Apple Opening QuickTime Code 192
Wonko42 writes "Apple has apparently decided to make QuickTime open-source in order to beat the competition. The article is on News.com. " I sure hope so. Of course, the article leaves several questions unanswered: what kind of license? APSL? What about
codecs? Since it's only the server, I assume nothing will happen in regards to opening codecs. I hope I'm wrong, but fear I'm not. Thoughts?
uhh (Score:1)
this article is confusing. the little description there above the first paragraph says apple "is" going to open source it; the first paragraph says they are "expected to".
so are they or aren't they? does news.com have any actual news, or are they just reprinting rumors?
anyway i expect that now they're going to have to write a *NIX quicktime client, or else they're going to look pretty silly releasing a *NIX server. Although it will be confusing, seeing as there's already a *NIX library called "qt".
don't expect any codecs open-sourced; not all of the codecs are owned directly by apple anyway. Also quicktime 4 is doing a very strange codec system that kinda works by plugins; the actual quicktime software itself is gonna be very small and largely nonfunctional, but QT will download the extra components and pieces of itself automatically as it needs them. Or something. That's the way i read it anwyay.. oh and QT4 will have an mp3 player.
QuickTime is an API (Score:1)
Actually, QuickTime is an incredibly rich API for handling time-based data of any sort. If all you want to do is feed a bunch of samples through a codec, then something like AVI or mp3 is fine.
But QuickTime's power really comes out when you realize that you can composite movies and 3D images coming from files all over your hard drive, and algorithmic effects, tweening, scaling, etc, on the fly. The amazing thing is that this capability ends up in a self-contained "mov" file -- you don't have to "run a program" to make it happen... and once you've added the 15 or so lines of code to your application that lets it play a QuickTime file, it can play any QuickTime "movie," whether it's a VR panorama, an audio stream or a sprite-based animation (or, I bet, the new streaming stuff when it comes out).
(To say nothing of its interactive capabilities... QuickTime is closer to being a full-blown OS than you might realize.)
Anyone who thinks Apple's going to open source the QuickTime toolbox anytime soon should switch to a better brand of crack. The reason everyone's excited about QuickTime doing streaming is that those same people use QuickTime to make the content they want to stream.
Apple Doesn't Control Codecs (Score:1)
That said, it's still a good thing. An open plug in architecture for playing any sort of video/audio format, whether the codec be proprietary or Open Source qualifies in my book as a "Good Thing(TM)"
And if nothing else it will give the ~ahem~ leaders of the Open Source movement more opportunities to squable in public. I love that part...sorta like a bad daytime soap.
Codecs? (Score:1)
Here's the QuickTime format (Score:1)
Call me crazy, but some of us like to have players that, well, actually play movies and stuff.
QuickTime != codecs.
QuickTime is a very deep API for manipulating time-based data. You can easily write a player that parses movie "atoms" and decompresses them using GPL'd codecs. But that only gets you as far as the AVI format. Big freakin' deal.
What you really want is the library of code that manipulates those atoms in meaningful ways. People here seem to think that the only interesting thing to do with a movie file is play back streams of samples. QuickTime lets you composite that stuff on the fly, from multiple sources. That's on the playback side.
On the content creation side, QuickTime lets you write a non-linear movie editor without pulling your hair out....
What QuickTime Really Is (Score:3)
It's an entire library of code for managing time-based data. There's a file format, sure, and codecs, too, if you're doing video or audio data. But the magic happens when that file format gets processed by that library of code.
The QuickTime file format is wel l defined [apple.com]. It's a pretty nice format, actually, which I suppose is why the MPEG-4 people have decided to use it.
In its simplest form, a "movie" (file) can consist of a track, which points to a media, which points to a media handler (often a codec). That's basically what an MPEG or AVI file looks like -- a stream of samples which have a defined media handler.
But a QuickTime movie can have multiple tracks of information, of any type. These tracks have "media handlers" associated with them -- which is where the codecs come in. The weird stuff happens when you have media handlers that allow you to translate other media handlers, media references that point to other media references, filters, sprites, interactive behavior, etc.
You can't separate the "content delivery" portion of QuickTime from the "content creation" part, because the content creation part happens during content delivery. Think about that for a second -- this is an amazingly powerful concept. It's an object-oriented system for processing time-based data.
A movie could contain two tracks, one which points to a stream of MJPEG samples, while the other points to a convolution filter. This filter is applied in real time during playback -- the original MJPEG data doesn't get changed.
QuickTime movies also don't have to contain their media data. You can easily make a movie which composits -- on the fly -- several different movies, some on CD-ROM, some streaming over a network, some pulled from your local hard drive. Most people here would consider this to be content creation, and assume that you would be compositing it to a single stream of video samples that would then be played back, but QuickTime does it at "runtime".
Now, since the QuickTime file format is well-documented, and is completely independent of any particular codec, you could easily write a simplified QuickTime generation/playback layer for any operating system you like. You could treat the
As to Apple open-sourcing the QuickTime code, take a look at the QuickTime API [apple.com], and ask yourself how much engineering effort went into making it. The amount and quality of code in QuickTime makes Mozilla look like a weekend project. I'd say it approaches the complexity of the Linux kernel, and I believe the only reason the Linux kernel has so many developers working on it is because they need it. I doubt that there are as many programmers out there who would contribute to a GNU/QuickTime effort.
The only place that a viable competitor to QuickTime is going to come from is the commercial (read: proprietary) arena; i.e., Microsoft. Don't look to Real as a competitor -- their format is designed for streaming over networks, and only for streaming over networks. It doesn't have the dynamic, client-side, on-the-fly creation capabilities that QuickTime has, and I don't think Real has a real motivation to add those. Microsoft does, but they're lagging, and most content creators prefer QuickTime.
Now, as to Apple porting QuickTime to GNU/Linux or *BSD, that I can see. But not yet. They'll do it when there's a decent UI standard for both content creators and consumers, and Linux has a ways to go yet. The best way to get QuickTime for your favorite free operating system is to work on [insert UI system of choice here], and make it suitable for the end-user. Which will naturally increase desktop acceptance to the point where Apple would be foolish not to offer QuickTime for the platform, in much the same way that they had to offer QuickTime for Windows.
Disclaimer disclaimer: I don't work for Apple. I just like some of their technology. I also like some of Real's, very much. I don't think I can find anything good to say about Microsoft's, except that at least they keep trying.
but what about codecs? (Score:1)
but what about codecs? (Score:1)
We wouldn't have licenced it under the licences we have done if we didn't want them to be able to do that!
Moron!
plenty of example where that came from (Score:1)
Go to GNU [gnu.org] and
do some reading.
Don't come back until you fully understand everything there.
plenty of example where that came from (Score:1)
In the long run, people won't make money by selling distributions, they will move into support.
We don't care about royalty checks, thats the whole point! Proprietary software is immoral.
plenty of example where that came from (Score:1)
Don't you think?
Besides, people will always want customization and new features.
Doh! (Score:1)
Quicktime (Score:3)
Quicktime is:
And the best people can do is 'Duh, AVI is faster on Windows 95, Quicktime sux!'?
Sheeeeeeesh. Can we say apples and oranges people? In fairness, what we're actually talking about here is a _creation_ format- though Sorenson performs amazingly well, I for one would be happy using Quicktime to _produce_ multimedia content and then for your general movie-type stuff, 'rendering' it all down to a plain data stream like MPEG. I've seen some very pretty MPEG
But then I can- I'm dualbooting a Mac, deal with it. I like that much better than dualbooting a Windows machine and giving money to the Butcher of Redmond, rather than the apprentice butcher of cupertino which (as you _know_) may never fully gain the power to destroy which Redmond has.
You can do nonlinear video editing all you like on AVI, for what it's worth. How much do you have to pay? With Quicktime (at least on the Mac) you get to do video editing at no _cost_ with MoviePlayer (granted, you're not supposed to, but guess what? The old MoviePlayer from before QT3 _still_ _works_ with QT3, and lets you do all the editing and file saving with the new codecs.)
There are freeware MP3 encoders. Where's _your_ freeware nonlinear video editor? How's it for editing files by reference and working from existing HD data without generating huge amounts of new work files? I'm sorry- yes, I'd like to have a good converter for changing elaborate QT movies into MPEG, but a lot of people seem to have no idea what Quicktime is.
As for AVI, basically you're talking %90 elaborate codecs explicitly made by Intel to be insurmountably difficult to translate to other processor architectures. I see that nobody _minds_ the lack of current Indeo codecs on PPC, Sparc, Alpha, MIPS yada yada... seems like if it runs on Windows on Intel, it must be okay, eh guys?
While you're ranting about how bad Apple sucks, mind getting after Intel to translate their codecs to an architecture approximately as popular as all of Linux? Geeeeez... Oh well. The most recent video I did was a rendered explosion in POV-Ray. 400x300 at millions of colors, ten seconds at 30fps, and in Sorenson it's 1.4 megs with _no_ artifacting at all.
I'm always going to be concerned about compatibility, and I'll be paying attention to all discussions of multimedia formats, but for my own stuff I can't see not using Quicktime. I _am_ on the optimal platform and processor architecture (having 32 registers and 32 FP registers rather than, uh, 4, does make a difference).
I'm happy for anything Apple does to further Quicktime, and not for a minute do I believe it will fully meet the interests of the FSF for instance. But _anything_ which suppresses the tendency of (currently) Microsoft to exterminate all other choice, is good. Quicktime is good because you've got the option- deal with it. Having options is good. Having all the options on Linux would be better (+linuxPPC) but failing that, it's at least good to _have_ options out there. It's healthier.
And like I said, Quicktime royally kicks butt and takes names _in_ its area of focus, primarily content creation.
"I hope I'm wrong, but I fear I'm not" (Score:1)
1) I think Linux is more mature than you think. I've heard from several sources the userbase is larger than Mac OS, but you and me both can decide how seriously we want to take it.
3) I welcome them, if they are sincere.
4) Beats me. I'm sure some are. I'm sure some don't care about the price of success and are willing to give up freedom.
Of course I want Linux to grow. And I am not CmdrTaco. And I am not the biggest GPL freak there is, either. Yes, I have written lots of GPL code. But of course there are uses for other licenses. And I don't care if people port proprietary software. I just hope people are concious of what they are doing when they use it.
OK, maybe "fear" wasn't the best word, but it's accurate. When I said I fear, I meant it would be a shame that they probably won't.
What competition? (Score:1)
Sometimes I think Apple is worse than Microsoft.
I'll be happy when mass-market proprietary software dies off...
but what about codecs? (Score:1)
but what about codecs? (Score:1)
Tell that to Bob Young.
Well, anyhow, hopefully Apple will go out of business in the next few years, and then we won't have to worry about QuickTime being ported to other platforms. :-)
Hell, if they really want to focus their QuickTime efforts, maybe they should just drop support for Macintosh. The Mac isn't a significant platform these days...at least not really much more significant than Linux.
Apple is so freaking arrogant. Argh.
If they want open source people to work on their software, they have to provide an incentive. They've not done that so far.
Cheaters never prosper (Score:1)
Like Apache, right?
plenty of example where that came from (Score:1)
It's not a theory; people are making *lots* of money *right now* from free software.
Take a trip to GNU [gnu.org], and read up on some of the information over there about how you make money with free software.
There's nothing anti-capitalistic about free software; in fact, you might say that proprietary software (at least vis-a-vis operating systems) is anti-capitalistic, since it discourages direct competition.
How can so many people *not* get it? (Score:1)
FREE SPEECH, NOT FREE BEER.
That's what free software is about. You can sell free software; many people do, and make money doing so. More will in the future. You can also make money selling services to free software users.
People do need to eat, and free software provides more of them with an opportunity to do so, instead of a select few, as is the case with proprietary software.
Software is not a durable good, and should not be sold as if it were.
plenty of example where that came from (Score:1)
Are you an Apple employee or something?
Cheaters never prosper (Score:1)
More importantly, there are many good people out there. They really deserve the credit for what's been done, and I believe they are going to be the one's that continue to be the soul of the movement. Apple is just a money-grubbing corporation. All publicly-held corporations are, so Apple isn't unique or anything. It's only actual people (sans press releases, sans business plans) that do good things because they are good. I'll give my thanks to them.
I'm afraid Mac fans have mistaken PR about "thinking different" for real creativity, friendly interfaces for a friendly company.
Cheaters never prosper (Score:1)
just the streaming code? (Score:1)
"There is no spoon" - Neo, The Matrix
but what about codecs? (Score:1)
Inorder to get quicktime onto windows apple ported a huge percentage of the MacOS Toolbox (system level apis) to windows, most of what makes the mac the mac is in quicktime for windows, thats how big quicktime is... its a huge effort to port.
sure, it would be great if they could do it but right now its not part of their plan... maby, if all the open source stuff goes well for them, they will open quicktime(client)... but due to the size and the level of integration, dont expect it tomorrow...
in addition if sorenson doesnt open their code, thats not apples fault... they can only do so much... if you want sorenson video, talk to sorenson
but what about codecs? (Score:1)
Inorder to get quicktime onto windows apple ported a huge percentage of the MacOS Toolbox (system level apis) to windows, most of what makes the mac the mac is in quicktime for windows, thats how big quicktime is... its a huge effort to port.
sure, it would be great if they could do it but right now its not part of their plan... maby, if all the open source stuff goes well for them, they will open quicktime(client)... but due to the size and the level of integration, dont expect it tomorrow...
in addition if sorenson doesnt open their code, thats not apples fault... they can only do so much... if you want sorenson video, talk to sorenson
Assuming of course it's the Quicktime API, BUT (Score:1)
Knew that was going to happen (Score:2)
When hundreds of hits from Apple came during March, it became pretty obvious that Quicktime was very close to being opened sourced. That's why my work was never intended to be a complete port of the Quicktime API and never intended to support all the codecs and features of Apple's Quicktime.
Now let's hope Apple's code is thread safe and allows you to import bitmaps into your own code.
Cheaters never prosper (Score:1)
I think that's baloney. Apple in past was not a friendly company, but they have changed. This much is obvious beyond the PR - listening to engineers that work there, you can tell what that company is about: radical innovation with great marketing. [with innovation being in the "business" sense of the word, not that "bright idea" sense of the word].
All for-profit companies CAN do is to make our lives a little better through their innovations, while remaining socially responcible in adding to the economy - which slowly increases our standard of living. This isn't about "money grubbing", though your disillusionment with capitalism probably makes it appear so.
Apple does this better than any other PC company (now).
Cheaters never prosper (Score:1)
I'm not alone on this, either. Peter Drucker's the one who got me thinking along these lines - he paints a very solid argument.
Essentially, profit is a necessary requirement for a corporation's survival and for its contribution to our society's economic performance - but it's not the reason for its existence.
The reason for its existence is to "make strength productive" - i.e. get a bunch of people together, build on their strengths, and make them more productive together than they would be individually. From that premise can the authority of management be drawn.
Being "productive" in this sence means that the organization focuses on one goal: creating a customer. That is, finding a need, or creating (innovating) a need/want, and fulfilling that need.
That's my view of it, in short.
Apple and arrogance (Score:1)
LGPL version of QT for Linux already exists. (Score:1)
The QuickTime-compatible library at http://heroine.tampa.fl.us/quicktime/ [tampa.fl.us] just gives you access to the file format and the ability to do some simple encoding and decoding. I'm aware of no efforts to replicate the actual QuickTime API on Linux.
The interaction between the programming model and the extremely flexible file format is where a lot of QuickTime's power comes from.
Also, the author should really stop using "QuickTime" in the name of his library. It's trademarked by Apple, after all...
IMHO, there are only three (Score:1)
I have held this opinion for a few years, and with all the hype recently about what "Open Source" really means, it has only deepened my beliefs. If it's not GNU/GPL or BSD, then it's just "other" and can not be clasified as a well known licence type.
IMHO, "other" will never be able to be classified as "open" because if it was, they would just pick GNU/GPL or BSD. They are somewhat closed, no matter what they are, and must be judged indivually. Each of the "other" licences has it's own set of querks, and drawbacks. They can be good or bad (for example ASPL, JAVA, and Mozilla), but if they want full community support, from the GNU or BSD community, they should have used one of these two existing, well defined standard licences.
but what about codecs? (Score:1)
Open Codecs (Score:3)
Don't count on Sorenson being opened up anytime soon. Quicktime is an Apple cash cow and undoubtedly very important to the company in the near future. You can read all the Golden Convergence [zdnet.com] articles at Mac Week. Some of you may find it interesting...
Funny how people only want code to the cool things out there ;-)
"We don't want the Windows source code."
"Hey Apple, open up Quicktime."
but what about codecs? (Score:1)
CODECs (Score:1)
Start off by looking at ways of compressing down information in a single frame (discrete cosine transforms, wavelets, multiresolution etc) then move onto looking into motion estimation, correlation etc.
CODECs and network effects (Score:1)
The point is that you can guarantee the failure of the CODEC. Just refuse to port to non-open platforms. Thats why I said to use the LGPL so that the library could be linked into plug ins for PhotoShop, QuickTime, Premiere and other proprietary pieces of software, as well as Open Source software like the Gimp. Actually, the Gimp and PhotoShop are bad examples, but I don't know of an Open Source non-linear editing package.
Just generating a CODEC and plug-ins for every package on the face of the earth won't ensure its acceptance of course. Nothing will, but you can greatly increase it. It's up to the geek community to provide the initial content, and it has to be cool enough that more mainstream people will want to see it. A lot of hilarious spoofs on mainstream movies have been posted on Slashdot. If as new ones are created they were posted with this GPL/LGPL CODEC mainstream people would download the CODEC to view it in their favourite software package. This spreads the knowledge of the CODEC as well as increases the acceptance. It also spreads GPL/LGPL software to a whole lot more people, many who would never have heard of it otherwise. Some of these people will poke around with encoding video with the CODEC and so the knowledge and acceptance of the CODEC can spread like a virus.
There are a lot of CODECs out there now and nobody can seem to agree on which one to use. For that reason they're all vulnerable to a competitor. If that competitor came from the Open Source community it would be a boon for it in terms of credibility and mainstream acceptance.
CODECs and network effects (Score:2)
Firstly, the content publication tools that content providers use (mostly from Adobe and Macromedia, running on MacOS or NT) would have to support it. The software publishers have investments in other CODECs and no real interest in providing a GPLed CODEC, especially since the bulk of the desktop market is Windows; if there's a sizable Linux desktop market, we're more likely to see players for the existing formats.
Secondly, the actual media providers have to decide to use this CODEC; and big corporations tend to trust products of other corporations, with intellectual-property investments and contracts, more than the output of the free-software rabble. (Media companies, in particular, tend to be paranoid about open digital formats.)
If a GPLed CODEC comes about, one could expect it to find a niche among geek-underground content providers (claymation Star Wars spoofs, &c.), with GPLed Linux authoring software and players; though breaking into the world of corporate media is another story.
"I hope I'm wrong, but I fear I'm not" (Score:1)
Open Codecs (Score:2)
Sarcasm aside, this is a good point that many of these companies seem to miss. Opening the code is only the first step. A project must also attract developers. I think we are close to reaching an attention economy of open source projects.
Oops, that sounded a little too much like JonKatz -- I'd better explain. (Just kidding, Jon!) Developers willing and able to contribute to these open source projects compose the pool of resources in this economy. That pool is decidedly finite. As the number of projects increases, they will be competing for the finite time of those developers.
Cheers,
-Nygard
Cheaters never prosper (Score:1)
Cheaters never prosper (Score:1)
I just wanted to point out that the Mac and Linux communities aren't mutually exclusive. My two computers are both Macs, one older and one a B&W G3 ordered three day after the Expo. No need to tell me about Mac users, I know. Believe me, I've sent my share of letters to old Berst over at ZD.
BTW have you seen the latest on C2? It rocks, but marketing is still marketing, not a revolutionary contribution to Open Source.
Loader: Mac user, programmer, general practitioner, late EvangeLista, distributed.net participant, chief cook and bottle washer etc. etc. etc.Cheaters never prosper (Score:5)
Many people seem to be under the impression that the spate of new "kinda sorta" open licenses are going to undermine the movement as a whole. That's not necessarily so. I believe that the Free Software concept will continue to flourish. These corporate type projects aren't going to undermine anything. When the tide of open source licenses has abated, the original movement will still be there because of loyalty.
These things aren't going to undermine Open Source, because opening source code is not the complete answer. There has to be a sense of community and of actually building something, not just being a glorified bug eradicator for some stingy corporation that can't fix its own problems. That's why these new licenses are just a marketing ploy, and that's why the true Open Source community will still be intact when the hype wears off. In the end the joke will be on the big boys, not us Linux guys. They'll be stuck with their source out and the novelty worn off and then we'll all sit back and laugh. Laugh at them for not looking ahead past the marketing and seeing the true meaning of the movement. Long live Linus!
Loader of Code and of BricksSad attempt to get "hip" as it were. (Score:1)
>source(encoding and all), then they will have a
>warmer reception by the open source community.
Bah. Apple could release their entire product line, contribute half their profits to a slew of Linux and open-source related foundations, provide coders to Mozilla, and publically declare war on Microsoft in the name of open source.
People here would still bitch. "Same old Apple", they'd say. "We don't need their help!".
Ingrateful, methinks.
- Darchmare
- Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
Replies to thoughts... (Score:1)
First, QuickTime is merely an encapsulation file format. It's possible, insofar as I know,
to put MPEG streams _in_ a QT file, just like you'd put MJPEG streams in there.
Secondly, and more importantly from the post-production viewpoint: MPEG is, by design, an assymetrical
compression format -- it takes _much_ more horsepower to compress it than it does to decompress it.
For it's design purpose, distribution, this is a feature. But it's decidedly a bug for production environments. Realtime MPEG encoders are currently around $25K.
Cheers,
Codecs (Score:1)
Linux has streaming server (Score:1)
Granted, icecast could be extended to support video as well, but right now it doesn't.
Piano on the net. (Score:1)
Does any one have a CLUE how I can decode all these f*ckin QuickTime midi files so that I can play them under Linux? I have the AWE-midi plugin.
Here is a test page: http://www.artdsm.com/piano/18.html [artdsm.com]. And here are the rest of the QuickTime files: http://www.artdsm.com/piano/quicktime/ [artdsm.com].
Any advice, pointers, etc short of installing Windows or MacOS appreciated.
-N.
Piano on the net. (Score:1)
The Qt lessons you say didn't load, probably is because I pointed you directly at the binary files and they need HTML plugin code to work properly with your browser. Just browse the pages of the site directly and you should find that they all work.
plenty of example where that came from (Score:1)
Hardware is much different. To build it, you need access to a multi-billion dollar fab. In fact, several companies are releasing specs for thier hardware (see Sun Sparc and MIPS). If you wanted you could get the all of the information you needed to build thier hardward, but you would need millions of dollars to do it!
"I hope I'm wrong, but I fear I'm not" (Score:1)
The following are truths as I see them:
This tells me that a significant portion of this audience, including Mr. Malda/Taco himself, wants Linux to stay small if it doesn't expand in exactly the way they want it to - under an unaltered GNU software license.
What we're seeing is the Linux philosophy winning. This software (QuickTime Server, Darwin, etc) ain't no-strings free, but you get the source! You can port it to your platform! You can put a Penguin in the Apple menu! Quit whining!
Fear is the wrong response to this news. I personally am going to go rejoice over a plate of fine New York sushi right now. I suggest you do the same.
Here's the QuickTime format (Score:1)
Call me crazy, but some of us like to have players that, well, actually play movies and stuff.
QuickTime is an API (Score:1)
Then what's a codec? Executeable main(), entry point in a dll, what's the difference?
but what about codecs? (Score:1)
I think I recall there being some story about apple not giving the xanim guy permission to get their latest cool quicktime 3 codec. And of course the latest star wars trailer was in that format.
If they want the format to succeed, they should at least try to make it playable on more architectures...
hmmm...
but what about codecs? (Score:1)
> succeeded, and I really doubt that support for
> additional platforms would help it in any way
> whatsoever at this point.
um... if quicktime has succeeded, then why is the article about how Apple is opening the source in order to beat other formats?
Certainly, quicktime has been successful. But I would think that if Apple wants to beat the competing formats out there, releasing the specs on the format itself would be a good first start in gaining more support...
about Trailer C you can get it in mpg (Score:1)
This is not a real trailer, it's a fan-made one based on footage from the 60-minutes segment with George Lucas recently.
Just how "open?" (Score:1)
As noted above, one has to wonder exactly what license Apple's leaning toward. I noticed that the article says "open source" as opposed to "Open Source," implying (to me, at least) that they're not going to strictly follow the Open Source Definition [opensource.org]--though the media's never been sensitive to such nuances before.
All the discussion about whether or not the codecs will be released may end up being moot if Apple decides to ignore Bruce Perens' definition in favor of, say, Al Gore's definition [slashdot.org]. An overly restrictive license could discourage application development on traditionally "open" platforms, such as Linux...
Though one might argue that any source is better than no source at all. :)
-W-
Apple Doesn't Control Codecs (Score:1)
If I recall the hubbub around the time the SW:TPM trailers were comming out, the codec developers were going to give the xanim a binary only module licence - but apple exercised their right in the contract between them and the codec developer to block it.
--
James Michael Keller
*nix clients (Score:1)
2 points. First, they are not necessarily going to release a *nix client, except for the fact that MOSXS is based on *nix. This will, however allow others to write servers on other platforms.
Second, having a *nix server in no way necessitates a *nix client. *nix makes for great servers in general, and being able to stream Quicktime on them would be very useful, but the individuals who would want to view these movies are still overwhelmingly in the Mac OS and PC camps. *nix servers can stream to Macs and PC's. Not that a Linux client is a bad thing, but there is nothing "silly" about not writing one.
*nix clients (Score:1)
2 points. First, they are not necessarily going to release a *nix client, except for the fact that MOSXS is based on *nix. This will, however allow others to write servers on other platforms.
Second, having a *nix server in no way necessitates a *nix client. *nix makes for great servers in general, and being able to stream Quicktime on them would be very useful, but the individuals who would want to view these movies are still overwhelmingly in the Mac OS and PC camps. *nix servers can stream to Macs and PC's. Not that a Linux client is a bad thing, but there is nothing "silly" about not writing one.
What competition? (Score:1)
Don't hold your breath.
- Slarty
Open Source, QuickTime, and Things of Value (Score:1)
With most significant movie clip content now being released exclusively as Sorenson-codec Quicktime files, the only people who have access to this material are Windows and Mac users. To add insult to injury, the sites which carry these files never even provide a warning that the files may be unplayable on some systems. As a Linux user I was rightfully incensed when after downloading the 24MB second trailer of Star Wars Episode 1, I found that it was unplayable. Also Mark Podlipec's xanim web page states that Apple won't let Sorenson license the codec for xanim. So the exclusive licencing deal between Apple and Sorenson means that there is no prospect of a suitable player materialising in the foreseeable future either unless Apple releases a fully supported QuickTime for Linux. To date, they've shown no interest in doing so.
As bandwidth improves, streaming video content will become more and more significant in it's impact on the evolution of the Internet. One unfortunate side effect of the free market you seem to revere so much is that the Microsoft/Apple coalition's stranglehold on the dominant streaming video codec effectively prevents any other system such as Linux from competing in the multimedia and home/leisure markets. This is monopoly, and if left unrectified will necessitate US government intervention yet again. Of course by the time that happens it could all be too late - other OS's will no longer have any share of this market.
The massively powerful and flexible medium that the Internet is today has only taken shape because it has always run on open protocols. If we don't want to see all non-mainstream systems forced into obsolescence we must resist strenuously any attempt to commoditize those protocols.
I have asked Diane Gartner at the IACT to set up a petition in order to raise awareness of this matter, and she's agreed to pursue the matter when time permits. In the meantime I ask all of you who are interested to demand an explanation from Apple and Sorenson, and to pressure all content providers (such as Lucasfilm for instance) to provide all video clips in a format which is accessible to everybody.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Open Source, QuickTime, and Things of Value (Score:1)
Right, that's the end of the flame. Now as to the reasons why.
I was angry about the Star Wars trailer because I didn't find out I couldn't play it until after I'd downloaded all 25 Megabytes. In the UK we pay for each minute spent online. Not to mention loss of bandwidth for other purposes while I was downloading it. Do you get it now? What would it have cost the publisher to put up a small warning about compatibility?
It's irrelevant whether we are talking about incompatibility with Linux, Windows or last year's whizbang mobile phone. If a given platform is widely used and the users of that platform might have some expectation - from past experience - of being able to play the movie then the publisher has a moral responsibility to avoid misleading those users into wasting their bandwidth.
Also your implication that it's OK for minorities to be badly treated in the service of the majority is - apart from any dubious ethical foundation - just plain irrelevant. How would the majority have been inconvenienced by publishing a warning about the file format? They would not. But your attitude suggests that even this small gesture would be too much to endure in the service of a commercially unimportant minority. That worries me. If you plan to treat minorities systematically in this fashion then it indeed does become a question of human rights.
With regard to technology dominance, there's no doubt the Sorenson codec is a wonderful piece of work. But it took five years of R&D and probably millions of dollars to develop. Where does that leave us?
Well it certainly doesn't leave Linux users in the same position as Quicktime 2.0 users, as you mischievously imply. Quicktime 2.0 users can just upgrade for free. Linux users don't even have a commercial alternative that will run on their platform because Apple and Microsoft control that technology. You seem to have failed to grasp this essential point.
And if it took Sorenson so long to develop this codec it's not as if the open source community can just up and replace it just like that. If it takes even two years to do it, OK so it's not then a 'perpetual monopoly' but still a lot of damage could be done to all other platforms' market position as a result. And that is just plain unacceptable, even under US Law. Don't forget that is exactly why Microsoft is on trial right now.
If Apple and Microsoft are allowed to keep this technology to themselves then they will eventually own most of the internet. But the internet is too important to allow any single company or cartel to dominate its evolution or control access to all its content. The reason for the growth of the internet is precisely because the protocols it uses are all open standards. Without that level playing field it would never have spread so far because the cost of entry would have been too high for most suppliers and consumers. Internet protocols must remain free or we will lose the internet.
I remind you of Vinid Vallipolil's remark in the Halloween memos about the commoditisation of protocols. This is exactly what Microsoft would like to do in order to wrest control back from the people. Don't forget Bill Gates already tried to supplant the internet with MSN. There's nothing to say he won't try it again if he thinks he can get away with it.
In closing, you implied that open source developers unwittingly support a Wintel duopoly by coding predominantly for Intel. It seems as if you are just trying to make controversy. In fact, Linux and GNU software runs on a wider range of CPU architectures than any other software I can think of. And I can't at the moment think of any modern CPU architecture for which GNU/Linux software isn't either already available or under development.
In any case I really don't see any evidence that open source supporters or even Microsoft supporters in general have a problem with Intel's market position. Those who dislike Intel's products are free to use AMD for example without even sacrificing binary compatibility.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
but what about codecs? (Score:1)
Well, according to Mark Podlipec's Xanim page, "I have contacted Sorenson about licensing their codec. They responded that Apple won't allow them to license it to others." - to me, that says Apple has something to do with whether or not it gets licenced out, ne?
And to those of you who're going to gripe that Windows/Mac own 90% of the Desktop market, and then claim that Linux/Unix is a server only OS, so we shouldn't be allowed to have access to the codec mentioned above because we're insignificant and don't really exist in a market-share perspective, (yes, both of you, I've already read your posts.) those of us who use Unix systems on our desktops (we really do exist, it's not a halucination, really!) would like to be able to see new movie files too, without having to use some other system, just because a bunch of other people use that system. (If 90% of 'the people' (whoever they are) were hitting themselves in the head with baseball bats, would you insist we do that to?) What would be so horrible about them releasing their specs under an NDA to Mr. Podlipec so he can write a driver? It would get them more good publicity, and they would be able (finally) to claim one thing MS can't claim about their new AVI format (yes, they too have changed to a new, incompatible codec again recently)- that it runs on 100% of the desktop market, instead of just 90%.
Besides, we may only be 10%, but we're a really noisy and annoying 10%, and we also tend to be the 10% that the 90% looks to for tech support. Gosh, think that puts us in a bit of a power position when it comes to recommendations and such? If Apple really wants their format to fly, they should be trying to get everyone they can to like it, including the 10% who make lots of loud noise and sometimes influence the decisions of the 90% in big ways. That's what marketing is all about - you pick the most effective strategy for pushing your product to the masses, and part of effective is reducing resistance.
The Codecs aren't theirs (Score:1)
but what about codecs? (Score:1)
Of course just the streaming code. Apple is trying to get people who stream media to use quicktime. They also want to be able to make some money. They have a free player, and you can use it. They have a pro player that people pay $29.95 for that gives tons of features. That is less than most shareware.
By opening up the server, it will allow all of you people to make money streaming QuickTime media to other people. All they need is a player that can read the RTSP(Real Time Streaming Protocol) data. The server is open-source, so it won't be that hard to make a player. Once you use RSTP, you can use any codec you want to stream. Sorensen is not the best protocol for streaming since it requires tons of processor power. Therefore, I expect many people to use RTSP to stream cinepak or even mpeg2.
QTSS is not about revolutionary codecs, it's about a revolutionary protocol. For as much as you folks like to rip on news.com, you take a lot of their stuff at face value. If you really want to know more about QTSS, sign up for some of the Apple Mailing lists on the subject.
regards,
remy
http://www.mklinux.org
It's only RTSP (Score:1)
regards,
remy
http://www.mklinux.org
just the streaming code? (Score:2)
By opening up the server, it will allow all of you people to make money streaming QuickTime media to other people. All they need is a player that can read the RTSP(Real Time Streaming Protocol) data. The server is open-source, so it won't be that hard to make a player. Once you use RSTP, you can use any codec you want to stream. Sorensen is not the best protocol for streaming since it requires tons of processor power. Therefore, I expect many people to use RTSP to stream cinepak or even mpeg2.
QTSS is not about revolutionary codecs, it's about a revolutionary protocol. For as much as you folks like to rip on news.com, you take a lot of their stuff at face value. If you really want to know more about QTSS, sign up for some of the Apple Mailing lists on the subject.
regards,
remy
http://www.mklinux.org
QT Source (Score:1)
What QuickTime Really Is (Score:1)
Have you looked at the SMIL stuff in G2? Stuff like built-in transitions, multiple simultaneous media types and feeds, all sorts of stuff like that. Quicktime's definately cooler when it comes to that stuff, but Real is definately going down this line.
e;
Apple's licensing terms (Score:1)
Apple is investing millions of dollars in public relations, and they should certainly be open to public criticism. And public debate and criticism of their licensing terms is important so that everybody can make an informed decision of what they are signing up for if they decide to go with Apple's "open source" software. Apple's intent, future, and their licensing terms are all important considerations there.
On the issue itself, I'm somewhat pessimistic. After Cesar Chavez, Einstein, and the Dalai Lama, the ever-out-for-something-hip Apple marketing department has latched onto Open Source. It seems to me they simply pick any icon of creativity and stamp the Apple logo onto it. Their actual investment in those issues that people care passionately about appears minimal.
In fact, for Apple to assume the "open source" banner while pushing media formats that limit access to a small handful of proprietary formats simply offends me. I almost prefer Microsoft; at least they don't pretend.
What QuickTime Really Is (Score:1)
I don't think that's something in QuickTime's favor. Apart from gee-whiz awe, what good is all that complexity? And a framework that allows zillions of proprietary, platform dependent codecs to be plugged into it does not seem like something that is particularly desirable from an open source perspective.
There are good reasons why people "confuse" QuickTime with the codecs: when all is said and done, what the end user sees is that in order to look at QuickTime content, they need a Mac or possibly a Windows PC. Whether the reasons for that are technical, economical, social, or just random doesn't really matter.
To me, one of the best things about the open source movement is that, by necessity, it keeps things simple. The fact that QuickTime is big, complex, very general, and overly powerful isn't an advantage to me.
but what about codecs? (Score:1)
: should at least try to make it playable on
: more architectures...
Sometimes the arrogance of the people here astounds me. QuickTime 3 works on Windows and Macintosh, which together make up at least 90% of the market in this area, probably more. Linux/UNIX/etc. are SERVER OSes right now, and, to be blunt, their numbers on the client side for a technology like QuickTime are completely insignificant. The fact is that QuickTime has succeeded, and I really doubt that support for additional platforms would help it in any way whatsoever at this point.
but what about codecs? (Score:1)
: is the article about how Apple is opening
: the source in order to beat other formats?
:
: Certainly, quicktime has been successful.
: But I would think that if Apple wants to
: beat the competing formats out there,
: releasing the specs on the format itself
: would be a good first start in gaining more
: support...
Companies are never satisfied. Look at Microsoft for an excellent example. Few would argue that Windows is extremly successful, but they're always trying to get the leg up on their competition anyway. Attempts to further the cause of a product do not indicate a lack of success, they indicate a lack of satisfaction which is something an organization like Apple will never have anyway.
Even if QuickTime is not successful, the argument still stands that it does run on 90+% of the consumer-owned computers out there (I'd say that the plus is significant, of the client, desktop, consumer market, Windows and Macintosh have things pretty much bottled up at this point in time) and I don't see how supporting OSes that are almost completely server-oriented would help the situation.
but what about codecs? (Score:1)
The beauty of QuickTime is it doesn't actually do anything that the user interacts with. It only provides Media services to basically any application that support is. That why when QT is released, you will be able to do things like embed a streaming video of a television, in a Panorama of a room (With directional sound) and play it all from a MS Word document, or any other app that supports quicktime.
You can't just go and say "Oh, lets go a write QuickTime for (Insert OS)" Something as complex as QuickTime is not as easy as creating as your favourite text editor.
The codec are the least difficult part of Quicktime, cause all you have to do to add another codec is literally just plug it in. It is the framework that is a hard part.
Yes I know you *nix guys have a hard time getting the stuff you want. Yes I know it is a pain. I am a Mac user myself and I can tell you I know what a pain it is to try a get companies to recognise your platform. You guys are picking up a LOT os speed these days, and the quickest way to blow it, is to go bitching about companies that dont port stuff to *nix. Been there, done that.
The best way to go is to encourage Apple to port QT to Linux, not flame them for not porting it. That is the quickest way to get doors closed on you.
At the end of the day, Apple is a business which has to make the shareholders happy. Commercial companies MUST exist for the "Free" software market to grow, because people have to eat and 9 times out of 10, the guy that wrote or contributed to your favourite app, also works at a comercial comapany to put food on the table. Free software doesn't put food on the table. Free software does not grow trees. (But Apples do!)
Rememeber, support Apple if you want Quicktime. Otherwise that Apple will turn sour real fast.
Apple Doesn't Control Codecs (Score:1)
If you had invested over 200 million dollars in a software product and tens of thousands on man-hours, don't you think you would want to protect that product from competition.
"Get with the program buddy."
but what about codecs? (Score:1)
If he has anything to do with RedHat et all.... I am not talking about companies who "Distribute" software which they have leeched off the people that wrote it.
You wait till RedHat goes public and the founders make millions. I think a few "Free Software" people will be slightly pissed off at that. Seeing as RedHat makes Bucks and they get nothing for their years of hard work in coding.
One thing has been proven. Capitalism works. Maybe not as well as it should, but if you keep adding zeros to a cheque, you can get whatever you want.
but what about codecs? (Score:1)
plenty of example where that came from (Score:1)
BINGO!
So the software, when taken from a Total-Cost-Of-Ownership point of view is not FREE because to make it do what it is supposed to do, you have to pay for support.
Yes, I know that there will always be people out there that dont need support. Lucky Them. But for the most of us, running Linux will always require support due to its ever changing nature.
We don't care about royalty checks, thats the whole point! Proprietary software is immoral.
Exactly how is proprietory software immoral, and who made that judgement. Does this mean that say... a JumboJet is immoral because it uses proprietory software AND hardware to make it work?
What about cars for that matter. Does that fact that they are proprietory or at least contain proprietory parts make them immoral as well?
You just cannot bring morality into it because no one can be the judge as to what is moral and what is immoral.
I would also like to point out that Linus Torvalds himself works for a COMMERCIAL PROPRIETORTY company. Why? You ask? Because he has bills to pay and a living to make.
In case you ask, he used to work for Transmeta. (Probably one of the most secret companies I know of.) It is now rumored that he has gone to work for Elbros. They are creating the new E2k chip, and you can bet your bottom dollar that is it will be one VERY proprietory chip.
Isn't it funny that the OpenSource/FreeSoftware movement has never branched out to hardware. Why dont you go and bang on Intels new Blue Door and get them to release the P3 and the Xeon under the GPL. One can guess pretty accurately as to the answer you would get from Intel.
Apple Doesn't Control Codecs (Score:1)
Linux??????
but what about codecs? (Score:1)
"I hope I'm wrong, but I fear I'm not" (Score:1)
> times the size of Macintosh's user base
You are higher than a fucking kite. I'd like to see a source for this nonsensical and utterly wrong statistic.
but what about codecs? (Score:1)
Eric Scheirer
Editor, ISO 14496-3 (MPEG-4 Audio standard)
Yeah, right. (Score:1)
Tell that to Mr. Free Software himself, Richard Stallman, who throws a hissy fit whenever someone doesn't honor his attempt to change the name of Linux to GNU/Linux.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Oh really? (Score:1)
I want specs that I can get for free just for the sake of it, not specs that cost me too much money so that I have to think before I buy it if I need it. The answer is usually no, so I have one less spec. And if I buy one, I cannot scan it and put it online - the specs itself are not 'free' (as in freedom), even if their content is.
Sorry for the rant, but I got pissed a while before when I saw a spec that cost $500 (the homerf one), and since then all paid specs make me nervous.
Just my $0.02.
Eh? (Score:1)
In this case, it's possible that you come up with an encoder that's even BETTER than the closed source ones.
Of course, it's possible to get an encoded file and its output (well, lots of encoded files and lots of outputs) and _guess_ the file format. You are not doing anything wrong - you're not reverse-engineering their code, you are just comparing the inputs and outputs and analysing them. You could get it right. Or totally wrong. Anyway, you got the decoder.
but what about codecs? (Score:2)
What I'd really like to see is the creators of these codecs open up their sources so that people could write free decompressors, while selling the actual compressors to "video professionals" -- the people who can and are willing to pay.
Open Codecs (Score:1)
but what about codecs? (Score:1)
was going to be based on QT, in which case
at least some codecs would open up.
Quicktime (Score:1)
More like apples and lemons
Quicktime for Java (Score:1)
uhh (Score:1)
so are they or aren't they? does news.com have any actual news, or are they just reprinting rumors?
I would interpret the statements as Apple will release the source, but the date this will occur is expected to be this week.
The article even says as much:
Apple Computer this week is expected to...
So expect the source this week!
AS
I expect (Score:1)
Really looking forward to play Quicktime movies under Linux......
Only the Server! (Score:1)
I also asked about any plans Apple may have for releasing QT for Linux, and there the answer was a resounding no. Even though he liked the idea of the penguin (QT) running on the penguin (Linux), he said that at least for '99 there were no plans whatsoever for porting, and he couldn't tell any further into the future. He did imply that this might happen if the market for it came into being, but how they judge that, is anybody's guess. I wouldn't hold my breath, if I were you. And don't expect them to open up the source, either - QT is their second most important/valuable software asset (after the OS).
People are STILL missing the point... (Score:1)
--Corey
just the streaming code? (Score:1)
just the streaming code? (Score:2)
Open Source, QuickTime, and Things of Value (Score:2)
Putting aside the fact that Apple Computer does not own the rights to many of the codecs used with QuickTime, and therefore, cannot release the source code to them without consent of the rightholder, if you don't like the things Apple Computer (or any other company or individual, for that matter) has created or done, create or do your own thing.
Distribute it any way you like, under any license you so desire, for any fee you would like to charge, under any restriction you see fit.
Stop this pointless complaining about the RIGHTS of others to do as they see fit, PLEASE.
Corporations do not exist to provide software free of charge or restriction. They exist to provide their consituents (by which I mean not only shareholders, but employees and related third-parties) with a livelihood.
How many Open Source(tm) programs would have been written without some form of monetary support? I would venture to claim *zero*.
Does not Linus Torvalds eat while writing the Linux kernel, or RMS while writing GNU software? How do they obtain their food? Does it magically appear, like manna from heaven?
I think not.
The unfortunate fact of capitalism is that money makes the world go 'round. We all have to eat, obtain shelter, etc., and the most successful, by many measures, form of value exchange the human race has come up with is capitalism; therefore, in our world, we must exchange something of value (i.e., money) for other things of value (i.e., software and food).
For every thing created by human hands, somewhere it was paid for, if not in money, then by the labor of its human creator, who also must eat.
Why do many people seem to believe that a corporation has no right, or find it morally repugnant, for a corporation to attempt to profit in any way from the fruits of its labor or research, and yet find it perfectly acceptable for a member of the "Open Source Community(tm) (sic!)" to derive a profit (and there are many definitions of the word "profit") from his or her efforts?
For people who live in the binary world, this is a ludicrous situation.
Don't bother responding with arguments concerning Apple's supposed subversion of the so-called Open Source(tm) or free software movements, these things are, by definition, incapable of being subverted. So long as one person continues to write free or Open Source(tm) software, there will continue to be a free or Open Source(tm) software movement.
One could sooner subvert the value of zero.
We were all blessed with free will at birth; if you don't like Apple's terms, or anyone else's, don't accept them. If you don't want to fix Apple's bugs without recompense that you feel is acceptable, do not do so.
Write your own software, set your own terms.
Your moral high ground seems to be sinking... (Score:2)
I am also a proponent of all forms of software, whether open, closed, or free. I also believe, as a creator, in the validity of intellectual property protection.
Intellectual property protection laws, *used properly*, are meant to encourage creativity and competition, not to undermine them. Without the ability to ensure an exclusive economic benefit for themselves, creators of all types would quickly find themselves less and less able to secure a livelihood through the use of their talents.
The argument you make seems to be that the pursuit of happiness at the expense of others is immoral. I disagree. I believe that competition is much more important to the betterment of humanity than is charity.
Please elucidate upon these points:
What do you define as a durable good? Why is software not included in your definition?
What, exactly, is your point in claiming that software should not be sold as a durable good?
Where is your basis for claiming that free software provides an economic benefit for more prople than other forms of software?
I think I made my point rather clear in my original post: If you don't like a particular piece of software's license terms, use another package, or go write your own software, and distribute it as you please.
Just please spare us the complaints if the rest of the world doesn't follow the same path. This isn't a life or death issue.