QuickTime On Your Cell Phone 186
blamanj writes "Apple and DoCoMo are confirming that a new version of QuickTime is on the way supporting MPEG-4 images over 3G cellular service." Now if only these would make sense in the U.S. ...
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
QuickTime On Your Cell Phone
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.
good stuff (Score:1)
It would be nice to go all out and build everything in the future but there may not be a market now and we all remember the great crash of 99-00.
But, if I get access to one of those phones then I definetly will because places are starting to wire up that offer the media that you want..._now_.
Re:good stuff (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that this is technology for the sake of technology rather than any actual practical use. Yes live video feeds are useful but not to many people. Emergency services, surgeons... probly. Me! NO! I have NO use for this AT ALL and neither do 99% of the population.
IMNSHO The current 2G (2.5G) phone system and the handsets in use have NOT been fully exploited. There are NUMEROUS things that could have been done with that technology and ESPECIALLY the connectivity.
To see how a device can REALLY be exploited look at the GameBoy - 10 years and still new stuff is turning up. Technology for the sake of technology is pointless without software to back it up and I do not see that happening.
Re:good stuff (Score:1)
Nokia's Communicator has RealPlayer (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Nokia's Communicator has RealPlayer (Score:5, Funny)
The day RealPlayer respects my computer will be the day I respect RealPlayer.
Re:Nokia's Communicator has RealPlayer (Score:1, Informative)
I wonder when will someone port Linux to it
Re:Nokia's Communicator has RealPlayer (Score:1)
I would rather count on NetBSD [netbsd.org]. What CPU architecture does this phone use?
Re:Nokia's Communicator has RealPlayer (Score:1, Informative)
Memory might become a problem here, although from what I heard, the new models have 40MB of memory. I am no expert here, but I think that should be sufficient.
Re:Nokia's Communicator has RealPlayer (Score:1)
BSD or Linux on Nokia's Communicator (Score:1)
Re:BSD or Linux on Nokia's Communicator (Score:2)
Who cares about phoning people? Another six months, and somebody'll hack a phone-program that will only phone out between 5 and 6 in the morning, and you'll have write the config scripts yourself. But hey! It's cool!
Re:Nokia's Communicator has RealPlayer (Score:4, Funny)
And they do things like "Are you sure you don't NOT want to NOT DISable StartCenter?" to confuse the pants off you, so that you accidentally click yes instead of no. Disgusting, really.
Re:Nokia's Communicator has RealPlayer (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately I don't know anything else that plays realmedia and rm seems to be pretty common on the web.
If this streaming is going to become common on mobiles, then please, for the love of everything decent, DON'T USE REALMEDIA.
Re:Nokia's Communicator has RealPlayer (Score:1, Informative)
Unfortunately I don't know anything else that plays realmedia and rm seems to be pretty common on the web.
Well, I do. MPlayer [mplayerhq.hu] can play any modern mediaformat you can possibly find on this planet. It is also the most fastest and feature rich player there is.
Re:Nokia's Communicator has RealPlayer (Score:3, Informative)
This pack comes with an application called HelixPlay. This player is crappy and not very user friendly, but it's small (~2MB compressed; ~5MB expanded) and has no spy ware. It's enough to view RealVideos, if you have to.
Helix binaries (Score:1)
Re:Nokia's Communicator has RealPlayer (Score:1)
Re:Nokia's Communicator has RealPlayer (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Nokia's Communicator has RealPlayer (Score:2)
Seriously I agree with you on this one, Real One is the bane of my existence. But luckily enough you can still find real player 8 still around.
Re:Nokia's Communicator has RealPlayer (Score:3, Informative)
I think that's a brilliant point. A lot of people on this thread seem to hate Real Player, but they are obviously using Windows version. I have used both Linux and Windows version of the Real Player and the Windows version really is bloated with all kind of crap and it does some nasty things. Linux version is completely trouble free. No annoying ads or messing with file extensions..
Re:Nokia's Communicator has RealPlayer (Score:1)
Re:Nokia's Communicator has RealPlayer (Score:2)
Seriously though, it's probably has something to do that in terms of developing and advancing, the windows version is top on their list. Like everything linux, just wait a few years and it will be up to par with everything else, popups, bloats and all.
Re:Nokia's Communicator has RealPlayer (Score:1)
Re:Nokia's Communicator has RealPlayer (Score:1)
/Me look at DoCoMo's new phone:1 210/161/2u9fd.html [yahoo.com]
/Me look at my 9210
:) and orange.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/02
Comparing the Japanese phones with the Communicator is like comparing apple (pardon pun
oh yeah (Score:1)
Course, bandwidth problems come into play but imagine the possibilities...can you see me now?
Re:oh yeah (Score:5, Interesting)
3G phones currently support video playback and transfer. For example, he new J-Phone [cellular-news.com] even has video capture. So the interesting bit is not that it has video, but that it's in Quicktime format.
From the article: Microsoft and Real incorporate Digital Rights Management (DRM) technology in their file format, giving companies an added feeling of security when publishing their content. This, Jones thinks, could be a disadvantage for Apple.
Two things: 1. Have you ever tried to pull data off a cell phone? Especially streaming data? Security through obscurity may not be a great method, but it sure is a pain in the ass. 2. Those people who have issues with DRM should take note. If Apple continues their No-DRM policy, these phones could become the Fair-Use-Geek's first choice.
From the article: Analysts see the adoption of QuickTime by DoCoMo as a way for Apple to broaden its customer base and to have customers associate the QuickTime brand when they buy content.
I don't see this as a very good thing. Video playback should be seemless to the user. I don't want or care about codec branding. What this probably really means is that there will be an annoying Quicktime splash screen every time I open up a video (in order to have me "associate the Quicktime brand") blah.
[...] but imagine the possibilities...can you see me now?
I don't have to imagine. When I get on the train and see twenty people in my car using camera phones, it creeps me out. It'll be worse when video is used everywhere. Who knows how many people are taking pictures of you, anywhere.
Re:oh yeah (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:oh yeah (Score:1)
Okay, allow me to rephrase: "I don't care under what umbrella which codecs are supported." The point is the same. It doesn't matter to the user what you call it, they just want the features. Granted, all the things Quicktime can do are wonderful, but do we really needed it to be branded? Especially if it interferes with the user enjoying all those features?
The biggest problem right now with these devices is the amount of memory available to the user. There's been a big improvement this year, but if you want to start working with big 'ol formats (like TGA) and editing little videos on the fly, we're gonna need more. And better UIs too. I can barely use the calculator on my phone, I can't imagine trying to edit anything.
That said, if I could get something equivalent to Yahoo's Launch [yahoo.com] on my cell, I'd be stoked. (Before anyone mentions it, yes I know I can get streaming audio now, but I want the video too)
Re:oh yeah (Score:1)
oh and if i any of you
*scurries back to apple techsupport hell*
-ever deal with someone who cant figure out how to use a mac? now that is scary
Re:oh yeah (Score:1)
DRM (Score:2)
It appears the assumption here is that not having DRM is a good thing. It may be a good thing for corporations, but it's NOT a good thing for consumers. I think consumers need to be more active in supporting non-DRM solutions so that corporations don't automatically assume DRM=good.
Re:oh yeah (Score:2)
You can read it for yourself here [apple.com] in the docs on the structure of the QuickTime file format.
You seem to be completely missing the point of QuickTime, and why it is not just a simple wrapper format like AVI. Read up on the different atom formats in QuickTime, and you should be able to find what you have missed.
What's the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
Here in the UK the mobile phone companies need their clients to spend an average of £50 per month ($70-$80) just to allow them to recover from the enormous debts of the 3G licences they lumbered themselves with.
My bill is much less than that a month, and I really don't intend to use any gimicky technology they offer me to tempt me to pay them stupid amounts of cash.
Re:What's the point? (Score:1, Insightful)
No, you are being mistaken. Those charges are important indeed, however they are not the key issue. Of course, as you have already stated, movies on the cell phone are useless. Even if there was no charges at all, there is no reason to have such feature other than to "show off," while with those charges the situation looks like this: it is the most expensive and the least convenient method for watching movies in the history of cinematography.
So why do they add such a useless functionality to they cell phones? Of course the most obvious reason would be to sell uselessly powerful hardware, but that is still not the most important issue.
The real answer, and I say it as someone who has spoken with employees of one of the key software companies in the market, is to lock people with proprietary codecs and/or file formats. Because when everyone has only Real Video and Quick Time on her cell phone few years from now in the future, she will be much less likely to record her grandchildren family movies in Ogg Theora/Vorbis format, if she won't be able to watch them on her cell phone.
You may say that it is not important in which format someone stores movies of one's children or cat, but it is very important to make sure it will not be convenient for people to use free and open formats. After all, this is what average people want, not freedom, not liberty, not even safety, but convenience. And when it is inconvenient to use open formats, and convenient to use only proprietary formats, they will try to make fees for making movies, or maybe even for every distributed copy.
And here are the big money. Grandma will say "Oh, this is nothing 50 cents for every person I will send this movie to," but the recording industry with its legacy business model will be safe, as no one will be able to compete with them as an independent movie or music maker, without paying them money. And this is, people, how the monopolies are built and maintained.
Please consider this issues. Because so far, the most popular attitude is this: "Those, who can give up essential liberty... Ooooh! A new shiny cell phone with proprietary file formats! This is so cool! Where do I sign up?!" This is sad, but that way, nothing will ever change. And this is what I sadly observe, even here on Slashdot.
Re:What's the point? (Score:4, Insightful)
Your "answer" ignores one important fact - that neither the MPEG4 codec, nor the MPEG4 file format are proprietary.
Yes, they are proprietary. Licensing $$$ (Score:3, Informative)
The standard is well and publicly specced, and this is indeed a much better thing than it being secret. But you're required to pay money even for the right to build your own from scratch.
Monty
Re:What's the point? (Score:3, Insightful)
Any cheaper and they wouldn't be able to cope. I've not done the maths but it sounds plausable.
Re:What's the point? (Score:2, Insightful)
iPhone (Score:3, Funny)
does this mean i can watch the twin towers divx rip on my toilet?
Re:iPhone (Score:4, Funny)
Re:iPhone (Score:2)
iPhone (Score:4, Informative)
Re:iPhone (Score:2, Informative)
Re:iPhone (Score:1)
Re:iPhone (Score:2)
Pr0n (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Pr0n (Score:2, Funny)
Does this mean... (Score:1)
New from doubleclick.net (Score:4, Funny)
I just don't get it (Score:1)
On the other hand it would be the ultimate gadget
Re:I just don't get it (Score:1)
They have to recoup money somehow. I suspect they'll end up giving this crap away for free! They've tried charging for voice messaging etc and nobody pays.
I do however THOROUGHLY agree. I do NOT know who is going to be watching "movies" on their mobiles. If grandma wants to watch the kids kids grow up then she'd rather have a video or DVD she can watch at any old time (and over and over again). Are the phone companies going to store your video for you? I guess they must somehow.
1" screen and a crumby piezo speaker... oh yes please.. there are enough butthead idiots out there with 120db ring tones and smalltalk to match. I don't want to hear anymore crap on the train please.
I think this "hype" is to get people to buy new phones... which they often see mto sell at a loss.... go figure....
arse...
Re:I just don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
I completely agree. I recently bought a new phone for my Sprint service (after the old phone decided it didn't want to work anymore). The 19-year old at Radio Shack showed me his Sprint phone, with the color screen and talked about how cool it was. Although it was cool, I could not figure out why I would need a color screen, when the phone would spend about 90% of it's time closed and the other 10% of it's time pressed against my ear.
Quicktime on a phone kind of reminds me of the new BMW 7-Series. Has anyone else seen the inside of this car? It has a new computer screen that controls every aspect of the car (audio, temperature, etc.) with a touch-sensitive, menu-driven screen. It's a neat idea, except for the fact that only an insane driver would mess with touch-screen menus at 70 miles per hour. This basic problem makes a $70,000 car about as useful as Quicktime on a phone.
Video on a Phone... (Score:5, Insightful)
Makes MMS look positively naff, why send a single picture when you can send a video stream ?
BUT if you think about the bandwidth requirements of streaming then it becomes hard for the mobile infrastructure to support.
20 million phones, say only 1% active at a time means 200,000 phones active, each streaming at 256 kilobits means 6400000 kilo bytes of bandwidth required. In other words that is 6.4 GigaBYTES of bandwith required by the mobile network.
Video is a nice idea, and for low usage it works okay within a network, but either the quality has to be crap, or the network investment has to be huge to support video-phone technology over IP. There are better compression elements out there that could work at 64 kilobits, but that is still over a Gigabyte per second network.
AND that is just for a country with only 20 million mobiles.
Re:Video on a Phone... (Score:3, Insightful)
Further, lets assume that this is true, and that the 256kbs thing is also true, that is 480 Kilobytes in traffic per person per day. Looking at current plans that is around 50Euro cents per person per day (at the cheapest rates), or in other words we are talking a 10 million Euro revenue stream per day.
If this was possible, then you can be sure that the phone companies would ensure that the bandwidth was there!
15 minutes a day (Score:2)
My mobile usage is well over 15 minutes a day, normally around 1 hour a day.
I totally agree that if people use this then the revenues are high, but if it is low quality at the start then it will die (ala WAP, its now good but people don't care very much) and the revenues won't exist.
The problem increases when you consider that much of this is going to be cross-network interconnects so the efficent routing to average the bandwidth will be harder. I don't disagree that if they saw this money they would put the network there, but the issue is that the quality of network has to be very high before this becomes viable.
MMS is being pushed because its got low QoS issues, as long as the message gets there its okay. Streamed video is a different issue as it requires a greater QoS than the standard voice call (you can still hear the voice on a poor connection, but a poor connection == no video) which will be difficult to provide at a reasonable cost.
But without a doubt the mobile operators are going to have to get the biggest fattest pipes onto the internet, and have their own dedicated backbones to route traffic effectively. This is the internet on demand like no-one has seen it before.
Re:Video on a Phone... (Score:1)
Re:Video on a Phone... (Score:3, Insightful)
"20 million phones, say only 1% active at a time means 200,000 phones active, each streaming at 256 kilobits means 6400000 kilo bytes of bandwidth required. In other words that is 6.4 GigaBYTES of bandwith required by the mobile network."
Only if you route all traffic through one point, which would of course be terribly silly...
Re:Video on a Phone... (Score:1)
Doesn't seem unreasonable, for me.
Bang! (Score:4, Funny)
2. Billed $9.99.
3. Downloading...
4. Downloading...
5. Downloading...
6. "I'm sorry, Quicktime has performed and illegal operation and will be closed. Please report this fault to Apple inc. Thank you."
you didn't finish it..... (Score:1)
7. ???
8. Profit!
You mean Windows Media Player (Score:1)
Cell Phone Pornography! (Score:1, Redundant)
US and 3G (Score:5, Informative)
The Economist had a great article a few months ago about 3G around the world. Asia does lead the US in 3G, and both places are way far ahead of Europe. Essentially, Europe's insistence on one standard, which worked nicely for 2G, screwed the pooch raw with 3G, that, and the fact that Asia and the US didn't license out 3G, so European cell carriers had to take on debt for billions for 3G whereas no one else did.
There's no doubt in my mind that Asia will continue leading in 3G...for the simple reason that while 3G is developing here in the US, it's been pretty hard to sell Americans on anything other than just talking on the phone. There is some cultural difference that makes Asians all giddy about spiffy 3G features, so it doesn't surprise me to see the newest and greatest 3G tech. over there.
Re:US and 3G (Score:3, Insightful)
This is their little page [manx-telecom.com] about the 3G network on the Island I live on. Owning a 3G, and using it day in day out, I can make a fair assessment that the technology is limited at the moment, it's still all a bit of a novelty..the handsets hold little or pointless functionality, and it only comes into its own when u plug the little thing into a USB port on a laptop/desktop. At that point, u get a broadband connection on a mobile device..I'm sure as time goes on, and technology evolves..so too will the handsets, but the main issue for 3G at the moment is that no manufacturer wants to produce 3G phones. This is due to the fact that even on a global scale..3G is relatively unheard of, and it all comes down to the old supply-and-demand..there is no point in making what people don't really want.
The US attitude is probably right at this moment, because 3G is nothing more than a toy..until it begins to get some fundamental uses rather than just to 'look cool' then its gauranteed to be successful..but at the moment..the 3G Flag flies with Asia
Re:US and 3G (Score:1)
Re:US and 3G (Score:1)
I'll go one step further, imagine advertiser suppported video on demand via cell phone - so the consumer doesn't have to pay connect/data charges. Cell phones become mini-TVs supported by the same paradigm as current broadcast TV.
IMHO, 3G, video and audio streaming via cell phones will really only take off in populations with large numbers of mass transit commuters, i.e. NOT the U.S. The cell phone becomes not only a comm link, but a personal entertainment center. In the U.S. our cars are our PETCs, in Hong Kong the cell phone is.
Re:US and 3G (Score:2)
Actually the European carriers screwed themselves. The airspace was sold off in auction, and they bid each other up to stupid amounts. Having signed the deals during the height of the dotcom bubble, they're now stuck with it. Kind of a shame, but equally they did sign a contract with the government - I don't think they should be let off because they were stupid.
Hmmmmmmm (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Hmmmmmmm (Score:1)
Re:Hmmmmmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
If the trailers are free of charge or minimal charge kids, in the UK at least, will use the service and then video phone to their mates to arrange to see the film etc. etc. etc.
The issue here is for future market share available - not current market share. The estimates for increases in Linux desktop share are, I would imagine, far lower than the number of people expected to move to 3G mobile system in the next 3 years.
By getting Quicktime onto phones Apple provide a way to sell their encoders and lever Microsoft's format off of the mobile platform.
Trailers free, downloading isn't (Score:2)
Re:Trailers free, downloading isn't (Score:2)
Re:Hmmmmmmm (Score:2)
Well, that's what the telcos would have us believe, but from what I've gathered most 3rd party analysts aren't so confident. So far, 3G providers (in europe anyway) are horrifically loaded with debt and are desperately trying to find customers who are willing to pay huge amounts for what are essentially gimmicks.
There are loads of adverts here telling us about all the funky things you'll be able to do with 3G phones - maybe, oneday. Everybody takes the piss out of them. 3G is by no means a certain bet.
Compared to Linux which has a huge amount of interest, and a lot of people saying "Well, I would use it but there's still 1 problem left......" I think it's pretty likely that Linux will grow faster than 3G in the next few years, simply because it has a lot more people interested in it.
Don't get me wrong, 3G will happen, but not after some abortive starts and it'll take a lot longer than we think.
Great quote: (Score:5, Insightful)
"The big hurdle that QuickTime has to clear is that it isn't a nicely bundled solution of video creation management and security," said Jones. "They don't have some of the content management and DRM capabilities that Real and Microsoft have."
Everyone else calls that a plus. No DRM, no security, less crap to deal with.
On another note, someone was asking whether there was truly a greater demand for this than a Linux port of QT. Perhaps there is, but also, this could be a way to pave the road for video phones.
where's the real innovation? (Score:2, Insightful)
Current cellphones are plain and simple pieces of crap. Here are just some examples of some real innovation I'd like to see in newer phones.
Why one does have to keep 5 remotes, or buy an uber expensive learning one, when any cellphone could include $ 0.5 circuitry and some lines of code might be added to make it able to learn and keep in memory IR signals?
How about including also a RF module that will open my garage door with the codes I already stored in its memory?
Why do trekkers/workers have to use walkie talkies when cellphones may be configured to allow 1v1 and switched 1vMany short range communication without any need for a repeater?
Why does one have to fight against the expensive cable/docking station when one mini USB port in a cellphone would both give standard physical I/O capabilities and enough power to recharge the batteries simply by connecting it to a PC?
Ok, and as a techie I'd like to program my cellphone in C and its devices in asm.
Make a cool device and I'll buy it, but if you try to charge me for a "service" I already do for free on my computer just because the cellphone it's smaller, you're losing your time.
Semi OT: popups in an audio-stream (Score:1)
IMHO this is a huge security gap (imagine a bunch (well let's say 10000) of WMA listeners while you send them all the same URL, nice DDoS he?) and should not be possible. Blame the WMA format?
wow, a 8 Mb player AND a bloated movie on my phone (Score:1)
tired of proprietary formats, muddied waters (Score:1, Interesting)
For truly open formats, you have to stick either exclusively to the stuff that is standardized by a standards body, or you have to go with a fully free and open codebase. 90% open doesn't count. Open stream format with the possibility of proprietary codecs doesn't count.
Apple's efforts with QuickTime are really no different from those of Real or Microsoft: they want to dominate multimedia with a format that they control. Their confusing statements about openness and relationships with MPEG4 are simply attempts to muddy the waters and confuse the issues. The best thing consumers can do is to say "no" to all of them--because otherwise consumers are going to pay the price in the long run. There are plenty of alternatives--we don't need Apple, Microsoft, or Real for multimedia.
Re:tired of proprietary formats, muddied waters (Score:2)
And that would leave us to view our multimedia content with...?
Re:tired of proprietary formats, muddied waters (Score:2)
Re:tired of proprietary formats, muddied waters (Score:3, Insightful)
It can support MPEG4, MJPEG, and h.XXX out of the box, and has Ogg and MPEG2 components (for both encoding and decoding) and can decode MPEG1 without any special effort.
What, exactly, is your problem? Quicktime, I believe, *is* documented. The only thorn is the Sorensen codec... which is just a codec, and not a container and not a platform.
Re:tired of proprietary formats, muddied waters (Score:2)
If these cell phones use "QuickTime", including the ability to use new codecs, then they are effectively using a proprietary format. If they use what QuickTime usually refers to, the QuickTime stream format with Sorenson, then they definitely are using a proprietary format.
If the cell phones use MPEG4, then it's misleading for Apple to claim that they use "QuickTime", which would imply that Apple has some sort of special power over the format; if all they actually use is MPEG4, then Apple is just one of many companies that can provide software or hardware for it.
So, you are right that the QuickTime stream format is open and document; QuickTime just isn't a open streaming video format by itself because it doesn't define how the video is actually encoded.
Re:tired of proprietary formats, muddied waters (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:tired of proprietary formats, muddied waters (Score:2)
What it comes down to is that either Apple is lying when they are saying that some cell phone will incorporate "QuickTime", because what it actually includes is MPEG4, or the cell phone actually includes QuickTime and the content cannot be generated with an MPEG4 encoder.
Re:tired of proprietary formats, muddied waters (Score:1, Funny)
Apple also keeps confusing the issues with their claims that MPEG4 is somehow based on QuickTime; there is some historical relationship, but they are different.
Tell me about it! And it's not just Apple confusing things: even those bastards at MPEG [telecomitalialab.com] are trying to muddy [telecomitalialab.com] our otherwise-clean waters:
The design [of the MPEG-4 file format] is based on the QuickTime® format from Apple Computer Inc.
I'm sick of this goddamned FUD!
Quicktime (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Quicktime (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:A name for this (Score:2, Informative)
Re:A name for this (Score:2)
It was a JOKE man
AT&T GPRS vs QT6 (Score:3, Informative)
Re:AT&T GPRS vs QT6 (Score:2, Interesting)
But convergence is here already, even if it's not realtime convergence. C'mon over to my house, and I'll show you how I do it on my TMobile PocketPC phone.
1) Record films/shows to PC with WinTV and SnapStream. (Alternately, download saved shows from TiVo with WinTV and WinDVR.)
2) Use SnapStream's Pocket PC converter or Windows Media Encoder to munge down the size of the file.
3a) Enable SnapStream server. Leave house.
4a) Dial into ISP from PocketPC Phone, connect to SnapStream server, and stream video files (takes a long-ass time).
OR
3b) Save shrunken
4b) Leave house.
5) Watch whatever the hell you want wherever the hell you want to in Media Player. Yesterday, rather than leafing through germ-laden back issues of Good Housekeeping as I whiled away an hour in the doctor's waiting room, I watched "The Sopranos", while at the same time waiting on hold with the veteranarian's office.
Oh, and then at the vet's office, I read an eBook.
Argh. (Score:3, Interesting)
This is all. I don't want my cell phone to take pictures, play games, play QuickTime movies, launch surface to air missles, sing to me on lonely nights, do the jig, reminisce about the halcyon days of yore, and so on.
All this whizz bang cell phone "technology" is obnoxious and a textboox example of feature creep.
STOP THE MADNESS!
Re:Argh. (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, I'm of the opinion that extra features in a cellphone generally suck. I just cancelled my web access ($5/month) on my SprintPOS (er, PCS) phone because I never use it.
Right now I want exactly TWO things from my cellphone: decent coverage area, and Bluetooth capabilities to I can use my iBook to surf from wherever and keep all my phone #s straight between my Palm, iBook, and cellphone (because I have so many floating around, I never remember them all).
Get QuickTime Pro now? (Score:2)
Incredibly misleading headline. (Score:3, Interesting)
Much of the confusion around this subject comes from a lack of understanding of the difference between
As another poster pointed out, only a piece of 3GPP is based on Quicktime is the container file format itself (the bit that says "here's a 3000 byte chunk of data with this 32bit codec identifier"). Another piece (the protocol) is based on work RealNetworks pioneered (RTSP). Moreover, the Helix DNA Client supports the 3GPP specification today.
RealNetworks added MPEG-4 and 3GPP support 10 months ago with the RealSystem Mobile Server (see press release [realnetworks.com]),
and MPEG-4 support will be included in the Helix DNA Server when it is released in the near future.
As for the speculation about Apple releasing 3GPP encoding support, we would welcome them to the party. In early November we announced that a version of our Producer product for creating 3GPP content will ship in Q1 of 03. (see press release [realnetworks.com]) Moreover, we offer our encoding framework as open source (and naturally open APIs) so that you can add support for whatever format you want to. We've given you a head start by implementing Ogg Vorbis support.
Again, the new phones sound great. Lots of new devices for Helix encoders and servers to work with.
DoCoMo does NOT serve the "western world"... (Score:5, Informative)
In the country where this is being marketed, there is already an "actual 3G network" in place, so this isn't pointless technology. I am currently a DoCoMo customer who happens to be in the market for a new phone, and I must say, I am quite excited about this. It will be nice to have the media that my phone uses play nicely with my iBook, unlike the format that J-Phone uses, which if sent to a computer, can only be viewed on a PC.
And this technology is not entirely useless in the US. My family happens to live there, and with this, I will be able to send them quicktime movies from my phone...sure, it is a novelty, but it sounds good to me. :D
Just my 2 yen.
Re:That's all really nice (Score:2)
Re:Codec (Score:1)
Re:Quicktime. (Score:2, Informative)
Quicktime has never, in my memory, hijacked a file type or creator without my permission. Of course, it came pre-installed on my computer, so I dunno what would have happened had I installed it fresh. But I can easily, for example, tell mp3's to associate themselves with Audion or iTunes, and Quicktime won't hijack them; either on opening the file, or on launching Quicktime.
And any icons (except for those in the Applications folder itself) are easily removed.
Open your eyes, and stop spreading FUD.
(And hell... when you come right down to it, the most recent version of RealOne is remarkably well-behaved. I admit, I was reluctant as hell to install it, given my past experiences. But they do seem to have listened to the input (complaints) of the users. Still not a company I would give money to, given their past behavior. But they seem to suck significantly less.)
cya,
john