QuickTime 4 Streaming Server to be Open Source? 52
2megs writes "Apple Insider is reporting in their preview of expected MacWorld Expo announcements that QuickTime 4 will be unveiled at the show next week. As expected, streaming capabilities will be pushed hard, but what's perhaps more eyebrow-raising is that the new QT4 streaming server may be open source. "
Client deduced from server - nope (Score:1)
I don't think it will be possible. It has been stated (somewhere else) that to stream existing QuickTime files, they would NOT need to be converted. This says that the server is only interested in moving the raw data to the client. No knowledge of the client format should be needed.
I read somewhere else that this streaming stuff is based on MBONE multicasting, so it won't be a proprietary format.
It seems that Apple has found a good tranport method already and doesn't see the need of developing a new one.
Client deduced from server - maybe (Score:1)
It's possible that the public server code will only support pre-recorded files. It's also possible that a platform that *does* have QuickTime ported (Mac, Win) will be used for the encoding and, as demonstrated at WWDC, the server simply acts as a reflector for the Multicast or Unicast stream.
I don't know, I'm just excercising my imagination here
Open Source QuickTime would be great (Score:1)
Anyway, I'm sick of having to wait for the new RealPlayer G2 to be available for Linux.
show me the video (Score:1)
This chance that apple might make the server OSS is great...for Windows and Macintosh users. Perhaps they're admitting to the fact that one needs a real OS (read unix or a clone thereof) to run such services. This is yet another example of Apple's too-little-too-late disease.
QT4 to become new MPEG standard (Score:1)
And Real's bloated G2 server can rot. Has anyone used one of these? It starts up a half dozen processes each allocating ~270meg of RAM. Of course it isn't all swapped in, but when traffic goes up on these things, it can get ugly.
Useless without the library (Score:1)
Open source player (Score:1)
Server only? (Score:1)
However, it might just be the server for now. And it reinforces a view which most Linux users refuse to see; at least right now Linux is only for the backroom; a fact which will not change until it's got the one thing it still lacks: usability. Gnome and KDE are making great strides towards this, but neither is there yet (and if you look at the two, despite their version numbers they're actually about equal; each focuses on different aspects at different times but overall it's a draw at this point). Certain Slashdotters who I won't name here can rant their techno-fascist babble about "the idiots will ruin Linux" all they want, but Linux needs usability. I'd say that, given what is out there and where it appears to be going, that it has about two years left before it reaches it. In other words, we'll have that last key piece of the puzzle about the release date of Windows 2000... um... 2001... wait... I mean 2002.
Nothing new... (Score:1)
QT itself could never be open sourced (or at least not as it is and not easily) because of all the 3rd party codecs and such contained within.
Open source player (Score:1)
The Movie Player application is unimportant. It just accesses the Quicktime layer - many applications can play quicktime movies, since all they do is call on the Quicktime extensions. This is one of the reasons that so much video work is done on macs: it's part of the system. In theory you could edit video using MS Word (but I wouldn't advise it; you always get those messy cuts
And having support like this for video on Linux would be crucial in getting it accepted in video editing work, which Linux would in theory be very good for (good video editing software and a stable user interface wouldn't hurt either).
So what gets in the way of having Quicktime support on Linux is Apple porting it. They aren't going to make it Open Source, because the patents on it are crucial to Apple (witness the lawsuits against MS - it may have been with AVI) and they want to have control over it. And they do make money with it. It doesn't need to be Open Source for Linux users to get the benefits from it. That's just a control thing.
And as someone noted above, Apple doesn't own the patents on a lot of the codecs and file formats (and it supports a lot of those) that are part of Quicktime - it's too complicated to try to make it open source software. Just having the libraries available on Linux is enough, and they will do it if there is a need for it, and when that happens some high end commercial video editing software might be ported in a couple of years time, which would be great.
Even if the streaming server software is open source the quicktime libraries (if they are needed) won't be, but it would be great for Linux if they were ported anyhow. Bringing standards like this to Linux is good for Linux.
And again...
Quicktime is more than a movie player.
yawn (Score:1)
they are still here.
In a year's time this kind of comment will still show up. While a year and a half ago I would have said yeah, you're right, and not bought my mac, I did anyway. And I'm still happy with it. And Apple is still here, doing nicely, and unlike some other companies it's not trying to stiff Linux.
As for that proprietary hardware, I guess Apple and Motorola should move to an open standard like, say, Slot 1 maybe... ?
And damn those PCI slots, SCSI, USB, Firewire, ATA, zip drives, etc.
I think grok is about the only standard they don't support. You were right about that. But I never use it except to hook up beezkels.
as I say, yawn
$150 mil: An under-the-table deal? (Score:1)
Weren't there rumors swirling around on /. (and elsewhere) not too long ago that the $150 mil stock thing was a secret resolution to Apple's lawsuit against Micro$oft asserting that M$ had stolen Quicktime code and deliberately fucked w/ Windows 95 so Quicktime wouldn't work?
There was nothing "under the table" about it. Settlement of outstanding lawsuits was mentioned in the news at the time.
Is one is as good as the other? (Score:1)
--
$150M saves $4B company. Wanna buy bridge,NY area? (Score:1)
a)QuickTime
b)TrueType
c)ATSUI technology (another font tech. sometimes called stroke font technology)
d)FireWire (IEEE 1394)
e)Embracing USB and PCI fully before the x86 crowd
f)iMAC (as much as you hate it, its selling well)
As for your example, apple is in fact going to be shipping a PPC with some form of open *nix installed soon, MkLinux being the prime canidate.
As for exibit B, it was $150 Million + stock + patent swap + unspecified other monatary (presumed to be for the lawsuits Apple dropped against MS) Just consider how silly it is to even think that $150 million can save a four billion dollar company. Really, please get a handle on how large these corporations are. And no, it wasn't about QuickTime, it was about MS Office, hence Office 98 for the MacOS. Apple thumbed its nose at MS over threats to QuickTime.
Sure Apple may be the underdog, but remember every team but one is the underdog in all sporting events. I would really like to see your experience on golden parachutes. Could you be the hachet CEO of Bun corporation that recently got fired for cutting over half the jobs and still not turning the company around? He sure knows about golden parachutes. Or did you read the ghost written "autobiography" of Gil Amelio? There's a guy that sky dives with yellow silk for a living.
Apple...
The company that got the PC before there were PCs
The company few can grok
Infinite Loop indeed... when your in the groov, busta move
The good idea company that gets everything ripped-off
The company that made up over 50% of the computers at Wired, over a year ago (cuz Wired is no more)
The no IRQ/DipSwitch/Plug&Pray hardware company. just like Sony Playstation!
*RANT ON* I would love to take to take my BIG ASS BOOT and do some concusive maintenance on anyones crainium that calls Apple a propriatary hardware company. BAM! That's for the Dell BIOSes. BAM! That's for the Compaq's chipset. BAM! That's for SGI. BAM! that's for any and all Intel chipsets ever made. Every one of them propriatary BAM! BAM! BAM! *RAND OFF* - this view doesn't necc. reflect my opinion tomorrow, but I'm real sure it will.
Open Source QuickTime would be great (Score:1)
MacOS X is not Unix. (Score:1)
I listened to a guy who worked on Rhapsody speak at USENIX this year, and he promised that all of the standard UNIX tools (the Bourne shell, ls, tar, grep, etc.) would be on the Rhapsody CD.
So it sounds unix-like enough for me...
$150 mil: An under-the-table deal? (Score:1)
Someone clear this up for me cuz I've always wondered what happened with that story...
W
Usability is key. (Score:1)
NOT!
You do not want to engage users in the details! You want to make the system transparent. The fact that the system crashes is a flaw in the system, not an "opportunaty for learning". Think of the phone system or television.
Think about it, how many people use computers? How many read
One last example, how many people own cars? How many people change their own oil? Some people enjoy working on cars and some people enjoy working on computers. Most people don't, and never will. They are interested not in the tool, but in using it.
Steve M
Why should they start making good decisions now? (Score:1)
"My personal opinion is that this little donation is the single reason that Apple is still alive (remember, they probably wouldn't have been around to do the imac or MacOS 8.x+1 if Bill hadn't coughed up some spare change for the shoe-shine boys at Apple. Smart move on Bill's part too.."
may be based a upon a common misconception. Apple was already turning the corner financially and showing a profit when Microsoft made the "investment" you refer to. And anyhow Microsoft and Uncle Billy aren't in the habit of throwing their money into companies that look like they are about to choke, though they have pulled out of companies (i.e. Real) that are doing well in order to give their own products (of the same nature as said company's) an extra advantage . . . among other business tactics.
Of course there's no crime in eliminating conflicts of interest . . . I wouldn't be surprised at all if Microsoft didn't sell off its non-voting shares in Apple using this line of reason sometime in the next year. It hardly matters--Apple doesn't, nor did it ever, need Microsoft's money, and it probably could do just fine without any of Microsoft's products, despite Steve Job's fears about losing Office (and remember that Microsoft is contractually obliged to keep Office available for the Mac platform for another two or three years, so there's a security blanket still).
Whether Apple truly embraces open source or no, the fact that they are not dependant upon Microsoft products for their well-being is clearly evident in a software economy that is obviously shifting towards open source models in an irreversable way, nurturing an environment wherein businesses and execs are less apt to fall for Microsoft FUD about application compatability and maintaining business software "standards" ruled and governed by Microsoft. Open source will play in Apple's favor, at least in the shorter term.
Anyway I hope Apple does more to embrace open source. It would be a step in the right direction for the company, what with past debacles.
Oops! Small revision-- (Score:1)
MacOS X is built on BSD Unix. (Score:1)
MacOS X (Score:1)
If you really want OSS (Score:1)
--