Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Apple Businesses

QuickTime To Move To MPEG-4 173

Posted by timothy from the quicktime-is-polymorphously-perverse dept.
spav writes: "Looks like Apple will be embracing MPEG-4 for its new versions of QuickTime according to C|Net News.com. That could mean quicktime for Linux, but would we need it?" This sounds like a start toward OS-neutral video, but until companies decide not to add proprietary layers making otherwise widely-available formats unavailable, it won't be the end. The first half of this article dwells on QuickTime's 10th birthday, but then gives slightly more detail on the MPEG4 transition.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

QuickTime To Move To MPEG-4 More

QuickTime To Move To MPEG-4

Comments Filter:

  • Sweet (Score:1, Funny)

    by sllort ( 442574 )
    Quicktime is always asking me to upgrade to Quicktime Pro. I guess they just meant MPEG-4. And to think, I already had it.
    • "'I guess they just meant MPEG-4. And to think, I already had it."

      So where did you get it? AFAIK, MPEG-4 hasn't been finalized yet. You did read the article, right? The article says, "Once the licensing questions are resolved, companies will still need to put products on the market."

      People like MS are bandying about products called MPEG-4 and MP4, but they are not true MPEG-4 products.

    • Re:Quicktime Pro (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Quicktime Pro "activates" is what you get when you put a SN into Quicktime. Inserting the SN grants you increased functionality - Full Screen Playback, Splicing Movies, Converting Movie Formats as well as numerious other things that i dont know about (visit www.apple.com/quicktime/ for further info. as for MPEG-4 multiplatform i suggest you examin 3ivx - from what i udnerstand the 3ivx group is part of mpeg and their codex is avaliable on windows (all), macOS(pre and post 10), Unix/Linux (for both xAnim and OpenQuicktime), BEOS and amegia (for MooVid & SoftCinima) for more information check www.3ivx.com.

      So you see, MPEG-4 is not new, nor is "multiplatform" mpeg-4... but its great to see it getting the recognition it deserves
    • This worked for me with Mac OS 9.2.1. It will probably work with other platforms as well.

      Set your computer's date a couple years ahead, and open Quicktime, preferably for the first time that day. Reset your date, of course, and voila!

      I have not seen the nag screen since.
  • So now we will have ten years with MPEG-4 after ten years with Apply stuff :-)

    Ten years with MacOS (or more) and now ten years with BSD :-)

  • Of course! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Cave Dweller ( 470644 ) on Wednesday December 05, 2001 @09:21AM (#2659360)
    "That could mean quicktime for Linux, but would we need it?"...

    Uhh, I dunno, I mean, all those pr0^W game trailers would be available for watching..

    • I think he means that thre are plenty [htp] of other [sf.net] MPEG-4 players out there that are open source, and much better than Quicktime

      • Re:Of course! (Score:2, Informative)

        by Graff ( 532189 )

        Quicktime is not just a player, it's a very useful file format that holds tons of extras, such as alternate soundtracks, multimedia compositing, text tracts, midi tracks, meta data to direct the combining of layers, etc. It is simply amazing what you can do inside a Quicktime file, as opposed to a simple video file.

        Not to mention that the Quicktime Streaming Server [apple.com] is open source and free [apple.com], in all senses of the word.

    • I agree.
      This means it wouldn't be such a pain in the @$$ to get a download on new Star Wars trailers (no matter what platform you're on).
      I wasted several days trying to compile a copy of 'Mystery' (the DVD special) on my HDD (my connection sucks and I didn't want to download it each time I wanted to see it - yes, I am one of those fans who would watch the trailer several times).

  • Platform neutral... eh ? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MosesJones ( 55544 ) on Wednesday December 05, 2001 @09:23AM (#2659370) Homepage
    MPEG 4 allows you to put lots of things inside the stream, all of them can be platform specific, or hardware specific or whatever. MPEG2 was a rendering of video standard. MPEG4 is a bundling of multimedia content standard. HTML, MPEG2, whatever can be bundled.

    So maybe they'll just bundle QuickTime movies inside the MPEG4 stream but allow a "Flash" style overlay in another content stream.

    • Re:Platform neutral... eh ? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by znu ( 31198 ) <znu.public@gmail.com> on Wednesday December 05, 2001 @09:53AM (#2659509)
      Where do you think the MPEG-4 file format came from? It's QuickTime's file format, or something very close; Apple submitted it to MPEG. So this won't really be a very large change for QuickTime.

      This isn't going to do a damn thing for Linux; the QuickTime file format was already completely documented. The problem is codecs, and as you point out, MPEG-4 does nothing to prevent encapsulation of stuff encoded with proprietary codecs.

      Now, if everyone starts using the video codec frequently called MPEG-4 (not to be confused with the file format specification called MPEG-4) along with MP3 sound tracks, maybe we'll finally get fully standards-based video. But Sorenson 3 is a damn tough codec to beat on quality.
      • > But Sorenson 3 is a damn tough codec to beat on quality.

        Speaking of which, does anyone know how I can get the Sorenson codec for Winblows without having to play a .MOV and let WinMediaPlayer "update itself"? It should be as simple as shoving a few DLLs in C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM, no?

        Gotta update a buncha '98 boxen that aren't net.connected. I have no interest in a separate Quicktime player, just want the damn codec for WinMediaPlayer.

    • Let me guess... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by wirefarm ( 18470 )
      The first push to use those extra layers will be for licensing.
      I doubt it will be for things that actually *improve* the end viewer's experience, but more for things that *limit* your allowed experience.
      Why do I have this feeling? Before I moved from the US, I used to love wathing foreign films; I would watch Asian or European films with English Subtitles. (On VHS from any video store.) I naively figured that with DVD technology, I would be able to rent a French movie in Tokyo and be able to turn on English subtitles. I mean, your typical DVD movie is ~4GB- that leaves what, like 3GB for 'extras'? I guessed that multi-lingual subs would be a no-brainer.
      Guess what? I over-estimated the no-brainer part...
      With this bad taste already in my mouth, I have little hope that Quicktime will use these extra 'layers' in any way that I will find useful.
    • There are "profiles" for MPEG-4 that specify certain combinations of codecs (and exclude anything else). Most MPEG-4 video will comply to one of the profiles that precludes random proprietary stuff from being embedded in the stream, thus you will be able to play them with open source tools like MPEG4IP.

  • Quicktime for Linux? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ebooher ( 187230 ) on Wednesday December 05, 2001 @09:25AM (#2659384) Homepage Journal

    Ok, label me as naive here, but how does the inclusion of MPEG-4 video have anything to do with Quicktime being available for Linux? (Which it already is by the way, in a manner of speaking.)

    It isn't like the Sorenson codec couldn't run under Linux. It runs just find under BSD/Darwin with Quartz (read as OS X). Apple just has absolutely no interest in making a streaming video client for Linux.

    The standard and original Quicktime libraries have been available on Linux for a while, check out http://www.heroinewarrior.com/quicktime.php3 [heroinewarrior.com] but all of the "cool movie trailers" available on Apple's website are in Sorenson, and it's Sorenson that isn't available under Linux. Chances are, if they *do* embrace MPEG-4 it will probably be an Apple / Quicktime specific version so that we still won't see it under Linux.

    However, I've read that their streaming video server runs just fine.

    Just my 2 cents worth of nothing

    • I suspect that it will be a sorensen codec to MPEG and thus it will STILL not be possible to see movie trailers under Linux.


      But since many movies now are created using Linux I wonder why they do not put out trailers that can be viewed on Linuxes.

      • Compression. Apparently it gives some nice balance between compression and performance. I wouldn't know. I'm just a poor Linux user looking at file sizes on ftp servers.

        Anyway, with the Crossover [codeweavers.com] plugin (or just use wine), you can look at Quicktime.

        I just don't understand why Apple won't release a viewer for Linux.

    • I happen to have written a QuickTime transcoder here [sourceforge.net]. If, in a fit of altruism, I transcoded popular movie trailers from Sorenson and put them on the web would I be guilty of something?
      • IANA(copyright)L, but I believe that this would fall under fair use, just as if you photocopied a book into a larger resolution for someone who was blind. Of course, this being digital and all, all bets are off. Since the sorenson codec is proprietary, could it be considered encryption?
        • I am not a lawyer either, but I'm pretty sure you can't go around copying stuff you don't own and then giving it away no matter how altruistic your motives are. The best defense in this case would be that there is no market, per se, for these trailers since they are free of charge to begin with.

      • If, in a fit of altruism, I transcoded popular movie trailers from Sorenson and put them on the web would I be guilty of something?

        Guilty of something, but it probably wouldn't be copyright infringement. United States copyright law, 17 USC 107 [cornell.edu], provides exceptions for "fair use" of a copyrighted work. As ichimunki pointed out, because you would normally post the trailers for the purpose of promoting the movie (criterion 1), because the trailer is expressly designed for such use (criterion 2), and because the trailers were free anyway (no economic market; criterion 4), a judge with sense would find that transcoding and posting the trailers does not infringe on the studio's bottom line.

        However, to cover your @$$, please ask first. Tell the studio that millions of users of BSD and Linux operating systems cannot run QuickTime Player and will have more of a chance of seeing the film if they can see the trailer, and that your mirror of the trailer will help save on their Akamai mirroring bill. If you ask, and the studio declines, then you can post your "Disney Sucks!" or "AOL Pictures Sucks!" page explaining exactly why the trailers are not available.

        DMCA Disclaimer: Current interpretations of 17 USC 1201 treat circumvention and infringement as orthogonal offences. Whether a work is eligible for Section 1201 restrictions against circumvention depends only on if a copyright exists (term determined by the Bono Act [wikipedia.com]), not on whether the circumvention is also an act of infringement.

  • MPEG 4 is already based on Quicktime format (Score:3, Informative)

    by abiogenesis ( 124320 ) on Wednesday December 05, 2001 @09:25AM (#2659385)
    MPEG-4 standard, as defined by the ISO, is already based on Quicktime format. Don't be fooled just because Microsoft and DivX has created their own proprietary formats before the standards has been put down.

    http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/quicktime/qt de vdocs/QTFF/qtff.html
    • The MPEG4 file format is based on the QuickTime file format. The codec is not derived from Apple technology, otherwise I would be able to watch MPEG4 videos already on my mac....

    • Re:MPEG 4 is already based on Quicktime format (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Well, gee. You mean Microsoft and DivX didn't wait for the stiffs at ISO to release a 'standard' before producing something consumers wanted?

      I bet that just frosts those guys at the ISO who were hoping to sell copies of their published standard for $500 a crack (no electronic copy available, too easy for people to distribute.)

  • Quicktime (Score:4, Informative)

    by eXtro ( 258933 ) on Wednesday December 05, 2001 @09:28AM (#2659396) Homepage
    Contrary to Timothy's rant, Quicktime itself is a published file format. The most commonly used CODEC used with Quicktime, Sorensen, isn't open or published however. There's ample published information on reading the Quicktime file format, there's even a couple of Open Source projects that can parse it. If the data the file format contains is Sorensen compressed then your S.O.L. for displaying it.


    If MPEG4 is the CODEC then the data will be displayable assuming there are MPEG4 decoders, which I think there are.

  • Quicktime has been linked with MPEG 4 since 1998 (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 05, 2001 @09:31AM (#2659415)
    MPEG-4 is actually based on work done in QuickTime back in 1998. Here is a link to a story from 1998: http://www.internetwk.com/news/news0211-15.htm (and another from Wired) :
    http://www.wired.com/news/news/business/story/10 25 5.html

    Here is the Apple press release: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/1998/feb/11iso.htm l

    I'm sure there is some ranting to be done about Apple here, but let's not get to reactionary about this.
    • Ok, lets set this straight. The *file format* for MPEG-4 is based on that of quicktime. Defining the file format is like a millionth of the total work done on MPEG-4. ISO didn't define the file format for jpeg for example, which led to some problems, so this time they decided to define everything. Oh, and speaking of microsoft and divx, this is how I recall things happened (an mpeg guy told me): Microsoft offered the group to implement all ideas for the format, so that they could see the effect of various decisions. This naturally was a good thing (TM), however, when others wanted to see the actual code, ms denied that. So a european initiative started under some German company IIRC, to develop an open source implementation. Maybe it was called divx already here, maybe not. They caught up pretty much with MS, but then there was some problem with that code, it belonged to the company even though it was open source, so the project forked, one was rewriting it from the ground, and another continued on the work already done. So I believe that the rumour that divx is based on a hacked ms codec is bull. Also, MS added some extra bits to the file format, and doesn't call it MPEG-4 anymore, but rather MPGE-4 based or something to that effect. Sorry I'm so vague with the details.

  • Don't Steal Music? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Bwana ( 2384 ) on Wednesday December 05, 2001 @09:32AM (#2659421) Homepage
    This is good news for Apple, but there is a snippet of this article that raises an interesting issue:

    Analysts predict that rather than pursue an "embrace and extend" strategy, Microsoft and RealNetworks will stick to their guns and continue marketing their own formats. Although those products will not have MPEG-4's interoperability, the companies say advantages include smaller file size, better image and sound quality, and more advanced digital rights management software. Both RealNetworks and Microsoft have invested heavily in creating anti-copying technology that would make it safe for record labels and other content owners to sell their products online.

    Steve Jobs' stance has always been that stealing music is a problem of the "community" and not "technology". I wonder if Apple will stand behind this philosophy with MPEG4 or join Microsoft and Real Networks in their security schemes. Just a thought.
    • The whole...

      "the companies say advantages include smaller file size, better image and sound quality, and more advanced digital rights management software."

      section is referring to Microsoft and Real, not Apple. Just turn the words over in your head a couple times, and it makes sense.
    • Microsoft have invested heavily in creating anti-copying technology that would make it safe for record labels and other content owners to sell their products online.

      Bwahahaha! Is this the same protection they used for Windows XP which took, what, two days to crack?

  • "Would we need it?"? Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Wakko Warner ( 324 ) on Wednesday December 05, 2001 @09:32AM (#2659422) Homepage Journal
    You *do* know there are various different kinds of things that are labeled "MPEG 4", right? Up until recently, we couldn't play "DiVX ;-)" files, for example, on Linux, and that was a hacked-up version of Microsoft's MPEG-4 implementation (which we also couldn't play). The only reason they play on Linux at all is because someone swiped the libraries from a Microsoft player and figured out how to hook into them. Do you really think, once Apple figures out how to make their own, proprietary version of MPEG 4, that Linux will stand a chance in Hades of playing any more movie trailers than it can today?

    - A.P.
    • 1) Although DivX;-) was a bit slow about it, they do now maintain an official Linux binary release of the codec (and it really rocks!).

      2) Apple has always been very good about maintaining standards, and keeping their specifications open - the Sorenson codec definitely seems to be the exception to the rule.

      3) I don't think that Apple will release a non-standard MPEG-4 codec - I assume that they will simply release an MPEG-4 codec for quicktime.

      -justin
      • The sorenson codec is not developed by apple, it is created by the sorenson media company [sorenson.com]. I don't think it is fair to blame apple for not releasing the sorenson codec to Linux, it is not theirs to port.

        • Re:"Would we need it?"? Huh? (Score:1, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          We already had this discussion about Sorenson about a year ago, in short
          1. Sorenson is only the codec and Sorenson said they were ready to port it for use with Linux (means any Quicktime-Parser) but Apple blocked
          2. Sorenson is only the codec and Apple probably can do what they want with it so when they would release Quicktime for Linux we all could watch the next Star Wars Trailer

          jm2c

      • 2) Apple has always been very good about maintaining standards, and keeping their specifications open - the Sorenson codec definitely seems to be the exception to the rule.

        The Sorensen codec isn't owned by Apple, just licensed, so it isn't theirs to publish.
    • While using the win32 libs is still a very popular widespread method, ffmpeg and opendivx native linux cores are often used to play back divx content. My DivX with MP3 audio avi files play without any win32 stuff needed (so non-x86 DivX playback is possible). I keep win32 stuff around for Indeo avis (Xanim has a native module, but doesn't support mp3 audio tracks) and other random stuff, but for the DivX I don't need dlls...
  • "That could mean quicktime for Linux, but would we need it?"

    Three words: Star Wars Trailers!
  • I'm not sure how Quicktime is necessarily relevant from Linux, but I know that Linux could use all the help it can get in the movie department.


    I have been running three Linux servers (good 'ol LAMP) and a Win2K desktop for the past year or so, and decided that the only way I could learn more about my servers is if I immersed myself in Linux all the time. After installing RedHat 7.2 on my desktop, everything for the most part worked great, EXCEPT for the video.

    Frames were constantly being lost or being frozen. I had incredible difficulty resolving dependencies when COMPILING FROM SOURCE (this isn't an example of rpm problems). And about half of the MPEG's I have simply don't play. I don't know whether this is due to "proprietary" MPEG formats that Windows Media Player supports, or if it's just a matter of me not having the right codecs, but it's frusturating as all hell, and I feel it's one of the biggest issues preventing Linux from becoming a viable desktop OS, even for the not-entirely-newbie of us.


    NSParadox

    • lamp? Is that what you use? You might want to check out PythonTheater (http://xtheater.sourceforge.net/) or mplayer (http://mplayer.sourceforge.net/) if you don't want any gui.

      My experience with MPG is that mplayer and SMPEG-based projects play more of my MPGs than either WMP or Xing. between those two I can play them all, but I have one MPG that only works with Xing and smpeg...

      Anyway, avifile-0.6 based products cover all my wmvs, avis, and asfs, and mplayer does the same.
      For Quicktime, I use Xanim (http://xanim.va.pubnix.com/) when they are older, and for the Sorenson based stuff I resort to wine to run the Windows Quicktime player, which works ok, except the Interface gets a bit garbled, though the movie looks fine. CodeWeavers CrossOver plugin seems to resolve these issues if you're willing to pay.

      Multimedia playback under linux is great. The only format that I have not been able to view under linux one way or another is VIVO, and mplayer seems to be trying to get that working even.

      Another piece of advice when dealing with realmedia under linux, have both the Realplayer 8 installed and the RealOne alpha installed. Use the alpha when you can get away with it as it takes advantage of the XVideo extension and does fullscreen well. Real8 is needed to fall back on when RealOne flakes out (as it often does)

  • Clever people (Score:4, Insightful)

    by YearOfTheDragon ( 527417 ) on Wednesday December 05, 2001 @09:34AM (#2659434) Homepage
    "In order for (MPEG-4) to succeed as a standard, it has to be used," said Susan Kevorkian, an analyst with IDC.
    Excel files are a standard for most business.
    But this don't makes Excel files a standard but only a common used format.
    While industry didn't understand this difference, standards aren't going to success.
    • Read carefully, he says to *succeed* as a standard. Yes, it can be considered a standard, even if it isn't widely used, but then it wouldn't be successful. Of course to even suggest that MPEG-4 is not really called for is silly. I mean look at all the DivX and related MPEG-4 based codecs that came out because people were essentially to wait for the standard to be finalized. Judging by these codecs, MPG-4 is a *really* necessary thing. High quality and low space usage. Maybe it doesn't scale as high as MPG-2, but for space-critical multimedia, MPG-4 is an excellent compromise.
    • The industry understands quite well. There are official standards (say, 802.11) and de facto standards (of which Excel is a good example). Sometimes the marketplace runs ahead of the standards bureaucracy. That often leads to proprietary lock-in, but businesses need to inter-operate with their partners, and if it means (say) exchanging Word documents to do it, that's what they'll settle for.

      • There are official standards (say, 802.11) and de facto standards (of which Excel is a good example).

        Excel is not a standard. By definition, a standard includes human-readable documentation of what meets or does not meet the standard. Excel is a proprietary format with a widely available reference implementation, and this implementation likes to segfault (instead of failing gracefully) whenever an Excel document contains anything invalid.

        Sometimes the marketplace runs ahead of the standards bureaucracy.

        I remember when applications came with complete file format documentation. If they didn't, it was available cheap from the app publisher.

        businesses need to inter-operate with their partners, and if it means (say) exchanging Word documents to do it, that's what they'll settle for.

        Why can't they exchange HTML documents instead?

  • Huh? Is this a chicken or egg thingy?

    Up until now, I tought all of the pundits were crowing about what a victory it was for Apple, having the MPEG-4 being based off of QuickTime. Now they're talking about the new QuickTime being based off of MPEG-4.

    QuickTime already supports SWF (Flash 4) embedding as well as a slew of other formats, and IMNSHO its only real failing is in the fact that it still doesn't officialy work on UNIX/Linux (Mac OS X excepted). However, the BSD underpinnings of Mac OS X may change that...

    ...as soon as they find some Linux coders that'll sign the non-disclosure agreement.
  • OS independent codec? I'd be happy as heck.
    Every time I get another machine running, it won't play half the movies that are out there.
    On windoze, WMP has to contact server for codec. How many times "cannot download" screens pop-up in your face.
    Fortunately, I've found a little (Well, 6 megs) called Nimovs codec pack. It installs about 20 different codecs.
    Someday, a standard may be in place where all people encode with one great codec.

  • I'm more excited about Apple's newly announced Final Cut Pro 3 [apple.com], which has a new OfflineRT format that offers over 40 minutes of footage per gigabyte. That's dramatically less than typical DV which stores only 5 min. per GB.

    Hopefully Apple will release an updated iMovie so us non-FCP users can get the benefits of OfflineRT.


  • QuickTime was choosen as a basis for MPEG-4.
  • I've used many a multimedia tool under Linux and granted some of them are Ok, but the POLISH that would be applied to a Quicktime implementation would be appretiated.

    I think multimedia under Linux has a long way to come and will be one of the clenchers of Joe Average's continuing adoption.

    In other words; make it easy to view the pr0n, and they will come runnin'.


  • Downloadable codecs are just as bad as things like
    plug-ins, and shockwave. It means that Linux will get
    the shaft, as usual.

    You see, MIcrosoft requires that Apple not make QuickTime
    for Linux; otherwise they will pull Explorer and Office for
    the Mac.
    • Doesn't matter, the Quicktime format is generally made publicly known, and MPEG-4, of course, will be as well. We already have Quicktime for Linux. It's just that they only have the more open codecs which are not popular. For older Quicktime closed codecs there is Xanim. I would wager that the Quicktime for Linux project will be able to add MPEG-4 support and then get a *lot* more useful. Until then there is always Wine (which does work if you coax it enough). If you can't figure out how to make Wine do it, there is always CodeWeavers Crossover plugin. Of course the Wine solutions are x86 only, but with the use of MPEG-4 on the horizon, maybe we will have a more cross-platform style. Of course, it seems silly that all these formats are converging on the same codecs. Nice for developers, but then why bother with .mov files when .avi files will have identical codecs for the most part?
    • "You see, MIcrosoft requires that Apple not make QuickTime
      for Linux; otherwise they will pull Explorer and Office for
      the Mac."

      That's a pretty bold claim -- do you have any evidence or a citation to back that up?
  • http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=24422&cid=2649 039

    I had originally said that MPEG4 would kill quicktime and it's bastardly codecs. Interesting that they went this way with it!

    Now I guess the only competition is who can add more worthless bloat to their media player. I think Real is in the lead, with windows media player 2nd and quicktime oddly last. Come on quicktime! We NEED 50 buttons for "download spam" like real player and windows media player have!!

  • Completely ignorant article, as usual (Score:5, Informative)

    by lordpixel ( 22352 ) on Wednesday December 05, 2001 @09:53AM (#2659511) Homepage

    As pointed out ad nauseum by people on the last story, QUICKTIME IS A CONTAINER FORMAT. It WRAPS different streams of audio and video.

    The supported audio formats include WAV, AIFF, AU, mp3 and half a dozen others.

    The video standards used have included CinePack, 3 different versions of Sorenson and even Intel's Indeo video (used for years in Microsoft AVIs).

    The container format is supported on Linux Open Quicktime [sourceforge.net]

    The problem is Sorenson is exclusively licensed to Apple and they do not release it for Unix/Linux.

    The other layer of ignorance is that MPEG-4 is also a container method for compressed audio and video streams. In fact its very similar to Quicktime (the packaging standard) indeed because it is actually _based on_ Quicktime!

    That's not going to help Linux if they keep using Sorenson. It might help Mac users watch 3ivx, Divx and whatever other encoding formats are sometimes refered to as MPEG-4. You're not going to find this out from the CNET article though. Actually, since Quicktime is a container format, it supports pluggable codecs, so I watch MPEG4/{X}ivx video in Quicktime already - but it sure would be nice if Apple shipped those codecs out of the box.

    The article is BS on many other points in any case - I would estimate over 50% of the streaming video I see out there is available in Quicktime format (though often alongside one of the other two). I mean, its very much the right tool for the right job at present... have you ever seen a good looking movie trailer in Real Video? I've seen a couple of OK ones, but the filesizes were similar to better looking Quicktime packaged (ie, Sorenson encoded) trailers. On the other hand I might use Real where image quality is less important. Oh, and of course, Quicktime includes mp3 support - its not competing with it!

    So what does all this mean? Obviously Apple adopting MPEG4 could mean one of two things:

    • Since the MPEG 4 packaging standard is based on QuickTime, perhaps they are just updating it so the next Quicktime is 100% compatible with the official standard. This would certainly help the Open Quicktime people, as they can then just write to the MPEG-4 standard
    • It may mean Apple are going to ship the codecs commonly used with MPEG-4 (ie, the {X}ivx variants, FivX, 3ivx etc). That would help Linux because it would mean more Quicktime movies would exist compressed in formats which are available on Linux.

    If Apple stick with pushing Sorenson as the primary codex (and hey, it is *really* nice looking) and don't ship any of the typical MPEG4 codecs, well that's not much news. If they ship {X}ivx alongside Sorenson, that's great because it allows content producers to choose, and Linux users can ask them to choose the more widely available {X}ivx compressors.

    If I was more naive I'd say I can't believe CNET were presenting the "move" to MPEG4 as a retreat for Quicktime. MPEG 4 is the standardization of Quicktime and a vindication of its owenership of the professional market! Are they stupid or deliberately spinning it - you decide!

    So all in all the CNET article is biased, tells you very little about what's actually been announced (is it new codecs? is it more standards compliance?) and tries to spin a victory as a defeat. Oh yeah, and Timothy's comments show he has no clue in this area either...

    • Re:Completely ignorant article, as usual (Score:4, Informative)

      by Aapje ( 237149 ) on Wednesday December 05, 2001 @11:14AM (#2659908) Journal
      Sorenson is working on a Mpeg-4 codec. I've seen beta versions floating around. I believe that this announcement means one of two things:

      1. Sorenson Mpeg-4 will be bundled with Quicktime, which is to be expected. Apple will probably make a big deal of it. This won't help Linux one bit as the codec will still be proprietary.
      2. Apple will adapt Quicktime so that it will easily work with codecs that follow one of the ISO MPEG-4 profile codec definitions. This is also to be expected. Mpeg-4 will allow you to use the same codec with any video-architecture that supports Mpeg-4 (Quicktime, WMP, Real, etc).
      Take your pick.

      Here's a link: 9 januari, behold the beta of Sorenson Mpeg-4 [sorenson.com]

      PS. Could someone mod down lordpixel, his sensible post doesn't fit it with the other posts: "F*ck Apple, why can't I play Quicktime trailers? It's a conspiracy."
      PS2. 90% of the posts can be answered with this: "complain with Sorenson to port the codec to Linux".
      PS3. This topic is about Quicktime. Not Linux.
      • >PS2. 90% of the posts can be answered with this: >"complain with Sorenson to port the codec to Linux".

        Unfortunately I think Apple require Sorenson to exclusively license their products to only Apple, at least as far as the decoders go. Otherwise I guess we might see Sorenson support in Windows Media Player or Real.

        I know this was true for earlier Sorenson, can't see it having changed for 3.

        So Apple are not off the hook...
        • I think Apple require Sorenson to exclusively license their products to only Apple

          The way I understood the Apple Quicktime/Linux problem, Apple and Sorenson are busy childishly pointing fingers at each other as the reason they can't do a Linux version. Sorenson says "Apple can do Sorenson on Linux if they write Quicktime player for it" and Apple says "We can't write a Quicktime player for Linux without Sorenson on it first".

          Ogg Tarkin, where are you? :-)

          • Apple says "We can't write a Quicktime player for Linux without Sorenson on it first".

            False. Search the public record [google.com] and you will not see any instance where Apple has said this is Sorenson's fault. Apple reps never even use the words "Sorenson" and "Linux" in the same sentence. Talk to the hand.

            You will probably notice there are also damn few instances of Sorenson talking about it. The terms "exclusive contract" and "hush money" come to mind. But when they do speak, Sorenson always says "ask Apple".

            I'm an EvangeLista, but I do hate two things about Apple: their legal department and their unwillingness to port Sorenson.
    • The other layer of ignorance is that MPEG-4 is also a container method for compressed audio and video streams. In fact its very similar to Quicktime (the packaging standard) indeed because it is actually _based on_ Quicktime! [...] If I was more naive I'd say I can't believe CNET were presenting the "move" to MPEG4 as a retreat for Quicktime. MPEG 4 is the standardization of Quicktime and a vindication of its owenership of the professional market! Are they stupid or deliberately spinning it - you decide!

      For this and many other reasons, MPEG-4 may simply fail to address the needs that an audio/video standard should address, primarily something that is fully and completely documented and hence can be used for archiving video in a way that is guaranteed to be accessible independent of any particular platform or proprietary and undocumented "plug-ins". This is a basic problem with Quicktime in many applications, and it is perpetuated in similar form in MPEG-4. And it may turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory for Apple, as people end up using other video formats that satisfy their needs better, or as some subset of MPEG-4 becomes the de-facto standard. More features really isn't always better when it comes to standards or software.

      As for "owning" the "professional market", Quicktime "owns" a particular market segment of a particular kind of desktop users. It is far from the dominant digital video coding format in the world--that honor probably goes to MPEG and MPEG-2. And while Quicktime may be useful for editing and other manipulations on a Macintosh or Windows machine, people working with it would do well to reflect on archival and cross-platform issues when storing video more permanently and distributing it.

  • Maybe this is just a step in the right direction for Apple: first they start using standardized video formats, (we can hope,) and eventually they'll release an Linux-Based Mac OS. If they went open source, they might gain the edge they need to become a serious competitor on the OS market again.

  • OS-neutral? Hmmm... (Score:3, Informative)

    by PRobinson ( 471021 ) on Wednesday December 05, 2001 @09:58AM (#2659531)
    I was at BSDCon Europe last month where Jordan Hubbard (now working at Apple) gave a presentation on all that was brilliant about Mac OS X for the BSD Unix crowd. At the end, in the Q&As, somebody did ask about the porting of Quicktime to other OS.

    From the answer, which was pretty neutral and he didn't seem to want to rock the boat - Jordan rated the chances of it being ported as smaller than slim. Because of all the low-lovel codec code that needs to be ported and optimised for the OS, porting QT is apparently an Evil Job, and they wouldn't have ported to Windows if it wasn't for the fact Windows had such a huge market share.

    In short, don't hold your breath. If it does start making it's way out as a port, expect it for the BSD Unixes first, as they are likely to be the easiest to port to from OS X/Darwin (i.e. nothing more than a recompile on another machine)

  • Quicktime Linux (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Syberghost ( 10557 )
    We'd have had it eventually anyway.

    Sooner or later Apple will tire of shipping and supporting two OSes, and they'll have to write code for OSX supporting all their technologies.

    Once they do, it won't be hard to wrap an emulation layer or two around it for Linux.

    Well, OK, it'll be hard, but not beyond the capabilities of a small Open Source project.
    • We'd have had it eventually anyway.


      Sooner or later Apple will tire of shipping and supporting two OSes, and they'll have to write code for OSX supporting all their technologies.

      Once they do, it won't be hard to wrap an emulation layer or two around it for Linux.
      This statement is so short on actual facts that it's hard to tell where to begin...

      First off, OS X does support QuickTime. I have no idea why anyone would think differently - every publicly available version of OSX (and most of the earlier developer previews), has had QuickTime support. I believe QuickTime was among the first of Apple technologies to be ported.

      Secondly, the statement that "it won't be hard to wrap an emulation layer or two around it for Linux" is really almost funny. It could conceivably be possible for a PowerPC Linux distro to hack up some kind of support based on Mac On Linux [maconlinux.org], but saying that it wouldn't be difficult shows a pretty thorough lack of appreciation for the complexity of QuickTime. And even if you did manage to build this monster, you'd still be limited to using it on PPC machine.

      Unless, of course, you're proposing building a PPC emulator with an embedded hack of QuickTime?
      Go right ahead, I'd love to see it.

      • It could conceivably be possible for a PowerPC Linux distro to hack up some kind of support based on Mac On Linux [maconlinux.org], but saying that it wouldn't be difficult shows a pretty thorough lack of appreciation for the complexity of QuickTime.

        While I agree that it might not be as easy as the OP thinks, it clearly should be doable by the Linux community if they really cared, yet they prefer to bitch about it not being done for them. And while QuickTime itself might be fairly complex, what we're talking about here is one particular codec (Sorenson) that is troublesome. Isolate that portion and get to work. It may take some effort, but the process itself should be fairly straightforward.

        And even if you did manage to build this monster, you'd still be limited to using it on PPC machine.

        Because QuickTime is available for Windows, buried somewhere in that code is the (same) Sorenson codec. Again, it should be possible to isolate and execute that code. I know Linux is capable of running other x86 Unix binaries and some x86 Windows code with Wine, so the groundwork has already been done. Someone who really gives a damn has to bring it all together to give you a Linux Sorenson codec.

  • Think that irks me is that first there was really no player on the mac for things such as DivX (mpeg4 variant) and Mpeg2.

    Heck, windows media player can do mpeg2 (svcd's, essentially)...why can't Qt (on the pc, yes, mac, no)?
    How long has apple promised to get mpeg2 on the mac?

    Now that Mpeg4/DivX's are being picked up by Apple, I wonder if it had anything to do with a certain "trailer website" dumping QT for DivX?

    Heh, like the Bad guy in Highlander said "Ashes to ashes, dust to dust, better take it out and use it, or its going to rust!".

    QT5 on X.1.1 simply rocks, and the ffmpeg codec on divx.jamby.net and the divx fixer on mac.divx.st (classic app) has at least brought Apple to the year 1999 as far a multimedia.
    (low shot, but face it they are dicking the dog with this "great idea, change the world, don't follow thru/have plans deflated".
    (apologies for being to lazy to link)

    Hate to say it, but, as a "platforms hopper"...Jobs has it correct calling his idea a "Digital Hub"...problem is we need a Digital Switch, sorry to say.

    At least that is my current thoughts on the matter.

    Cheers,

    Moose

    .

  • rid yourself of the "Why upgrade?" — slightly OT (Score:5, Informative)

    by slurry47 ( 27097 ) on Wednesday December 05, 2001 @10:11AM (#2659579)
    QuickTime asks you to upgrade on the first application start of each day it's used.

    BEFORE starting QuickTime change your date to a MUCH higher year e.g. 2020.

    Then start QuickTime.

    When asked to "Why upgrade?" click "Later." NOTE: giggle to your self at this point.

    QuickTime won't ask you to upgrade again til the first time you use it in 2020.

    Oh yeah ... change your date back at this point.
  • I just crashed my PC in their honor. Thanks for all the fun, QT!

  • You're forgetting something... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Millennium ( 2451 ) on Wednesday December 05, 2001 @10:30AM (#2659696)
    This sounds like a start toward OS-neutral video, but until companies decide not to add proprietary layers making otherwise widely-available formats unavailable, it won't be the end.
    Um, the QuickTime file format is the standard file format for MPEG-4 (at least, according to the MPEG group's standard). You can find free documentation for it at http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Lakes/2160/ fformats/fformats.htm [geocities.com]; look in the "Animation" section.

    The QuickTime codecs are proprietary, true, as is Apple's own implementation. But the QuickTime file format isn't.
  • (dont read this it is long and more of a brain dump than anything)

    I personally don't have a problem with proprietary layers from various sources. As with the MPEG4 spec, it clearly states that its framework is the starting point and was intended to be both a superset to select from while also the basis for a grander 'format'. However, since it was planned and designed that way, apparently the hope is that any 'optimizations' added are just that, and to be blessed as a true MPEG4 based standard, it would need to be compatable with any other vanilla MPEG4 readers/writers.

    An analogy would be cars on the road, and the standard of how they operate. If I produce a different style of car, perhaps a completely radical powerplant and driving controls, it would still need to operate as any other car would. If my potential customers have to completely relearn how to drive, they will then cease to be my customers. If they cannot easily switch between their other (or their friends') cars, then still they will not like me. Even if the car flies and can operate like a submarine, it would still need to operate the 'same' as any other car when on land.

    The key here is long term planning. While the tactic we most often see in M$ is a basic short term assumption that by making their stuff incompatable with everyone elses, that the users will be forced to adopt the rest of MS's 'stuff'. This plan worked for awhile, when there was really no real competition. Now however, we see many development houses, enterprise customers, and individual customers demanding that the products they buy actually work as promised, with the features as promised, and do indeed act as a tool of the information age should... to interconnect with other information age tools. It is not just M$'s strong arm tactics that drove people away, but rather it is the very market that they operate in. Funny thing about the free market, it is like watching many people fight. When a bully type of aggressor lashes out to strike his latest victim, a wise person notices that he generally opens himself up to attack. The Samurai knew this and counted on it, so that someone attacking them (and that did not know better) would just see some scared looking soldier accepting death. Well, they definitely accepted death, but where not scared... the result was accepting a glancing blow (hopefully none at all) while ripping their attacker up. (and usually gaining a weapon to boot).

    Whether this is about MPEG4, internetworking protocols, messaging protocols, display, etc... it all comes down to "how easy will it be for customers to use my products and services?" I can tell you from personal experience, that after going through MANY vendors for certain functionality, that we found that the main problem was not proprietary formats of internal logic and control, but when those proprietary wrappings extended to the actual display, interface and interconnectivity of the various inter and intra components. By 'hardwiring' in these aspects instead of practicing modern professional abstracted design, we found that their products would cost us more in the tooling (integration and config), software and hardware upgrading and switchover, and the maintainence and training for these new setups.

    Sorry, but gotta use another analogy. If I want to by a new lawn watering system, what if I found that this system didn't follow 'standard' hookup and operation? What if I would then have to switch my internal plumbing to this new 'innovative' format? And because my electrical system is grounded through this, I then find that it is dangerous in its 'legacy' format and I must then 'upgrade' the electrical system to be compatable. This of course makes most of my electrical devices in the house not work with the new electrical wiring. I can buy the water system company's converters for some of my electrical devices, but only for some of them, and they would operate less efficiently (due the the conversion overhead and such). So, I am going to have to by a ton of new stuff. Gee it just soooo happens that this Landscaping company also makes TV's, VCR's and DVD's... however I will not be able to use my existing set of VCR's and DVD's... etc, etc, etc.

    I also see here a tie in to the patent issue. I think that there is a definite parallel between a company or individuals choice on what is patented and how their little 'innovation' interacts and interfaces with the world. If I make either a new car or a new sprinkler system, I can guarantee you that it would be in my best long term interests to make it compatable with as large a group of existing systems and people as possible and to make it as simple as possible to integrate. I also would then be foolish to try to patent the idea and interface, because of the already stated reasons. However, my IMPLEMENTATION can easily be patented if I so desire. I think that we will continue to see a tremendous growth in Linux, not just because of its strive toward quality, but because it is becoming a tool for the user, not forcing the user to become its slave. A smart designer of systems would do well to learn from recent history and not hardcode so many aspects of their products as to make them impossible (and more expensive) to port and update.

  • Ugh. (Score:2, Funny)

    by alernon ( 91859 )
    > but would we need it?

    Arg, for *years* I hear slashdotters whine about QuickTIme. (I can't see the Starwars trailer without quicktime, I can't believe it. I hate apple) And now all the sudden linux is to good for Quicktime?

  • Quicktime (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Obviously timothy doesn't understand what Quicktime is. It is an encapsulation format for time-based media (not necessarily compressed video) and API to manipulate it. And NOT a compression algorithm.

    This newsitem is meerly saying that there's a MPEG-4 codec for Quicktime under development. Is anyone surprised at all? If Apple decides to prefer MPEG-4 over Sorensen2. Then that will be newsworthy. But that isn't what they are saying.

    Tom
  • I thought I read a long while back that QuickTime 3 or 4 was going going to be used as the basis for MPEG-4. Does anyone else remember that? If so, can you explain it better?
  • I haven't seen any interest in Quicktime on UNIX. Unix hackers may not have liked Microsoft in the past but they're not stupid. Microsoft is going to be around for a long time and no-one wants to use a format that isn't going to be around for a long time.
    • That's simply because of lack of CODECS. For AVI there's the avifile framework that allows use of x856 Windoze CODECs, but for your QT for Linux there's zippo. AVI is also the preferred format because of DivX (originally a hacked MS AVI CODEC) having taken off, and DivX/MPEG-4 having become associated with AVI rather than it's native MPEG-4/QT framework.

      There's also the issue of tools - VirtualDub (AVI) is much more capable for ripping off DVDs and cleaning them up than is Bloatfest 2000 (QT).
  • May be a little off topic..., but is this going to have any impact on getting Sorenson into other containers?

    Has anyone out there seen an existing way to get Sorenson outside of Quicktime?

  • Yes and No (Score:2, Informative)

    by BigJimSlade ( 139096 )
    I wouldn't expect to see Quicktime for Linux anytime soon.

    However, an interesting fact: according to last month's Linux Format [linuxformat.co.uk] (a really good UK Linux mag, IMO) Apple actually changed their license so that CodeWeavers [codeweavers.com] could legitimatly use the Windows Quicktime 5 plugin for Netscape under Linux.

    So again, don't expect to see a native version of Quicktime for Linux anytime soon... but don't expect Apple to completely ignore Linux either. (Insert obligatory plug for Codeweaver's plugin here... here's mine: Quicktime works great even on my laptop! Try it out!)
  • First off, the _format_ of quicktime files has been "known" in the public domain for many many years. One of the first public domain implementation, XANIM, was based on reversed engineered knowledge of the format and Apple doesn't appear to have tried to prevent the dissemination of this information. In fact, by handing this same format to the MPEG-4 committee it is actually MPEG-4 that has become quicktime, not the other way around. That said, there are _MANY_ different video codecs which are supported inside the Quicktime format, some invented by apple (Road Pizza) and others by third parties(Cinepak, Sorenson). The point is that even if Apple _wanted_ to release the source to quicktime, they could not. (For example XANIM's author was required by the owners of Cinepak to release only "object" versions of his reverse engineered implementation. I note they were nice enough not to completely shut him down. ) That said, the base MPEG-4 video/audio codec is most clearly a specification open to all, and you can expect Linux implementations.

  • It's not that we need it (Score:4, Interesting)

    by VFVTHUNTER ( 66253 ) on Wednesday December 05, 2001 @12:46PM (#2660501) Homepage
    it's that we need to NOT need it. What I mean is that the only movies I can't play right now are the ones with Sorensen and other proprietary codecs. Were Apple and folks to stop using these, I would be able to play pretty much anything.

    I use MPlayer [mplayerhq.hu]. It supports every codec (save Sorensen et al) that I've run across. It has a gui now, or it runs from the command line (for all the people who want to script their multiple-file porn). Furthermore, it's actually better than WMP for several reasons, my favorite being that WMP requires you to have an entire AVI file on disk before it will play it, whereas with MPlayer you can start watching while you are still downloading it.

    If this doesn't seem important to you, consider downloading a 200MB file only to discover its crappy quality. With MPlayer, you can check it as soon as you've downloaded enough bytes to play a few frames, thus saving tons of bandwidth, not to mention disk space or time spent unraring things.

    I use MPlayer only, but I have seen other OSS players and they are just as good. Lastly I will mention that the day I got MPlayer up and running was the same day that I killed my last Win* partition. I haven't rebooted since :)
    • The skins that are available for MPlayer are pretty, but what I really want is an interface using standard GTK+ widgets. Also, for whatever reason Sawfish pitches a fit when I try to run the GUI version of MPlayer. It displays an error and then puts a title bar on the shaped MPlayer window.
      • I have never used it, but you might try gmplayer [freshmeat.net].

        Beware it is only at 0.0.2.

        Yes, I too use sawfish (cuz it roxxx), and yes, I have the same problem with the GUI. This is really our problem tho, I'm sure if I knew more Lisp I would be able to post the solution.
    • > the only movies I can't play right now are the
      > ones with Sorensen and other proprietary codecs.
      > Were Apple and folks to stop using these, I would
      > be able to play pretty much anything.

      The other side of this is, "were the open formats able to achieve better quality than Sorenson, Apple and folks wouldn't have to use a proprietary codec to get the quality that they want."

  • Major problem.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Ogerman ( 136333 ) on Wednesday December 05, 2001 @01:21PM (#2660719)
    Something that most people forget is that ALL of the MPEG codecs are possibly non-free in the US due to software patent issues. This is because MPEG as an ISO standards body accepts patented technology when deciding on standards.. (oh yeah, and because the US has evil software patents in the first place) Contrast, for example W3C, the web standards body, which does not accept patented technology, although this was recently debated. So either way, open standard or not, MPEG4 is freely available for use on Linux.

    Software patents are a threat to free software and free speech. Just say NO!

  • Quicktime on Linux (Score:2, Informative)

    by bluetoad ( 90110 )
    Quicktime on Linux is not a problem with the CodeWeavers plug-in Crossover plugin (http://www.codeweavers.com). Some will baulk at the 20 bucks.

Slashdot Top Deals

It is now pitch dark. If you proceed, you will likely fall into a pit.

Close