Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Media (Apple) Businesses Media Apple

NPR Drops QuickTime Support 107

Posted by pudge from the just-send-raw-pcm-data dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NPR Drops QuickTime Support More

NPR Drops QuickTime Support

Comments Filter:

  • FP and DUPE! (Score:2, Informative)

    by elmegil ( 12001 )
    This is a duplicate [slashdot.org]
    • Why aren't editors required to read the rest of slashdot? Or discuss among themselves before deciding to tuck an obvious "apple" story off in Slashback? Bitching about editors is, of course, offtopic, but GEEZUS XRIST people!
      • First of all, it is a dupe. Just as a newspaper that publishes an article on Tuesday on page F3 and then again on page A1 the next day would be rightly deserving of criticism, so Slashdot is.

        Second of all, I think this fracturization of /. into Apple and everyone else is stupid. Apple people are not special. BSD people are not special. Linux people are not special. Windows people are not, well, I guess some might consider them special in an empathetic sort of way.

        All of us have stronger interests in certa
    • No, it's not: it's not mentioned in the Slashback summary, so it's reasonable to think that lots of people wouldn't have seen it there.
      • It is still a duplicate; it's posted word for word in two places within 24 hours of each other. Perhaps the editor doing the slashback should have included all the subtopics in his summary; perhaps he should have realized it would be of greater interest to the apple folks, perhaps he should have actually DISCUSSED WHAT TO DO WITH THE OTHER EDITORS. Clearly they don't communicate.

  • 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)

    by drdink ( 77 )
    I seem to recall this being briefly mentioned [slashdot.org] somewhere else before. Can't remember where I heard it.... Seems like it was recently, too.
    • Funny enough, it's the exact same post that was in the Slashback, by the same person as well. Sad.
    • Since /. likes to dupe, so will I [slashdot.org]:

      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)

    by Anonymous Coward
    In the fine tradition of Dick Clark, NPR must actually want Apple to pay THEM money for using Quicktime. Since you can get the QTSS for FREE, and even if you don't want to pay for OSX (or osx server) you can run it on the FREE Darwin setup.

    You can't really do better than "Free", so they must want Apple to pay them extra $$$.

    • May I be allowed to mention that there is a significant difference between the QuickTime codecs and the QTSS, and that, while the latter is open source, the former must be purchased...?

      • BZZT, wrong (Score:5, Informative)

        by daveschroeder ( 516195 ) on Thursday April 17, 2003 @12:52PM (#5752825)
        NPR has to purchase NOTHING for this. QTSS, and their existing equipment with QuickTime frameworks, is all they need to stream this, and they don't need to pay for any codecs to do it. Either:

        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.)
        • I was ignorant, and am now enlightened. More specifically, I was indeed thinking of MPEG-2, but only in a vague, I-should-have-checked-my-facts-first sort of way. I was under the impression that QTSS would stream various formats, but the only way to produce a QuickTime .mov was to purchase the appropriate codec from Apple. And, yes, I realize that's wrong, too. I was remembering some discussions about .mov playback under Linux, where one couldn't play certain .mov formats due to the Sorenson codec used

        • Re:BZZT, wrong (Score:5, Insightful)

          by gsfprez ( 27403 ) on Thursday April 17, 2003 @05:00PM (#5754971)
          This is not a matter of COST. It is a matter of NPR being a bitch, and wanting payola. Period.

          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)

          • "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."

            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)

          by daveschroeder ( 516195 ) on Thursday April 17, 2003 @05:34PM (#5755215)
          Here's a reply that I got from NPR asking for more information:

          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
          • If the spiderman trailer wasn't released through the Quicktime format, would you blame the movie producers? I think that you're barking up the wrong tree on this case. Why not contact Apple instead?

            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.
      • QuickTime is a container technology, actually. The codecs QuickTime is capable of using are another matter. Many come free with QuickTime Player for Mac & Windows. Many have licensing issues and require you to buy QuickTime Pro. Others aren't available from Apple at all - MSMPEG4, for instance, is a free download from Microsoft. DiVX codecs can be had for free from a variety of sources.
    • I'd want to see some proof before believing this. I'm dissapointed, but even though Darwin is free, they still have to pay someone to administer the server.

      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)

    by foniksonik ( 573572 ) on Thursday April 17, 2003 @11:50AM (#5752326) Homepage Journal
    I still don't get why National Public Radio is using Video formats for audio streams... why not just use some freakin' MP3? This is national and public right? Does it really need to be DRM'd?

    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)

      by WatertonMan ( 550706 ) on Thursday April 17, 2003 @12:24PM (#5752612)
      Presumably they are being *paid* to use a particular format. It is all moot anyways since lots of individual public radio stations offer MP3 streams. Here's the one I use:

      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?

    • > why not just use some freakin' MP3?

      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
      • 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.
        There is Streaming Quicktime.

        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)

      by benwaggoner ( 513209 ) <.ben.waggoner. .at. .microsoft.com.> on Thursday April 17, 2003 @01:35PM (#5753180) Homepage
      A few reasosn not to use MP3:

      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.
      • would OGG work better then?

        -----
        PS the 20 seconds rule to post a reply sucks
        • It likely would. Although I haven't seen much in the way of RTSP/multicast OGG content out there. I'm not sure if there is any technical reason for this. Experts seem to think that OGG isn't very well designed as a RTSP format, but I don't understand those particular issues in enough depth to state what the problem there is.
      • soon we'll have AAC High Effeciency

        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.

      • There is an RTP encapsulation format for MP3 (two of them, in fact), so you can multicast it or RTSP it. But Shoutcast/Icecast pseudo-streaming is so entrenched that virtually no one [live.com] is interested in standards-based MP3 streaming.
      • "No multicasting" -- I don't care.
        "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)

    by dogbowl ( 75870 )
    I heard somewhere that NPR is going to drop quicktime support.
    Has anyone else heard anything about this??

  • I stoped donating to NPR. (Score:3, Funny)

    by zulux ( 112259 ) on Thursday April 17, 2003 @12:43PM (#5752763) Homepage Journal
    I asked them for an .OGG stream and they told me to fuck off.

    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.

    • Did NPR really tell you to "fuck off?"

      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).

      • I wroote a convincing email, complete with benifits and a link to the BBC .OGG experiment.

        They basically wrote back that Real and Apple were their "partners" and that they diden't have time for .OGG.

        I was cordial, they were cordial.

  • They offered Quicktime? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Silverhammer ( 13644 ) on Thursday April 17, 2003 @12:49PM (#5752800)
    I didn't even know they offered a Quicktime stream. Everything on their Web site is done with RealAudio...

  • Ahh...yes... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gamgee5273 ( 410326 ) on Thursday April 17, 2003 @01:02PM (#5752907) Journal
    NPR continues to show its true colors and become more and more of a corporate bitch.

    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.

    • Might I suggest you seek out your nearest pacifica branch? True, there's as much in fighting as at your average University, but corporate shills they aren't. (I mention this solely as a point of reference. I can't tolerate them.)

    • Re:Ahh...yes... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by sco08y ( 615665 )
      You've gotta be pretty far out there to think NPR is part of a vast right-wing corporate conspiracy.

      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)

        by gamgee5273 ( 410326 ) on Thursday April 17, 2003 @07:16PM (#5755847) Journal
        Try reading what I wrote, not just what your blinders will allow you to. I never attacked the capitalist model.

        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)

          by kalidasa ( 577403 )
          From the viewpoint of NPR, there is no distinction between Free as in Freedom and Free as in Beer. And I'm sure they're thinking "well, it's easier to only support a limited number of formats." I wish they hadn't, but there it is. And I never, ever hear MS sponsorship on NPR, and I nearly always listen at 8 am. Probably your local station.
        • Try reading what I wrote, not just what your blinders will allow you to. I never attacked the capitalist model.

          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
      • I'm not so worried about NPR so much as I am worried about *Minnesota* Public Radio. Look at this organizational chart here [mpr.org]. Among other things APM, the parent of MPR, which is a non-profit, runs a public radio station in California, a theater in Minnesota, for profit radio stations in Minnesota, all in addition to running public radio stations in Minnesota.

  • QTSS (Score:1)

    by Petrox ( 525639 )
    This seems rather odd to me. With QuickTime Streaming Server (QTSS) being open source and Free, I can't imagine that streaming in Quicktime is any more expensive for NPR than streaming in WMP and Real.
    • The $$ they spend supporting and keeping up the quicktime server is probably outweighed by the small amount of users that actually use it.

  • Audio Hijack (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I just registered a piece of software called Audio Hijack Pro which means I can grab this stuff and convert it to mp3. I love it, I take it with me on my 10 gig iPod, it's great. Now, I don't care if it's real or windows media or whatever.

  • NPR's bizarre business practices continue... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nycroft ( 653728 ) on Thursday April 17, 2003 @03:34PM (#5754264) Homepage
    NPR has a strange history of alienating people. For example, a snippet [boingboing.net] on Cory Doctorow's site boingboing [boingboing.net] from last June, then featured on TechTV's The Screensavers [techtv.com], told a strange story of NPR not allowing people to place an NPR link on their web site:

    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?

  • Fuck NPR (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Refrag ( 145266 )
    I used to listen to NPR a lot, until recently. They've been National Propaganda Radio ever since we invaded Iraq.
    • Flamebait? How about Informative? I couldn't agree more. There's lots of good media on the web that compete with NPR. This year I'm giving money to my local jazz radio station and the EFF. All my NPR dollars ever did was fund the megaphone for the Bush/Cheney gvt.
  • Now I won't be able to listen to communism now..er I mean democracy now from my computer.

    Seriously it is kinda bummer, but lukily I can pick up our local npr station really well on my reciever.
  • It is about the money... and why not, it doesn't grow on trees. People who work at the stations need to live, the station needs funds to transmit, to buy programming, buy equipment, etc. It takes time and money to maintain their website with multiple streams and formats. So don't be so naive. Public broadcasting needs money and they make BUSINESS decisions to support their efforts. Most of the public stations are operating under a shoestring budget even with your pledges.

    RealPlayer support will be mai

Slashdot Top Deals

Single tasking: Just Say No.

Close