10th Anniversary of Quicktime

An anonymous reader submitted a story about the 10th anniversary of QuickTime which might not seem like such a big deal unless you set your mental wayback machine to 1991 and remember what we didn't have back then. Bits from Brian Eno and others. Worth reading.

Comments

Re:Quicktime and Real Audio are already dead.

[MagnusDredd]

DivX is simply a codec. It is not a media layer. Codecs can be added and removed from applications and media layers. Example: I watch DivX movies under Quicktime using a file conatining the codec (although there are a few differing bastardised versions of MPEG4, generally the 3ivx, 4ivx, and 5ivx codecs I have installed here handle most formats.

Furthermore even with windows if you want support for many of these codecs you still have to go out and hunt down the codec. One of the most annoying things with avi files is the you never know what format they are in. The avi format actually can use as many as 15 separate formats (codecs) which are incompatable with each other.

What I have yet to see anywhere else is a single multimedia layer comprising MIDI synth, picture, video, panoramas, etc.

/rant/
It really is not Apple's fault that Linux developers have payed so little attention to developing Linux based solutions for Apple formats. I finbd it amazing how much of the horrible proprietary windows junk finds it's way to my linux/BSD boxen and how poor support is for Apple things. And then the galling thing is that Apple takes the blame for it here. One example was a suggestion that Apple by using their own filesystem for the iPod was horrible and proprietary and they should have used Fat 32. (reality check here) Apple should ditch their own file format and use Microsofts? kidding, right?

Microsft calls GPL evil, and Apple hires OSS developers and gives source code for core of their _current OS_ away and some of you guys still bash Apple for M$... go figure...
/rant/

Re:10 years and still no Open Source implementatio

[BitwizeGHC]

AFAIK the codec is patented, so even if someone RE's it, it's illegal to use without a license. The reason why there are no good open source video players is because there's big money in keeping all the codecs closed.

Re:QT rocks, an example of APL at it its finest

[frank_adrian314159]

QuickTime is a PERFECT example of something Apple got ***WAY RIGHT***

they treated it as multiplatform product, ignrored what the competition was doing, updated it frequently to accomodate new technology and changing hardware/software bases, didn't try to make a fortune off of it, and worked with their user/developer base to make sure they got what they needed to deploy it, and treated it as an "open standard" to a large degree...

And yet, in the end, Microsoft's inferior technology will again win. Look at the marketshare figures for WinMP vs. Quicktime. More importantly, look at how any large organizations are deploying WinMP streams vs. Quicktime. It's only a matter of time before the non-Microsoft web (including QT-based sites) goes dark.

Yes, it sucks. But geeks gotta learn that good technology doesn't always win. In fact, in my cynical old age I'd tend to say that the probability of commercial success is inversely proportional to technological quality. But, still, I will continue to fight the battle, even though it seems hopeless, because, in the end, I still have to live with my choices. But it still sucks...

Why no open source codecs?

[sfgoth]

QuickTime is an API framework for passing data through converters. These converters are called codecs (from encode, decode.)

Sorensen is probably the highest quality video codec with good compression for QuickTime. But there are a dozen other free codecs, including the widely available H.263 codec.

QuickTime is available on Linux, it's only the Sorenson codec that is not.

Given these simple facts, why does the Linux community continue to bitch about the absense of QuickTime for linux? Where are the open-source codecs to replace Sorenson? Why isn't the community insisting that web authors use a more widely available codec than Sorenson?

Or, to invert the question, why aren't the few open-source codecs that _are_ being developed being developed as QuickTime codecs? Why can't I get OggVorbis as a QuickTime codec? If the open source world built codecs for QuickTime, they would be usable with a minimum of fuss on Mac OS, Windows, and Linux, which would have a huge impact on adoption. Plus, so much of the boilerplate work, like authoring and playback software, would already be done for them!

It's sad, the opportunity being wasted like this.

-pmb

Re:Why no open source codecs?

[sfgoth]

Or, to invert the question, why aren't the few open-source codecs that _are_ being developed being developed as QuickTime codecs? Why can't I get OggVorbis as a QuickTime codec?

You seem to be mistaken about the way codecs are developed. Generally, you develop a codec and create an implementation, and if you want it to be widely adopted you make source available for that implementation (if not completely open source, then you make it available to the standards bodies and their members). The individual developers (Apple in the instance of QuickTime) then implement the codec in their software, in most cases. If Ogg isn't available for QuickTime, that's the result of QuickTime not being popular in Ogg's target audience, as well as Apple not taking the time to implement Ogg (probably because Ogg isn't popular in Apple's target audience, either).


That's a great explanation from the technical implementation point of view, but completely ignores the reality of the end users who actually use software instead of write software.

When you say "The individual developers (Apple in the instance of QuickTime) then implement the codec in their software...", you miss the point of QuickTime.

If the OV developers released their codec as a QuickTime plugin, it would work on Windows, Mac OS, and Linux, in any authoring or playback application that understands QuickTime.

Sure, Apple could do the integration for the OV developers. But why should they?

Apple has given the world an open, extensible architecture for multimedia. And no one is using it, because they either believe they need to own the whole widget (Real), or can't be bothered with anything as mundane as users (OV).

For example, Real could implement their entire business on top of QuickTime, and the user experience wouldn't be any different at all, but Real would suddenly only need to do 1/2 the engineering.

The really sad thing is that Apple would rather keep people using their player, so they can display their nag screens, than make plugins readily available for other players, or make a deal with Sorenson to make the format open to others to make those plugins for them.

The plugins (codecs) that Apple ships work in any QuickTime player. The QuickTime Player that Apple ships/sells is just ONE implementation of a QuickTime player. QuickTime itself is free, and widely available! Apple's QuickTime Player is NagWare for buying Apple's Pro Player, but you can get all of the same functionality from any of dozens of other freeware and shareware player applications.

In fact, you can play QuickTime movies from SimpleText on the Mac! That's about as minimal a player as you can find!

In my perfect world, the Open Source community would realize that QuickTime is a vehicle they could "embrace and extend", ensuring that their platforms are first class multimedia citizens.

After all, QuickTime is just an API. There's no reason why the QuickTime API couldn't be the native multimedia API for Linux, even if they shared none of the codecs!

-pmb

Re:Apple's a Black Hole

[Spruitje]

hey've opened part of it, so far. the streaming server is open source.


Yup, and it runs on Linux, NT and MacOS (X).
Second, contrary to WMP and REAL it is completely free.
And with the MPEG4 codec you'll have the best streaming video solution on the market.

Re:Stoopid mistakes in article

[90XDoubleSide]

Didn't you understand what the author was saying? Of course the features of those products have been handed down to new software; that is what always happens. QuickTime is different because it, not a product derived from it, is still around and still innovating.