Slashdot Mirror
QuickTime For RealNetworks
PeterPan writes: "QuickTime for RealNetworks 'RealNetworks has licensed Apple intellectual property for streaming digital video and audio over the Internet in QuickTime. RealServer 8 now supports delivery of QuickTime content to QuickTime players.'" It'd be great to be able to actually watch high-quality QuickTime clips without either proprietary hardware / software combinations or jerky (or space-hogging) downcoversions.
It'd be great to be able to actually watch high-quality QuickTime clips without either proprietary hardware / software combinations...
I suppose this is referring to running QuickTime on a Mac, perhaps a bitter statement in regards to the fact that there is not a QuickTime player for Linux. QuickTime 4 does run under Mac OS and Windows. Aside from that, QuickTime is far more open than RealPlayer. I've seen many programs, both on the Mac OS and Windows which utilize the QuickTime libraries - movie players and non-linear video editing applications, mostly. The QuickTime libraries can be called and used from other programs, and not just confined to the QT4 player.
Because of this, at least on the Mac, there are QuickTime players, using the QT4 libs, but not the QT4 interface, for people who don't like the brushed metal UI/look.
It is a bummer (for me as well) that there is no QuickTime player/libraries for Linux, but Apple doesn't owe you a thing. Next time, think before you tag something biased and uninformed onto the post.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
Did anyone notice the name of Real Media's representative?
Jenny Sorenson
RealNetworks
Probably just a coincidence.
Johan
RealPlayer and Quicktime rank as my #1 and #2 most annoying pieces of software, ever. The thought of them working together makes me cringe.
They've probably got a team of engineers working on new, unexpected places to put shortcuts, fully integrated networks of "Register Now/ Later" windows, hideously overdone interfaces, and random things to stick in unexpected places in the registry.
This is the worst news I've had in months.
"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
Apple has never intended to make any money on its streaming server software, evidenced by the fact that while MS and Real charge out the nose for theirs, Apple gives away the whole server, with source to boot.
So for Apple, they get a major boon: RealServer, which is an established media server for many businesses, will now also stream QT files. That means the likelihood of sites offering QT streams will go up, which means more people will use the Quicktime software to view those streams. RealServer gets the ability to cater to millions more people since they can now stream to a client that is included in every copy of Mac OS on every Macintosh sold in the past year or so (and there's quite a few of those, believe me) plus another slew of clients on Windows.
Frankly, I think Apple is making a good move here. The more people that integrate QT streaming into their apps, the more QT becomes an entrenched standard.
And for the Qt-on-Linux people: I am almost sure that Apple has looked and continues to look at Quicktime on Linux. It's a shoe-in considering the porting efforts to Darwin.. but consider the effort needed to port QT to Linux. First of all, the video system in Linux needs much work to get it up to the same speed as proprietary systems. Moreover, which windowing system: should they call it kQuicktime or gQuicktime?
But the most important question: how many of you asking for Quicktime on Linux would be satisfied if that happened? Or would the new Question of the Day on Slashdot be: When is Apple going to Open Source Quicktime for Linux? It's not GPL, so why should I use it? etc...
If some of us would be thankful for the efforts the proprietary software community HAS made to work with and join the Open Source movement, instead of being so damn jaded and ungrateful, perhaps these companies would be motivated to join the cause wholeheartedly.
Instead most of us can't accept the fact that companies, like people, change and can mend their ways. Most of us see green and hate it. Most of us can't get beyond our petty prejudices to see the benefits some of these companies bring.
And until then Linux and the like will continue to be a fringe OS, because we refuse to work with others to improve ourselves.
Get off your high horse and write a thank you to IBM's Open Source advocate. Or Apple's.. check the Darwin list, there are many of them at Apple.
Some of you are just so self-righteous it's sickening.
The Market Leader in user base joined hands with the market leader in quality. M$ is going to cry hoarse shouting monopoly !!!
HUH? I don't get this comment....
Go here:
http://publicsource.apple.com/projects/streaming/
Darwin Streaming Server 2.0.1 includes minor performance and reliability enhancements. Download compiled binaries below (requires acceptance of the APSL):
FreeBSD 3.4 (server and proxy)
Red Hat Linux 6.2 (server and proxy)
Solaris 7 (server and proxy)
Windows NT Server/Windows 2000 Server (server)
This is equivalent to QuickTime Streaming Server 2.0.1 for Mac OS X Server.
--------------------
Maybe I'm being dumb here (is the poster just talking about playback?) but you clearly can serve Quicktime content without proprietary hardware and software solutions.
Sure, you need to be able to encode it first, but the Sorenson codec is a whole other problem. If we had that then these guys:
Quicktime for Linux would be having a much easier time of it!
What's really needed is a shit hot open source video compression codec. Anyone know of such a beast?
AndyT
Lord Pixel - The cat who walks through walls
Lord Pixel - The cat who walks through walls
A little bigger on the inside than out
What does that all mean? It means QT on linux almost guarenteed (why wouldnt apple want that market?)
Also, i remember reading a few years back that Quicktime for windows is an almost complete port of the mac os. I do not recall to what extent it was, or the validity of my memory, but its food for thought...certainly would be a huge engeneering effort(as i recall, QT uses allmost all macOS toolbox api's)
I dont know if anyone reading this has seen it, but the new UI for quicktime on osX is way better then its current incarnation. You can see it here
As far as Apple liscensing[sp] QT pieces, its a win win i think. If MS really just got windows media player support, then it seems like the right thing to do to be in that camp as well.
"Stuff... In my home!? NEVER!" - Zim on Invader Zim
"I want the toilet seat!" - Little Dog on Two Stupid Dogs
This may be a little off topic but I need to get it off my chest. The internet was started so that computers running a variety of operating systems on a variety of hardware could all communicate with some standard languages. The idea of being able to sit down at any machine and perform work on a remote computer regardless of the computer make and model was ingenious. As long as a computer could talk acording to an open standard language then it could be included on the network.
Now it appears as thought companies don't really care about the long-term goals (which really are not just fantasies, we've already have all the basic technology for an open network system) of the internet. They just don't know how to make money releasing open specifications of their protocols and formats. On the internet any information which is available should not be in a format which can only be read on systems which have been deemed profitable enough to warrant development.
I believe if you want to make a new format for distribution on the internet you should be forced to open the specs up. This is what the internet was based on, this is why it caught on, this is what will continue to help it grow.
I saw a quote a few days ago, I don't remember where or who, that got across the idea that if something on the internet appears differently in Internet Explorer than it does in Navigator (or is not availiable on a certain platform) then we have taken a step backwards.
I guess I'm just annoyed that I don't have a good Quicktime viewer for Linux, or that I sometime see sites which say I need to install shockwave to view them. In the long run I think technologies such as XML, CSS (and XSL), javascript (EA???..insert Standard name for javascript here, or something like it ) and other open standard protocols and formats are what will expand the internet to the point where it fulfills the vision people have for it.
From the looks of this, realSERVER 8.0 will allow the SERVING of quicktime files. It dosen't mention anything (at least not specifcally) about realplayer being able to play quicktime movies. This means we still will not be able to view quicktime 4 movies under linux.
As for quicktime serving, The quicktime server software is already available for free for linux, and from what I've heard from people who've run real server, real server itself is a pain in the ass.
This however does not mean that you can encode from within linux. The encoding itself must be done on a macintosh (or possible windows, i'm not sure), due to the unavailability of the codecs for linux. I'm not sure how realserver handles the encoding, but this could bring qt encoding to other platforms.
Didn't I read a few months ago that Real also licensed Windows Media for their servers as well? I suppose more companies will be buying real server.
I suppose we'll have to see how this turns out, but I think it's basically going to expand an already too big streaming company.
I just wanted to let everyone know that we're carrying the story on MacSlash. Stop on by, and while you're there, check out the rest of the site that's your daily dose of Mac News and Discussion.
--
MacSlash
e-mail: ben@macslash.com
--
--
MacSlash: Your Daily Dose of Mac News and Discussion.