Why Hasn't Apple Released Quicktime For UNIX?

newt asks a question that I'm sure a lot of you have been wondering about: "We've just seen news that Apple has Open-Sourced Darwin, which no doubt fills enthusiasts with a warm fuzzy feeling about the future of Open Source and the way that Apple has embraced it. However, there's a piece missing from the picture: QuickTime. How often have you visited a Web page only to find that all the streaming media on it is QuickTime, and you can't view it without the Sorenson CODEC?" There was once a time when Quicktime as well as MPEG were cross platform, now we only have MPEG without the advantages of the advances made in the newer CODECs. Now that Apple has embraced Open Source, could Quicktime be on its way?

"There are a couple of solutions to this. The Open-Source xanim software already contains support for the QuickTime file format, and has an API for importing CODECs in binary format. If Apple doesn't want to release the source code to the Sorenson CODEC (which is understandable given the competitive market they're in at the moment), and if they don't want the cost and headache of supporting an additional product for the last 15% of so of the market, they can release the Sorenson CODEC in binary form using that API and let the Open Source process go the rest of the way towards enabling Linux to play QuickTime 4.

There's a better solution, though: Darwin is based on BSD UNIX; Apple is now full of UNIX developers. You can't convince me that there isn't already a version of the QT player with an Xwindows GUI compiled and floating around inside Apple; The absence of a UNIX player in that kind of development environment just doesn't make sense. So how close is it to release?

Let's find out: What pressure can we apply to Apple to let them know that there's sufficient demand for them to release the software?"

Comments

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle Speaks

[jd]

"How do you get Apple to release it's source code, Holmes? They're so dashed arrogant! And they keep swiching back and forth between Open Source and proprietary. Just look at how they treated the Apple Mac port of Linux!"

"Elementary, my dear Watson. We simply write our own CODEC, open source of course, and include a copy of the decoder in Netscape. We'll use the top of the line audio CODECS, such as MP4, and derive a new, high-quality video CODEC. Our system will become the de-facto standard, because most people will have a copy. After that, Apple will simply have no choice but to release the source for Quicktime, or risk watching it die."

"But Holmes! Video CODECS are so hard to develop!"

"We've some of the premiere mathematicians from a wide range of Universities and corporations, who could assist us in our quest. None of these corporationshas a vested interest in paying someone else for something they could obtain for essentially nothing. Besides! It would be a good mental exercise for the community."

"Where do you suggest they start, though?"

"Oh, Watson, Watson! Think, man! You're trying to compress natural images. Natural images can be defined as regions of similar colour, and regions of shade. By reducing the image to a grey-scale picture, a set of colour maps, a set of brightness maps, a set of contrast maps and an index of where the maps are overlayed, you've vastly simplified the image. Each of the maps can be compressed using delta shift encoding, because they'll all be very similar. You should be able to run-length what's left. The grey-scale picture could probably be compressed in any number of ways, including MPEG, or some lossless format. A lot of the more important information will already have been extracted, so it doesn't matter if you lose a bit. The locations of where the maps are overlayed won't take any serious amount of space, so that can be ignored."

"Wonderful, Homes! I didn't understand a word of it."

"That's quite alright, Watson. I didn't, either. Computers won't be invented for another 75 years, and computer graphics of this kind will take another 50 years to become of serious interest to the average person. Even with my great intellect, I cannot deduce the requirements of technology 125 years in the future."

Re:Sorenson Codec

[logicTrAp]

Don't think so. From the xanim homepage:
I have contacted Sorenson about licensing their codec. They responded that Apple won't allow them to license it to others.
It's currently fashionable to think of Apple as the anti-Microsoft, and thus the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Unfortunately, I see little evidence that that's the case.

What we really need from Apple

[Bruce Perens]

What we really need from Apple is:

• A license to use the codec patents in some form of Open Source software.
• Sufficient documentation to make our own codecs.

We do this sort of software well. What is holding us back here seems to be patent and trade-secret issues.

Thanks

Bruce

Porting != Open Source

[EvlG]

I think there is a bit of confusion here. Asking Apple to port QuickTime to UNIX is **NOT** the same as asking them to Open Source it.

Let's get real. Expecting Apple to Open Source QuickTime is pretty far fetched. WHY Would a company want to OpenSource such a lucrative revenue stream (particularly, one that lets them make money from Windows users; ie, ones that already tied into the Apple platform.)

It IS reasonable to expect them to PORT it to UNIX. It's simply more money for them to make by increasing their market share.

The fact is, Porting to UNIX != Open Sourcing. You can port something to UNIX without opening the source. See Q3A and the other Loki Games efforts if you don't believe me.

Note that this does not take into account the ideological reasons for opening the source to QuickTime. I'm sure there are some benefits to be had by doing so (some have noted the poor interface for the player could be improved.) I'm jsut speaking to the practical considerations, as well as to the mistaken concept that Porting = Open Sourcing.

In short, expect them to Port QuickTime, not Open Source it. That sort of confusion has to stop.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but...

[SvnLyrBrto]

...

IIRC, Apple does not own ALL of Quicktime. The Sorensen codec (the most important one, BTW), is a private, propietary codec that Apple LICENSES from the Sorenson people.

Sorenson is the codec that gives us the astounding quality of the recent Star Wars trailer .movs, and streaming Quicktime in real time.

Quicktime without Sorenson? May as well settle for realplayer... that'd be going back to Qutcktime version 2 or something.

We need to petition Sorenson to open the codec, *NOT* Apple! If Apple DID release the QT source, they'd either have to exclude Sorenson (a waste, really), OR they'd expose themselves to tremendous lawsuits (don't count on them being this stupid). This will not change until Sorenson changes the terms of THEIR license.

So, until Sorenson opens up.... don't count on Quicktime for Linux, Unix, or anything else.

BTW:
All of the above applies ONLY to the QT MoviePlayer. Quicktime as a whole constitutes a LOT more than just the player. Read the developer guides sometime. It's really quite nifty.

I doubt, even if Sorenson DOES open their codec, that we'll EVER see ALL of Quicktime open sourced. In doing so, Apple would essentially be handing a tremendous amout of technology to gates and his cronies, free of charge. I doubt that'll ever happen.

john

Download Stand-Alone Installer

[green pizza]

Huh? Apple has always had a stand-alone installer available. Qucktime 4.1 for Windows and MacOS is available here:

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/dow nload/support/

You still have to fill out some information first, but it'll let you download the full, "real" installer (one that doesn't require an internet connection to install). This download is web-based, however... I'm not sure if they have it on their FTP site, I'll look into it.