QuickTime 6 Public Beta Available 448
krugdm writes "Apple has announced that a public beta of QuickTime 6 is now available. MPEG-4 support is there, as well as support for other technologies, such as JPEG2000, and Flash 5. The beta expires in October. An interesting in the FAQ's says that, '... because QuickTime 6 will include royalty-bearing technologies, a new QuickTime Pro key will be required to unlock pro functionality in the final release.'" It is available for Mac OS, Mac OS X, and Windows, and supports AAC audio too. I also wonder why MPEG-4 is ".mp4". ".mp3" isn't for MPEG-3, after all. Flummery!
So... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So... (Score:2)
because nobody cares writing it?
It isn't necessarily Apple's job to port their software to every platform known to exist. Rightfully, Linux would be an interesting one, but Apple's first and primary platform if Mac OS X. The Windows port of QT is simply to help QT gain market share.
Re:So... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Same reason you can't have Photoshop for Linux, or Microsoft Office for Linux: because the vendor wouldn't make any money off of a version of their software for Linux.
The Windows port of QuickTime is important primarily because of licensing: Apple licenses the technology to companies like Adobe so they can use it in apps like Premiere, which are more popular on Windows than they are on the Mac.
But Apple knows that Linux users, as a rule, don't buy software. No third party would license QuickTime for Linux, because they couldn't make any money on their product. So there's zero motivation for Apple to port QuickTime to Linux.
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
Wrong, the QuickTime port is primarily important on Windows because otherwise it'd be a niche technology with no media available in the format. Apple have to pay for most of the cool stuff to be encoded (exclusively) in it anyway.
But Apple knows that Linux users, as a rule, don't buy software. No third party would license QuickTime for Linux, because they couldn't make any money on their product. So there's zero motivation for Apple to port QuickTime to Linux.
Apple don't make huge amounts of money from it anyway, why do you think they charge for the player, something unheard of in other media formats. Also I get sick and tired of this Linux users don't pay for anything mantra, this is not true. Many if not most serious Linux users actually pay for their distro, from that point onwards it's pretty cheap because you don't NEED to buy software, not because we won't. As it happens, I wouldn't but QuickTime even if I could (and I could, because I also use Windows), because it's basically just a media player. Why should I buy a copy of Pro when I won't need its features?
All most people use QuickTime for is playing movie trailors and the occasional "enhanced" CD. To me, that isn't worth any money, especially as the alternatives work just as well for nothing.
Re:So... (Score:4, Informative)
That's funny, I didn't pay for mine. Yes, there is an upgrade to the pro version, which gives you video editing skills, importing features and the ability to watch the exclusive previews of Episode III when they come out.
Real has a pro version also that you would pay for, so... unheard of? I think not.
I don't know. Who is making you?
mark
Re:So... (Score:2)
Really? Are they threatening the lives of your loved ones as well, or just you personally?
mark
Re:So... (Score:2)
Gasp! Choke! Those bastards! Asking you to pay them money in return for getting something you want!
Sounds like it boils down like this. You wanted to watch the Episode II trailers in high resolution, and you got pissed off that you couldn't find a working pirated serial number for QuickTime Pro. Am I close?
Re:So... (Score:3, Informative)
You only pay for the "pro" version of the player which is heard of in other formats ("Real" for example). Apple doesn't charge an arm and a leg for the streaming server (they may not charge for it at all in many cases!).
As far as I can tell they made the most money off of QT by buying stock in Akami :-) one would assume that unless they sold that stock though they ended up not making out so well...
The only content that I have seen that needs the "for pay" QT is the larger movie trailers. Everything else has been available with the free one. Heck, with a little work you can force feed iMovie the streams and not only play but edit them....
I have seen QT used for other things though, on the Mac it is pretty easy to put QT stuff in your own programs, so animated elements are frequently QT working for you. Even stills sometimes...
Re:So... (Score:2, Interesting)
Couldn't have said it better myself. Trying to sell software to a community that expects everything to be given away for free is a pretty stupid business model.
they won't pay for things they already own - would you?
As a matter of fact, I did. I bought Civ:CTP from Loki, even though I already owned the Windows version.
Re:So... (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, as Linux gains wider acceptance, becomes higher quality etc, the people using it just because it costs nothing will become an ever decreasing minority. I would be quite happy to buy software for Linux, but it'd have to be really good, something I really needed and was much better than the free version (or there was no free version). Because commercial software is relatively new to Linux though, that often isn't the case.
That'll change as Linux becomes more mainstream of course, then maybe Apple would be able to make a profit selling QuickTime Pro - but really I'd love to see their sales figures for that software. I've never actually met anyone who has it, although I've met many people who use the standard QuickTime. Considering that most people are not content creators, it seems the market for it would be fairly limited anyway.
Re:So... (Score:2, Insightful)
But Apple knows that Linux users, as a rule, don't buy software. No third party would license QuickTime for Linux, because they couldn't make any money on their product. So there's zero motivation for Apple to port QuickTime to Linux.
Could we please let this trope die? The fact is, Linux users, as a rule, don't _have_ to buy software, because there is such a vast library of free software out there. Speaking personally, however, I do buy quite a bit of software that is only available commercially, and happily do so.
If companies want to sell software to Linux users, they should try, um, selling software to Linux users. If they want to make money at it, the software should ideally be substantially different/better than the free software available for the platform. This isn't necessarily easy to do.. no one is going to be able to come out with a basic web server that is so compellingly better than Apache to get large sales on Linux. QuickTime, however, could work, due to the large body of QuickTime-specific content out there.
It may be that if Apple released QuickTime for Linux, they might not make the porting costs on it, true. But there are more Linux users this year than there were last year, and from all the news reports about new institutional commitments to Linux, I firmly expect there will be more Linux users next year than this year. At some point some brave company will discover that they can make a decent living at selling software on Linux.
They won't make it, though, if they believe that Linux users are constitutionally allergic to commercial software, when many Linux users are simply allergic to paying more for a piece of software than they have to for the competition, which is just as true in the Windows and Macintosh world.
Quicktime 6 is actually benefits Linux users (Score:2)
So, seriously, who cares if this media player can't run on Linux. Ya I guess being able to have the sorenson codec would be nice, but I think a lot of web developers are going to favor content which plays any place on anything. I know I will. It'll be nice not to save content in multiple formats or write dumb java scripts which check media players.
Re:So... (Score:2)
Now there are other factors involved here, however to an exec who is making money based decisions, this strongly indicates taht Linux users are not willing to pay for thier software.
Re: I recommend.... (Score:2, Informative)
Apple will never port QuickTime to Linux in the near future, for pure political reasons. Luckily Quicktime is a fairly open standard so to everyone interested in an open and free implementation of QuickTime I strongly recommend to visit the OpenQuickTime [sf.net] Site on SourceForge. There are more links available there.
So, no need to buy anything :)
Re:So... (Score:2)
Yea, how could Loki expect crap like Quake3 to compete with any of the rogue games...
I bought 10 games from Loki, what are you talking about?
Sorry, but free games suck and Linux users wouldn't buy commercial games. You can say what you want about the games being available for Windows first,
The big knock on Loki was that they were selling games that dual-booters already had for Windows. I wouldn't know, I don't dual-boot, but apparently a lot of people do. If you're a part-time Windows user, then sure, it makes a lot of sense to buy your games for Windows up front rather than waiting for months (years?) for the Linux version.
Of course, you're then a Linux user buying commercial software, you're just buying it on Windows. ;-)
but the same is true of _every_ application. There is no case where the "free" version is the undisputed "best" version.
Other than Apache, you mean? ;-)
The free version doesn't have to be the _undisputed_ best version to cause real problems for the commercial versions.. just look at IE on Windows for evidence of that. The free version has to just be good enough to make the customer think twice before pulling his wallet for the commercial stuff.
That's funny... (Score:2)
I'll admit to the fact that one of the reasons I use Linux is because I dont have to pay for it. Having said that, I have paid for a copy of the crossover plugin, and I have also paid for RedHat's little subscription up2date service. The thing that's nice about Linux, is that to get into the game, you can do it for free. If you are willing to pay you can get enhancements, increased convenience, etc. I'm not forced into it like I would be if I ran Windows.
Re:That's funny... (Score:2)
I guess you missed the part in the middle, about third-party licensees. Apple doesn't consider QuickTime Pro licenses to be a significant revenue source. The revenue from QuickTime comes from third parties, which license QuickTime for use in their own commercial products.
Since nobody is asking to license QuickTime for Linux for commercial use, Apple has no motivation to port QuickTime to Linux.
Ta-da.
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm. Another sighting of the infamous non-reading anonymous coward.
Apple gives away the QuickTime Player software for free. This is a neat way to increase awareness of QuickTime technology among Windows and Mac users.
Apple makes money by licensing QuickTime technology to software companies that want to incorporate it into their own products. You find QuickTime technology in apps like After Effects and Premiere from Adobe, Cinestream from Media 100, and (duh) Final Cut Pro. You can also find QuickTime technology embedded in things like digital cameras.
Apple has already done extensive work to port the QuickTime libraries to Windows and to Mac OS X from Mac OS Classic, because third party licensees asked for support for those platforms. It seems that nobody is clamoring for QuickTime for Linux except desktop users who aren't going to be buying anything any time soon.
If you really want QuickTime Player for Linux, offer to buy it from Apple. If you are willing to pay the right price, and lots and lots of other people are also willing to pay, then Apple has a case for doing the port.
Re:So... (Score:2)
Not to mention... (Score:2)
Considering that Apple's marketing plan for QT is to give away the base player for free and hope that a small percentage of those users will pay for registration, is there really any hope that they can recover their investment on the Linux side?
Yes, but... (Score:2)
Re:Yes, but... (Score:2)
So Apple should completely rework their QT business model just to finance a Linux player of dubious financial value?
You have to understand though, Yahoo has a significant portion of their business in online advertising. Apple doesn't, and probably doesn't want to be in that business.
To my knowledge, Apple has only had one foray into online advertising, and that was with the Sherlock web search utility. For whatever reason, it was short-lived; the banner ad is still there, but now it's all Apple.com ads. I'm guessing one of two things happened: a) they found that the expense in setting up an advertising department was more than the potential revenue, or b) decided that the advertising business was not the business they were in, nor did they want to be in it, which is great; they should focus on the stuff they know how to do, and leave stuff they don't know how to do to everyone else.
Re:So... (Score:2)
Silly rabbit. It's always about making sales to earn revenue. Brand loyalty doesn't mean squat if you can't translate that into a positive cash flow.
Re:So... (Score:2)
According to everything I've read, desktop Linux has an even smaller market share than the 3-5% that goes to desktop Mac users.
I don't think Apple is quaking in their boots about a mass migration of Mac OS X users to Linux.
Re:So... (Score:2)
I was trying to think of a way to say that very thing when I posted. Anecdotal evidence indicates that there's a lot of momentum behind Mac OS X in the fringes. People who reject Windows on religious grounds used to flock to Linux because it was the only appealing alternative: BSD is too mature (read "slow moving"), BeOS is marginalized to the point of irrelevance, and Mac OS Classic just wasn't that great. But Mac OS X is truly wonderful, and it sounds like lots of Linux users are coming to realize this.
Apple's even marketing OS X to UNIX users directly, in some of their print ads. They're well aware of the possibility of turning Linux or other UNIX users to Mac OS X.
So thanks for saying what I wanted to say, only better.
Re:So... (Score:2)
I can speak to this. Are you aware that, according to insider information from Alias|Wavefront, Maya for Linux has lost more money for Alias than it has made? It cost more to port Maya to Linux than it has ever made back in sales.
It goes right back to what I said. People who use Linux-- as a gross but useful generalization-- don't buy commercial software. People who buy commercial software-- again, a useful generalization-- will not use desktop Linux.
As for the other items you mentioned, I reject your assertion that free software "kicks the hiney of its commercial counterparts." But that's an argument for another thread.
Re:So... (Score:2)
If your alternative was to buy Sun workstations with 4 GB of RAM, then you're clearly not a typical computer user, are you? You have built, in your words, "a couple" of workstations. "A couple" does not a market make.
Sorry. You're a niche.
Re:Not quite... it's much worse than this. (Score:2)
reason - one part of their support of Apple,
financially and by producine IE and Office,
is that Apple must do whatever they can to
not support Linux.
This doesn't sound right. Microsoft entered into their agreement with Apple years ago, before Linux was even on anybody's radar. Doesn't sound to me like such a clause is very likely to exist.
Even if this were true, Microsoft's agreement with Apple has expired. The field is wide open now.
Re:So... (Score:2)
Re:So... (Score:3, Funny)
I use UNIX every single day on my desktop. In addition to all the usual stuff like Apache, Perl, and so on, the UNIX I use also runs Photoshop, MS Office, and a number of other "industry standard" applications. And it plays back QuickTime movies just fine - Sorenson included.
Perhaps if you had a better UNIX [apple.com], you wouldn't be so annoyed.
QuickTime is Carbon-based (Score:4, Informative)
Porting QuickTime to Linux would really involve porting a significant portion of MacOS X to Linux. Seriously, we're talking dozens of engineers full-time for a couple of years. QuickTIme is deep and huge, and has a lot of dependencies on real-time synchronization with sound clocks and video refreshing, etcetera.
Do bear in mind that QuickTime Streaming Server exists as the open-source Darwin Streaming Server and it runs fine on Linux. Since it's a server app, it doesn't have any of those dependencies (and it won't even run on MacOS 9).
Re:QuickTime is Carbon-based (Score:3, Informative)
Ah, actually, that is *exactly* how QuickTime came to be on Windows, they ported as much of the Toolbox as they needed.
Enough that it became necessary to specifically instruct developers that QuickTime was *not* meant to be a porting layer.
http://developer.apple.com/qa/qtw/qtw87.html
Assumingly, the A/V components of the Quicktime Player source are suitably abstracted to allow "easy" porting to multiple arbitrary platforms
That is perhaps the most completely and utterly false assumption I have seen on all of
Re:So... (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you think Apple really wants to hear all the pissing and moaning that would accompany a non-free media player?
You'd have the industry on one side, suing the life out of the company, and Slashdot on the other, dissecting it down to the bits and complaining that the third bit in the eighth word would be more secure if it was open sourced.
Sheesh!
Yup. It's a troll. I've got 49 karma and nothing to do with it. Mod away!
Re:So... (Score:3, Informative)
Look, it's not a rational position in today's world. Far be it from me to always adopt a rational position, but at times it get's a little shrill here.
Fact is - somebody has to get paid to produce software for the masses. Open Source (with a few notable exceptions) concentrates software development efforts on producing tools for a technical elite. This can be attributed to a lesser marketshare and thus a lower reward for producing good, universal tools (even for free), but very few people seem interested.
Widespread acceptance demands that the bulk of software written be simple to use (and no, the command line won't cut it) and designed to the expectations of an extraordinarily wide range of user capability.
For better or worse, Apple and Microsoft do produce those tools, and as faulty as their products may be, they have put extensive research into making their products as user-friendly as possible. The overall complexity of their software is a combination of legacy requirements, desire of users for new capabilities, and of a need for the company to market their products.
The common attitudes around here are:
1. MS is bad and deserves to be destroyed.
2. Commercial software is bad and deserves to be destroyed.
3. Anything not written for Linux (preferably exclusively) is bad and deserves to be destroyed.
4. Stallman is either good or bad, but should be worshipped as a god (preferably an elder god, apparently).
5. Jon Katz is bad and deserves to be destroyed (I can't figure that one out, so I just ignore him).
Does it come as so much of a shock to anyone that someone would play Devil's Advocate? And no, I may not be particularly good at it, but I'm working on it.
So that's my two cents. Mod it as a troll or whine or whatever. Personally, I prefer the term nerdality-impaired, but go figure.
Upgrading... (Score:3, Interesting)
This is why I've put off upgrading to QT Pro for so long - I paid for the Pro upgrade under QT3, then when I got QT4 my key worked to keep it unlocked. QT5 was a separate version with a new key required.
I've been thinking about upgrading for a long time, but I decided to wait until the upgrade policy was in place for QT6. I'm glad I did, based on this.
So for now, I figure I'll try and play with the preview, and see if it works with my 3rd party codecs and such. But I'll hold off buying Pro until QT6 is packaged with Jaguar, then I'll buy it with that upgrade.
Unless, of course, Apple announces that upgrades to the released version of QT6 will be free for QT 5 Pro buyers after a certain date. But I haven't seen anything of that nature from them thus far.
Re:Upgrading... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Upgrading... (Score:4, Informative)
It sucks that they're starting to restrict previously free content- some movie trailers on their site, for example- to those who have upgraded to QT Pro. The naggy messages you get when you first launch QT are annoying as well.
Then again, considering that the $30 Pro key gives you a video utility that can export and import dozens of formats, and even do simple video editing via copy n' paste, it's really not all that expensive.
I've paid for a new key with every available iteration- $30 is far enough below my impulse buy point to make it worth dismissing the nag notices and unlocking the extra potential.
I presume Apple bets most Mac users are like me...
Well, a lot of us are Final Cut Pro users. (Score:2)
D
I think.... (Score:2, Insightful)
-Evan
(but it's not like they're not going to try the Pro thing again with 6)
any upgrade plans? (Score:2)
No-Wait Streaming (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:No-Wait Streaming (Score:2)
You can't be serious. I've never even seen a DVD-quality stream-- 5-8 megabits per second, that is.
Surely you mean something around or less than 1 megabit per second.
Re:dvd quality (Score:3, Informative)
I don't think that's really a very accurate statement, in any frame of reference.
There exist some extremely high quality MPEG-2 encoders. Some of them are used to produce DVDs-- particularly of the Superbit variety-- and some are used to compress over-the-air HDTV. These are a far cry from the software encoders some people use to generate movies on their PCs.
MPEG-4 is still very immature. It's impossible to fairly compare MPEG-4 encoding to MPEG-2 encoding in any meaningful way. Especially when you fail to control for data rates.
The only remotely objective comparisons of MPEG-4 to MPEG-2 I've seen to date have taken MPEG-2 source material (usually from DVD) and re-encoded it with MPEG-4. That doesn't really tell you anything. I haven't had the time, or the gear, to take uncompressed reference material and pass it through MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 encoders. That's a test I'd like to see.
What it sounds like you're saying is that bad MPEG-4 encoding is superior to bad MPEG-2 encoding. I won't argue with you there. But that's not sound basis for making a blanket judgment like yours.
Re:No-Wait Streaming (Score:2)
Huh? All streaming players support this to some extent, you just switch the buffering time to be very low, or zero. Are you sure you're not getting confused with very fast streaming, over a LAN? That would look like no wait.
Combined with an Xserve dishing out >500 simultaneous DVD-quality quicktime streams, Quicktime is looking pretty sweet. Now why don't more sites start using it?
That situation would require approximately 5 gigabits of outgoing bandwidth (a DVD uses about 10mbit/s of bandwidth). Are you insane? Nobody apart from people in large corporations or universities could watch that. QuickTime doesn't really have any major advantages over other technologies as far as I can tell, other than it being made by Apple and therefore given lots of marketing. Why should I choose QuickTime over Real, or Windows Media, or hell even standard MPEG?
mpeg-4 (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:mpeg-4 (Score:2)
Also, RealONE already supports the Envivio plug-in for MPEG-4 playback. PacketVideo and Philips also have MPEG-4 players available.
QuickTime 6 does represents the first mass-market MPEG-4 authoring, distribution, and playback system. This is a Good Thing.
Re:mpeg-4 (Score:2)
Not MPEG-4 compliant [telecomitalialab.com]. They use selected bits and pieces of draft versions of the standard, plus proprietary stuff. Kinda like the difference between MSIE6 and Mozilla.
Re:No-Wait Streaming (Score:2, Interesting)
Huh? All streaming players support this to some extent, you just switch the buffering time to be very low, or zero. Are you sure you're not getting confused with very fast streaming, over a LAN?
No. I've been playing around with QT6's "Instant On" streaming all morning. It's very impressive. It isn't just a case of having a low buffer time. Try it [apple.com], you might be impressed too.
About "instant-on" (Re:No-Wait Streaming) (Score:5, Insightful)
"Instant-on" is not quite the same thing as setting your buffer size to zero. Typically, setting the buffer size to zero in a player means that there is no buffering for the entire duration of the program. This means that if you want to watch without interruptions, the available bandwidth between the server and you must exceed the bit rate of the stream at all times; since the encoding is at a variable bit rate, you will often see peaks in the bit rate which need really high bandwidth to sustain the stream.
However with "instant-on", the playback begins immediately, but the buffer continues to build. This means that you need a fairly high bandwidth initially in order to start the playback and build up the buffer, but--after that initial period--the buffer prevents interruptions which would otherwise have been caused by the peak rate of the stream going beyond the available bandwidth. So "instant-on" is not the same as setting your buffer to a fixed size of zero. Now this isn't really revolutionary; to researchers in the field the question is why everyone hasn't been doing this all along.
As an aside, the "skip protection" feature of Quicktime streaming is simply over-buffering; i.e. using the available bandwidth to build up the client buffer as much as possible instead of maintaining a fixed size buffer.
QuickTime doesn't really have any major advantages over other technologies as far as I can tell, other than it being made by Apple and therefore given lots of marketing. Why should I choose QuickTime over Real, or Windows Media, or hell even standard MPEG?
Quicktime streaming has an advantage to broadcasters: the server is open-source and free as in beer. You can download the latest snapshot via CVS, and contributions to the source from the public are welcome. The streaming protocols are all standards based (RTP/RTSP). Of course, you could always encode the data with a proprietary codec, but if you used an open codec, then the streams could be played back by any standards compliant player, not just Quicktime Player.
Finally, although ideas like "skip-protection" and "instant-on" are fairly obvious to anyone who spends some time thinking about these issues, the fact remains that only Apple seems to be taking the initiative to incorporate these into its servers and clients. What new features (from a streaming perspective) have Real and Microsoft offered in the new releases of their products? While Apple does have a big marketing push, that does not take away from the fact that there is solid work going on behind the scenes.
Not flummory, marketing... wait... (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviously they are trying to get MPEG-4 off the ground by riding on the popularity of the widly known ".mp3" file extention.
They are using a familiar "brand name" name, and mp3 is the "Coca Cola" of computers.
Just another marketing trick...
...not supposed to make any sense, just to give people that warm fuzzy feeling inside and get the royalties flowin.
Re:Not flummory, marketing... wait... (Score:3, Informative)
mark
Re:Not flummory, marketing... wait... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Not flummory, marketing... wait... (Score:2)
I don't know. I guess more than three letters are needed to distinguish all of these.
mark
Re:Not flummory, marketing... wait... (Score:3, Informative)
I expect the big reason for ".mp4" instead of ".mpeg4" is for compatibility with 8.3 filename filesystems. Bear in mind that the MPEG-4 process was started BEFORE Windows 95 shipped.
Re:Not flummory, marketing... wait... (Score:2)
mark
Re:Not flummory, marketing... wait... (Score:3, Funny)
That was kind of funny, but it was even funnier trying to explain it to the Circuit City salesman. Kind of like trying to teach my dog geometry.
Re:Not flummory, marketing... wait... (Score:2)
Like MIME types?
To determin file type by the extension is getting a little old IMHO.
Re:Not flummory, marketing... wait... (Score:2)
Old? I think it's a perfectly logical method, myself, although I don't neccesarily like the way Windows locks application associations to file extensions instead of actual file types. (I get tired of jumping through hoops to open plain ASCII
Extensions are handy markers, but I do prefer the way they're implemented on *nix...allowed and easy to use, but not required, and not really used by the OS itself.
DennyK
Re:Not flummory, marketing... wait... (Score:2, Interesting)
"MPEG-4, with formal as its ISO/IEC designation 'ISO/IEC 14496', was finalized in October 1998 and became an International Standard in the first months of 1999. The fully backward compatible extensions under the title of MPEG-4 Version 2 were frozen at the end of 1999, to acquire the formal International Standard Status early in 2000."
So MPEG is trying to capitalize on themselves?
BROADCASTER is the cool part... (Score:4, Informative)
Quote from the site:
Wow, Apple's coming out with some cool stuff lately! :)
- Steve
Why this matters, especially to *nix folks (Score:5, Informative)
In other words, this has the ability to kill all the crap about "you need FOO player to see this video".
Re:Why this matters, especially to *nix folks (Score:2)
Re:Why this matters, especially to *nix folks (Score:2)
In other words, this has the ability to kill all the crap about "you need FOO player to see this video".
Would that this were so, but the only thing that MPEG-4 took from Quicktime is the media wrapper, IIRC. The extremely low-bit-rate, high compression codec wasn't Apple's.
The fact that Apple's QuickTime 6 tools can produce MPEG-4 files doesn't mean that Apple is going to put its proprietary Sorenson codecs to bed, and as long as those codecs are used, the files won't be viewable on Linux without some sort of emulator or convertor.
Re:Why this matters, especially to *nix folks (Score:2, Informative)
Sure it does. And pigs will fly over the skies, and hell freezes over.
The MPEG-4 file format is just a wrapper. The video and audio is still encoded by some codec. In the case of Apple, it is the Sorenson codec that has no player for UNIX architectures (you can have some luck with WINE, although flawless performance seems only to come by paying for Crossover).
The problem with playability NEVER came from file formats - it ALWAYS came from patent protected codecs. The patents in question have over a decade before expiration, so it seems likely there will never be a UNIX player for Quicktime movies made with the Sorenson codec.
The ball is entirely in Apple's court too - they have exclusive licensing rights over the patents in question.
Re:Why this matters, especially to *nix folks (Score:2)
That would be correct, except for this little tidbit [apple.com]:
Yes, *nix players will still be locked out if content producers choose to use Sorenson. But now Apple is saying that there's a decent alternative.
Has anyone done side-by-side tests of Sorenson/Apple MP4/Divx/etc?
Re:Why this matters, especially to *nix folks (Score:2)
The way I figure it, design a player system that loads codecs from the data file/stream, as well as having the basics included in it. This way you get the flexibility of the player you need, Open Sourced and you can still have proprietary decoding mechanisms that'll play on any system with the player.
Encode it with commercial software, or Open Source if you want, and it'll play on anything.
Sounds logical to me.
Re:Why this matters, especially to *nix folks (Score:2)
So much for a cross-platform player
Or am I missing something?
D
Re:Why this matters, especially to *nix folks (Score:4, Insightful)
MPEG-4 uses a Profile@Level structure, which strictly defines what codecs and parameters a given file can use. For example, QuickTime can export a compliant ISMA Profile 1 MPEG-1 file. This mandates the MPEG-4 Advanced Simple Video codec, either ACELP or AAC audio, maximum 352x288 resolution, and certain data rate limits.
ANY MPEG-4 player which claims to be ISMA compliant needs to be able to play this file, and QuickTime needs to be able to play an ISMA compatible MPEG-4 file created by a different vendor.
The whole point of MPEG-4 is interoperability - if that doesn't work, than the technology won't either.
For the Linux crowd, this means a MPEG-4 file will be as easy to play as a MPEG-1 is today, but with much, much improved quality at a given data rate, and support for real-time streaming. You can stop yelling at Apple about porting QuickTime, since you'll just use someone else's MPEG-4 player with their content, and it'll just work.
The risk is that support for Profile@Level combinations will vary. Certainly, a lot of cell phones use ISMA Profile 0, which means 176x144 maximum resolution, the Simple instead of Advanced Simple codec, etcetera. And there are more advanced codecs coming down the pike that improve quality, but won't work with today's ISMA profiles.
But hey, nothing that folks who deal with RPMs all day don't know about.
It's simple, really. (Score:3, Interesting)
That's because geeks at some hoighty-toighty European institute created the MPEG-2 Layer 3 format and file extension, while Steve Jobs wrote Quicktime 6 and it's file extension, all by himself, "out of one, solid block of wood."
Or it could be because
Re:It's simple, really. (Score:2)
I've also seen some MPEG-2 video files using that extension as well.
Three characters really aren't enough for meaningful extensions, eh?
Animated Reply Movie (Score:5, Funny)
Kudos to trolltech (Score:4, Funny)
mp4 (Score:2, Interesting)
this is nothing new. The people over at DivXNetworks [divx.com] have been using the mp4 extionsion for mpeg-4 for just about as long as they've been around. it has less restrictions than the avi file format does.
I just wonder if they are as "ISO compliant" as Apple's gonna be, heh.
Did you mean: flummery ? (Score:5, Funny)
Hey Pudge, did you mean flummery [google.com]?
flummery (flm-r) n. pl. flummeries
I'm pretty sure you did...
CrossOver (Score:5, Informative)
I just installed and ran it.
A little dissappointment in a great improvement (Score:3, Informative)
This is great. Quicktime should now be able to play XviD and DivX video. XviD especially. That's nice.
I was really hoping Apple would move more towards Free formats, however. AAC has good quality, but it's a nightmare of licensing restrictions. It looks like I'll still have to go to the QuickTime Components Project [sourceforge.net] for Ogg Vorbis and exa-mozilla MNG support. All of my music is in Vorbis, and my movies convereted to OGM [everwicked.com] from AVI and MOV containers. OGM is a really nice container. No sync or seek problems at all. You can embed XML streams, for whatever purpose you'd like.
Even more importantly, QuickTime still doesn't have a lossless audio compression codec. Some FLAC [sourceforge.net] would be nice. It really looks like FLAC might be moving closer to the Ogg project.
I mean, hey, unless Apple is going to make a car stereo system, this [phatnoise.com] is probably the best component to plug into an OS X "digital hub." It does FLAC, with the new firmware.
Still, the ability to play XviD (valid MPEG-4 video) is a great step in the right direction. Kudos.
Divx 5's .mp4 doesn't seem to work (Score:2)
well, first I had to use virtual dub to remove the audio from my Shawshank rip (Divx 5's avi->mp4 convertor doesn't seem to like files with audio) then I was able to convert it to mp4. However, when "run" in quicktime it gets the timing correct, but doesn't display anything (much like audio playing) it doesn't even display a blank window of correct size like it does with avi's it doesn't know the codec for.
oh well.
Re:Divx 5's .mp4 doesn't seem to work (Score:2)
Re:Divx 5's .mp4 doesn't seem to work (Score:2)
Re:Divx 5's .mp4 doesn't seem to work (Score:3, Informative)
Yet Another Quote from Apple [apple.com]:
Divx might be a valid MPEG-4 codec, but they apparently don't use the MPEG-4 file format.
Secure format (Score:2)
My first reaction to this is, MPEG-4 will probably also come and go, unless it is the holy grail of video compression - we'll be able to improve it in the future. Secondly, it looks like they're quietly mentioning some DRM stuff being thrown in, which may or may not be a good thing.
The Internet Media Streaming Alliance [www.isma.tv], which is apparently located in Tuvalu, has a decent, fairly trustworthy collection of "Sponsor Members," including Apple, Cisco, IBM, Philips, and Sun Microsystems. I'd much rather trust DRM technology to these companies than Microsoft, Real, the RIAA, the MPAA, Fritz Hollings, or AOL-Time-Warner-Netscape-HBO-CNN (even though that last one is a "Participant Member"). It looks as if this latest scheme will focus on quality, while quietly adding in DRM - which is the only way it's going to work in the current climate. And I think it would be acceptable to the public: If you put out a product that is superior enough in quality, consumers are willing to sacrifice some of their time-shifting and space-shifting rights. If the balance isn't quite right, then the technology will have to be adjusted. The same thing happened with DVDs and the DivX format (the Circuit City thing) - Quality was higher, and even though the average user couldn't record DVDs and retain the same quality, consumers are increasily accepting the new techology. DivX didn't balance our fair use rights properly and failed.
I hope MPEG4 gets the balance right, so we can finally get a popularly-accepted standard for digital video. It's nice to have free video files available on P2P networks but the quality isn't there, and most of us would be willing to pay the right price to get a high-quality video file. If not, there's still regular old TV.
Re:Secure format (Score:2)
12th paragraph, last sentence on this page [apple.com] - under the section Everyone's a Winner. All they say is that it's a secure format, no real details are given. (if somebody finds any, please post them!)
Quicktime Broadcaster, too. (Score:3, Informative)
This allows you to encode video (for free) for delivery to a streaming server.
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/preview/broadcas
Show me one reason to use it. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Show me one reason to use it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you have to care?
Are we supposed to care?
Does every single Slashdot reader love and run Linux?
Should Slashdot abolish any noteworthy topics, and just post about Linux?
I know, it's moronic of me, this being posted on APPLE.slashdot.org and all!
Grow up, and go outside, it's almost summer time for fuck's sake. Time to tear down that RMS poster, and toss the Tux penguin you sleep with every night...
Re:.mp3 IS for mpeg-3 (Score:2, Informative)
Re:.mp3 IS for mpeg-3 (Score:2)
Re:an end to piracy? (Score:2)
QuickTime has two forms, its standard version (playback only) and the Pro version (for about $30, you can use it for basic editing and saving of media that the QT Player can view).
Are you talking about some other protection with the new MPEG-4 additions, or are you misreading something?
Microsoft's Windows Media Player is a proprietary media format that might have been based on an open standard at one time. QuickTime's technology has been based on open standards and work well with non-QT media without mangling it. I'm interested in what you are talking about.
Re:an end to piracy? (Score:2)
What? What are you talking about, exactly? I must have missed any references in the post or the Apple page about copy protection.
So, basically, what the hell are you talking about?
Re:Other Big News: eMac (Score:5, Funny)
Yea, but I'm a vi kind of guy...
Re:Time to Encode my new videos for QT6! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:File format? (Score:2)
Re:How much better is AAC, anyway? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:How much better is AAC, anyway? (Score:2)
And yes, it is really quite excellent. I'd say a 64 Kbps AAC is typically comparable to a 128 Kbps MP3, although it is somewhat dependent on content. I really, really hope that a future version of the iPod and other mobile devices support it.
Why kill MPEG4 (Score:2)
Why the hell did the MPEG4 people have to go and kill their own format this way??
They probably don't care so much about computer playback of video. I think the MPEG video codecs were mostly aimed at television sets. They think of the television model where the $5 for the decoding patents pales in comparison to the cost of the hardware. The computer market is a jucy secondary market, but they don't want to canabalize the TV market. This assumes HDTV in most countries will adopt MPEG4. They are also looking at the cost of developing the technology and thinking, we don't have a plan for profiting here...
MPEG4 is chock full of computer file formats too so if it takes off at all there will be a lot of partial MPEG4 support, and no single player that supports everything. Some will use patented tech, some not, at least with MPEG4 the competitor can pay the patent holder a royalty and try to compete.
Re:xiphophorus? (Score:2)
For the video codec? Yes. The Tarkin-dev mailing list seems to get about 5 messages per month still, most of which still seem to be of the "Hey, I just started playing with video encoding, where should I start?" variety (and, to their credit, relevant replies from a couple of other people lurking on the list, and the occasional short thread discussing hypothetical encoding schemes.)
However, if Xiph would finally get around to "officializing" the .ogg format documentation including some sort of specification for video streams, I don't think it would be too long before someone added .ogg mux'ing to, say, ffmpeg [sourceforge.net] or
transcode [uni-goettingen.de]. Then you could put just about whatever video codec you wanted into the streams (including the apparently open-source-though-not-that-great-at-present vp3, or one of the various "DivX" variants)...
MPlayer [mplayerhq.hu] already has support for the "unofficial" .ogg videos that seem to be floating around occasionally, according to what I've seen on the MPlayer-users mailing list..
And, like you, I'm impatiently waiting as well...
Re:Boycott QuickTime! (Score:3, Insightful)
As has been mentioned earlier today, Apple wouldn't make any money on the player. Why should Apple, after trying to work with the Open Source community by keeping development of Darwin (for which there is an x86 port) running, and offering free development tools, lose money?
There are no credible video production packages on Linux, so there's no need to bring the codecs over. Also, the expense to Apple would be quite high. By pressures coming from directions like Microsoft, Adobe, Dolby, and the DivX codec, they need to include licensed technologies they pay for with every player/encoder they distribute. As they make money from QuickTime by selling production gear and enhanced players on other platforms, they can afford to give away a basic player as a way to keep it all viable. Maybe someday, once OS X is more 'settled' in it's ways, we'll see a shift to a port. And as someone noted above, you can download the source if you feel like it. Just not the codec that Apple pays through the nose for.
As to the API issue, you may have a point there. Apple could open things up more widely, and hopefully they'll do that with OS X and the Quicktime port to Windows.
You claim Apple is worse than Microsoft? You're on crack, fool. Apple uses the tactics they do, and keeps the control they do, because they're the best methods to keep the market segments they've been targeting for the past decade or more. Professionals that can't afford downtime, and schools that can afford it even less.
And if you think Apple's bad for using Darwin, and not "giving anything back", well, I'm sorry you just don't get it.
Apple may not be the shining beacon of openness a lot of us want, but at least they're honest about it and have reasons.
Still no AVI with vbr audio support (Score:5, Informative)
The good news is you can play back just about any DivX file out there. The bad news is you're going to have to do a little more work than just downloading Quicktime and expecting it to play - You have to go get and install the DivX codecs yourself, and turn all your DivX AVIs into MOVs with the proper tools. I can only assume the Quicktime crew could have fixed this vbr AVI problem if they wanted to a long time ago, and possibly did - but for undisclosed reasons, they choose not to or aren't allowed to release or work on it.
Re:Quicktime Full Screen? (Score:3, Informative)