NPR Drops QuickTime Support 107
Magnetic Confinement writes "NPR has decided to drop QuickTime from its available streams. Their help desk response is: 'NPR.org had been offering some of its audio in the Apple QuickTime format under an arrangement with Apple QuickTime. We regret that we were unable to reach mutually acceptable terms for a new arrangement with Apple QuickTime. As a result, NPR is unable to continue offering its content in this format."
FP and DUPE! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:FP and DUPE! (Score:1)
/. Communities need not isolate from each other (Score:1)
Second of all, I think this fracturization of
All of us have stronger interests in certa
Re:FP and DUPE! (Score:1)
Re:FP and DUPE! (Score:1)
In other news... (Score:1, Redundant)
Slashdot maintains its duplicate story support.
P.S. The "2 minute warning" on /. posts should be limited to 2 minutes between posts in a single story
Again? (Score:2)
Re:Again? (Score:1)
Re:Again? (Score:2)
None of the relevant URLs are linked any more, but Mighty Google [google.com] knows that NPR [npr.org] is still streaming in QuickTime [apple.com].
IMO, all audio-only non-commercial sites should ditch proprietary formats and switch to AAC (MP4), since "there are no royalties or usage fees for content distribution in AAC format, either in electronic form or in packaged media".
Read: WE WANT A PAYOFF (Score:2, Interesting)
You can't really do better than "Free", so they must want Apple to pay them extra $$$.
Re:Sure.... (Score:2)
Well, it also runs on 'Windows NT / 2000, RedHat Linux 7.x, and Solaris 8'. I expect that the Linux binary would also work on *BSD, which leads me to wonder exatly what OS you think they're using for their servers, if it isn't any of these.
Re:Sure.... (Score:1)
Re:Read: WE WANT A PAYOFF (Score:2)
BZZT, wrong (Score:5, Informative)
1.) They now want (more) money from Apple to do it, or
2.) Apple must not want to pay them to do it (any longer).
Please point me to where I or anyone else is required to "purchase" codecs from Apple for QuickTime either for streaming or playback (other than MPEG-2).
(This assumes NPR is using QTSS on Mac OS X Server, the only platform where it is supported by Apple.)
Re:BZZT, wrong -- Mea Culpa (Score:1)
Re:BZZT, wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
THERE IS NO COST to you (besides using a Mac for the broadcaster) in order to use Quicktime Streaming Server. Its an Open Source product - Apple even has links to RH, Solaris, and Windows NT versions freely downloadable. Oh, and the source, if you REALLY want to use your new Fossil PDA watch as a QTSS server once you port the software.
QTSS [apple.com] and Quicktime Broadcaster [apple.com] are both freely downloadable and have 0 cost to you, the unpaying user. You can use whatever codecs you think are good enough for you, meaning that you can use this even on Linux.
"We regret that we were unable to reach mutually acceptable terms for a new arrangement with Apple QuickTime" is liberal NPR speak for "just because Al Gore is on your board doesn't mean shit to us. Don't think that we aren't closet free-marketers in real life, so give us free money, or we'll drop your ass."
I am totally floored that they have ditched the only 100% free streaming server in order to shill up to their favorite right-wing "Big Software" companies like Microsoft and Real.
(You have read the word "Real". Real is a registered trademark of Real Networks, and we are now directing you to a website where finding the free player is practically impossible. Once its downloaded, you will need to give us your email address, full control of your computer, your DNA, your first born child, your credit cards and numbers, your preferred sexual postition, and state if you supported the war in Iraq before we fill up your screen with an entire window of advertisements just to listen to our "welcome to real" jingle)
Re:BZZT, wrong (Score:2)
NPR isn't liberal. They're propagandists. Were they liberal at best they would be providing a balanced report of the Iraq invasion, at worst they would provide the news with a leftist slant. What they ar
More information from NPR (Score:5, Informative)
From: NPRHelp1
Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 1:29:08 PM America/Chicago
To: "'Dave Schroeder'"
Subject: RE: QuickTime
Dave:
I've talked to our business affairs manager and this is the response he
asked me to give people who wrote in looking for additional information:
This outcome is the result of business and legal negotiations and we do
not discuss those negotiations. If you are asking whether this in any way
reflects on Apple QuickTime's technology, the answer is no -- business and
legal issues, not technological ones, led to this outcome.
I apologize if that's not the answer you're looking for.
Paul
> From: Dave Schroeder [mailto:das@doit.wisc.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 1:59 PM
> To: nprhelp@npr.org
> Subject: Re: QuickTime
>
> > NPR.org had been offering some of its audio in the Apple QuickTime
> > format under an arrangement with Apple QuickTime. We regret that we
> > were unable to reach mutually acceptable terms for a new arrangement
> > with Apple QuickTime. As a result, NPR is unable to continue offering
> > its content in this format.
>
> I'd like more information about this. Since the QuickTime Streaming
> technology is free and has no licensing restrictions, what do you mean
> you were "unable to reach mutually acceptable terms for a new
> arrangement"? There is nothing that needs to be arranged with Apple, or
> purchased from Apple (unless they were subsidizing your broadcast, or
> providing facilities and/or equipment, and did not wish to do this any
> longer).
>
> Awaiting your reply,
>
> Dave Schroeder
> University of Wisconsin - Madison
Re:More information from NPR (Score:1)
As for NPR's reply... pretty common sense stuff. If it was technology related, it means that they don't have the technology/know-how to reformat... obviously not the case. It being a "business" decision means that they don't have the monetary means to do so.
Re:Read: WE WANT A PAYOFF (Score:2)
Re:Read: WE WANT A PAYOFF (Score:1)
Sucks, and I'm sorry to see this happen, but there might be a reason beyond NPR demanding a payoff. Could just be cost cuts...there's been a lot of that going around lately.
Audio? or Video? (Score:3, Interesting)
Again... what is so hard about offering an mp3 stream? Then everyone could listen to it with any player they want.
Re:Audio? or Video? (Score:4, Informative)
KUER [kuer.org]
There are a few under iTunes' radio list and Google could find more.
Of course this won't let you listen to backstories. But so long as they don't start using WMP9 who cares?
Re:Audio? or Video? (Score:2)
There are licensing issues with a lot of the content they carry that prevents this sort of thing. Music contained in the shows, interview guests, these sorts of things. I believe they only have a license to stream this content on demand, either over airwaves, or via a streaming-only protocol, like Real. I recently wrote an e-mail to my local NPR member station (WBEZ) thanking them for the great job they do maintaining their show archive (of locally produced shows), e
Re:Audio? or Video? (Score:1)
I suppose if I can't listen to NPR any more, I won't remember when to send them those checks any more either.
Why not MP3 (Score:5, Informative)
No multicasting
No native RTSP support
No good loss recovery mechanism
It's amazing that MP3 works as well as it does for pseudo-streaming, but a true streaming format it ain't. Personally, I'd like to see them adopt a MPEG-4 AAC-LC stream, which QuickTime, RealOne for Windows, and other ISMA MPEG-4 compliant players could tune into. Better quality at lower data rates than MP3.
Pretty soon we'll have AAC High Effeciency, which can do ~FM quality at 32 Kbps for 44.1 stereo. Astonishingly better than other propritary codecs in head-to-head at these low bitrates.
Re:Why not MP3 (Score:2)
-----
PS the 20 seconds rule to post a reply sucks
Re:Why not MP3 (Score:2)
AAC High Efficiency (Score:1)
Will that include the fabled MP4 Speech codec, that's been disabled in my QT6 dialog box ever since I bought it? I'm planning to encode and upload 2 hours of discussion soon, hopefully at 8Kbps or lower.
MPEG-4 speech codecs. (Score:2)
CELP might be largely bypassed in favor of AMR - Adaptive Multi Rate, which offers real-time scalability for speech. Good stuff.
Re:Why not MP3 (Score:2)
Re:Why not MP3 (Score:2)
"No native RTSP support" -- I don't care.
"No good loss recovery mechanism" -- I don't care.
See? MP3 isn't such a bad option.
However, I do agree with you about what I'd like to see in the future. Until that happens, though, I think MP3 is the best compromise.
--Richard
Hey (Score:2, Funny)
Has anyone else heard anything about this??
Re:Hey (Score:2)
Re:Hey (Score:1)
Re:Hey (Score:2)
I stoped donating to NPR. (Score:3, Funny)
I don't donate to them any more - I'll keep on leaching. I feel a bit bad about it, but if they won't support open standard then screw them.
Re:I stoped donating to NPR. (Score:3, Offtopic)
(result 9)
Re:I stoped donating to NPR. (Score:1, Troll)
Since you're so dumb: a link [doom9.org]
Re:I stoped donating to NPR. (Score:1)
Re:I stoped donating to NPR. (Score:2)
Re:I stoped donating to NPR. (Score:2)
Re:I stoped donating to NPR. (Score:1)
Seriously: did you write to them (a real letter) with a reasonable and convincing rationale for supporting an open streaming format? If so, what did they really say? (And who did you write to, and who replied?)
They are "public" radio; they do listen to listeners. (Although I'm a bit troubled that they now accept corporate backing from Microsoft; that certainly makes me concerned they will be open to pressure to conform to proprietary formats).
Re:I stoped donating to NPR. (Score:2)
I wroote a convincing email, complete with benifits and a link to the BBC
They basically wrote back that Real and Apple were their "partners" and that they diden't have time for
I was cordial, they were cordial.
They offered Quicktime? (Score:3, Interesting)
Ahh...yes... (Score:5, Insightful)
Lessee here...I see WMP and Real mentioned on the front page.
"Public Radio," my ass. They're just another example of boomers selling out to the "corporate masters" they complained about back in the 60s and 70s.
As an infrequent NPR listener, I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft is at the root of this. Whenever I listen to NPR in the morning there is always a well-place MS "announcement" (read: advertisment - on public radio!) around 8am. I have no doubt that MS is threatening pulling its financial support if WMP is not the primary media player on the site. I bet Real will disappear soon, too.
If NPR were truly interested in being a user-friendly entity, it would post the stories in an .mp3 format and it would drop these ads for Microsoft and other corporations.
Meanwhile, I'm going back to Audible and the New York Times. At least I can deal with corporations that make it clear they're in it for the money, not some soft-and-fuzzy-bunny-bullshit smokescreen.
Re:Ahh...yes... (Score:1)
Re:Ahh...yes... (Score:2, Insightful)
One nice thing about being a conservative is that I don't get my undies in a knot when someone I admire makes a lot of money. I say, "more power to 'em" and try to emulate their success.
I mean, how can you even enjoy music? If it's any good, they inevitably "sell out" to try and make a few bucks... you must be stuck listening to the Flaming Lips latest hit "10,000 Cats Burning to Death Slowly."
(Don't tell
Re:Ahh...yes... (Score:5, Insightful)
Need I remind you, "public television" and "public radio" aren't supposed to "make" money. They're not-for-profit organizations. My argument is is that QTSS, something that can be had for free (even the OS, Darwin, it runs on can be free), was probably pulled because Microsoft and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, both huge contributors to NPR, told them to do it. As I said before: I expect Real will disappear from the site as well.
The entire argument, which, mind you, was on topic before you voiced your opinion, is that NPR is a bunch of posers, son, for dumping a technology for cloudy reasons. They are HYPOCRITES. They clearly aren't looking out for their listeners or for the values they claim to embrace. They're covering their asses and not taking chances.
I have no admiration for those who do not take risks. That would probably include those who choose to "emulate" (read: follow) instead of lead.
Re:Ahh...yes... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ahh...yes... (Score:1)
There's a difference between writing and a rant. You didn't attack anything, you just dribbled on about corporate whores.
Need I remind you, "public television" and "public radio" aren't supposed to "make" money. They're not-for-profit organizations.
Ever tried to manage one of these non-profits, or even work for them? They aren't supposed to turn a profit, true, but they do have an underlying
Re:Ahh...yes... (Score:2)
Re:Ahh...yes... (Score:1)
Dropped out of school to try my hand at running a dotcom... back in to finish what I started, gonna go to the army now that we have a decent CIC. Get over yourself and your sob story, I'm not impressed.
You just don't want to believe that anyone could have a better insight into their own minds than
Re:Ahh...yes... (Score:2)
QTSS (Score:1)
Re:QTSS (Score:1)
Audio Hijack (Score:1, Informative)
NPR's bizarre business practices continue... (Score:3, Interesting)
Examples of such "inappropriate" links include "certain kinds of commercial linking," [an NPR spokesperson] said.
"For example, if Salon.com writes a story about NPR and links to us, that would be fine," because the online magazine wouldn't be using the NPR link for its commercial benefit. "But what wouldn't be fine is if someone sets up a business to link to us and profit from that" -- for example, if someone sets up an online "radio station" whose main content was NPR's programs.
Pretty weird, huh? How exactly would anyone see any "commercial benefit" from letting their readers link to NPR? By that definition, ANYONE could be suspect of profiting from the link.
Wake up, NPR. Now Quicktime? Do you you all just hate the world?
Re:NPR's bizarre business practices continue... (Score:2)
Over the past several years, the company acquired a series of patents its attorneys believe cover virtually all on-demand transmissions of compressed audio and video over the Internet, cable TV lines, satellite and wireless services. The company's parent, Acacia Research, has previously made tens of millions of dollars in patent r
Fuck NPR (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Fuck NPR (Score:2)
Ohh bummer (Score:1)
Seriously it is kinda bummer, but lukily I can pick up our local npr station really well on my reciever.
NPR a Ho as are you and I. (Score:1)
RealPlayer support will be mai
Re:does this mean.... (Score:4, Funny)
Given that it's a radio show, I'd say the answer is probably yes.
Re:does this mean.... (Score:2)
It's a real treat if you can't conveniently travel to wherever the show is occuring and purchase tickets, or if you'd simply like to see what the stage show is like.
You have a choice of seeing a visual image presented from either a single camera view, or get better coverage from a 3-camera view, if you've got the bandwidth.
Re:npr == leftist apologists (Score:3, Informative)
Re:npr == leftist apologists (Score:4, Insightful)
But of course you'd actually have to listen to the station to learn that, and that might interrupt your convenient "liberal media bias" myths that you can use to excuse the BS that O'Reilly and his ilk pull.
Re:npr == leftist apologists (Score:2)
Yeah, NPR is so left wing that they appointed Kevin Klose [current.org], Director of the International Broadcasting Bureau [ibb.gov], as their president. The IBB is the US Government run network which operates the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio and TV Marti and Radio Free Asia.
Re:Dear Apple (Score:1)