthesized drums were around in the 1950s. Brian Eno popped up in the mid '70s, and took credit for the work of other obscure musicians and inventors..
I felt it was worthy of pointing this out, because to this day people still slap his name on news articles like he's some sort of authority. He isn't. Brian Eno's opinion on X, whatever X is, matters about as much as asking the local assistant pastry chef at a bakery about subatomic physics.
.