Slashdot Mirror
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.
...there won't be a gleeful response from the Linux crowd here?
"And like that
Here is an history of QuickTime by a group of QuickTime developers, "Friends of Time" :
http://www.friendsoftime.org/
-J
Alexis 'jeriqo' BRET
I remember when people were talking about which was better quicktime or microsoft avi. One of them made files smaller by decreasing resolution of movies, but keeping the same on-screen size. The other decreased framerate. I just remember reading this in a really really old magazine. I still have quick time 2 somewhere. Ah DOS.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
I remember back in 1991 when I didn't play "computer games". I played "Video games". I also didn't "Surf the web". I "bbsed". Back then things were more simple. ASCII art, a time when Microsoft wasn't evil, no obscure linux-related jokes, hell, no linux. That was when i played outside too, climbed trees, and didn't have a job (because i was 11).
Now look at us. I'm sitting here, reading news on a website named after some punctuation, and worrying about if i can talk about the newest Microsoft internet explorer to my boss, or risk being fired, and turned to the police because i know too much.
"Charging a man with murder in this place is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500" -Apocalypse No
Windows Media and other MPEG4 based solutions have already killed them
Isn't MPEG4 based on quicktime?
Plus I would hardly put Windows Media in the same catagory as Quick time
http://Lenny.com
4 great justice!
It's important to understand that Quicktime is not a compression algorithm. If it were, then I would agree with your statement. However, Quicktime is one level above the compression algorithm--it can work with many different algorithms. There's no reason to believe that there won't be a MPEG-4 codec for Quicktime soon (if it's not available already).
While the most popular codecs involved will change, Quicktime will be around for a long time to come.
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
QT has the most stable and best rendering collection of COCDEC's of any of the video players, and for quality of presentation, QT 3D is still way ahead of the competition...
the number and variety of the CODEC's available for QT show a mature platform that can do just about anything possible with the hardware available
i'm associated with a web design company that has done over 200 commercial web sites, including record artists and film sites....
and 3 years ago everyone of the media companies we did business with always wanted QT, NOW, when we get new "Developer Guidelines", they almost always ask for Real or WindowsMedia...
we've continued to push QT, but just finished a film site that we were ordered to use WindowsMedia "or else"
at this rate, WindowsMedia and REAL will not be leaving much room for a competitive product in the next 18-36 months
Hey Apple, how about QT for LINUX???? can it save the day????
or is QT going to be another "stranded" product???
Ten quid, she's so easy to blind. And not a word is spoken...
Basically, quicktime allowed the birth of multimedia. The attitudes from the first posters were along the line of "say thank you, and don't forget to kick it as you walk on by"
Of course, if you really like MS Brand Duct Tape, then keep on kicking.
It is sort of like bitching at your grandfather:"I wish you were never born". Which is not exactly bright, on several levels.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
.. but criticising QuickTime is like dissing Christopher Columbus. Sure, he may have called everyone 'indians', and been a complete asshole, but we wouldn't be where we are today without him.
Same goes for QuickTime. Whine all you like about it not being on Unix, but that doesn't take away from the fact that it was the embassador of streaming video for the internet. To this day, without going into the nitty gritty and platform issues, I still prefer the quality of QuickTime over any other format, and will select a QuickTime stream given a choice from any other number of alternatives.
"Old man yells at systemd"
For those of you who know the difference between QT and Quicktime, take heed! There is hope! I've successfully played some Quicktime movies using WINE. Everybody knows the Crossover plugin from CodeWeavers. I've also had some very good results with the CodeWeavers version of Wine.
.avi files under my favourite OS!
Unfortunately some aspects of the UI don't work but the movies play nicely. I can't wait until TransGaming's WineX or stock Wine runs Quicktime movies as good as mplayer plays
Does anyone know exactly how crosspollination between these projects work? I would say that besides GNU and Linux, Wine has the potential to be the most useful piece of code ever created.
You are also confusing codecs or players with QuickTime. MPEG is a codec, Windows media has is wma codec and player...QuickTime is a Media Layer providing all the necessary tools to deal with hundreds of formats and just as many codecs supporting wide ranges of playback and presentation options not just limited to audio, video, graphics, vector graphics, VR...
I could got on, but instead you should go read up at on specifics here.
There was a time when I just wished MS ripped QT's codec and put it in their media player.
I mean.. For a player, all you need is a play button and a stop button.
We do not need animated menus or sweet shading. Just a simple old box.
Guis.. There should be an option to "turn all the options off".
Base skin should be no skin. Naked.
Just like a pen does not need some purty little bunnies on it to write effectively.
Still. Happy 10th', QT. You've put on some weight lately, but fortunately I still have an older version on my Lodoss War cds.
Nouvelles de jeux et technologies en français. TC
Isn't MPEG4 based on quicktime?
MPEG-4 is based on a file format championed by Apple and used in Quicktime. The problem is that the MPEG-4 standard is not yet complete. What WiMP (Windows Media Player) and the others are using is a corrupted form of the incomplete standard. It's the usual embrace-and-extend attack from Microsoft: adopt a standard and then modify it so that it becomes so corrupted and muddled that people have to use your version to do anything.
Once again we see that Microsoft has managed to grab market share through bundling, while the better product doesn't get as much exposure. Quicktime is such a polished product that supports some of the best compression algorithms for video out there, it's a shame that it is not used more.
Sapere aude!
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/
... and for that, I am thankful. It was quite a feat,back then, to show rendered 3D animation (even if it was postage stamp-sized) with a 33mHz computer and a single speed CDROM.
ADB stands for Apple Desktop Bus. USB is little more than Intel's modern copy of ADB. ADB was used on Macs from the Macintosh SE, up to and including the very first blue & white G3 machines, and also on some NeXT computers. It was used to mostly hook up input devices, such as keyboards, mice, joysticks, graphics tablets, etc. Just like USB, ADB let you daisy-chain peripherals together-- the mouse plugged into a port on the keyboard, so you didn't need a mile-long mouse cord that stretched to the back of the computer. ADB also provided advantages like being able to power up the computer from the keyboard, which also allowed 'smart' power strips that could sense when the machine became unresponsive and initiate a 'three-finger-salute' all by itself-- great for machines running unattended. I have two such power strips at home, one on my main Mac, and one on my Mac server that does all my mail and routing and runs the house.
~Philly
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.
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
``The amazing thing about Quicktime is that there was nothing like it before, and everything has been like it since,'' notes PBS commentator Robert X. Cringley. ``Look at the guts of Real Player or Windows Media Player, and you'll see structural copies of QuickTime.''
Aside from the overblown technological utopianism in this article that would make Theodore Roszak (The Cult of Information) physically ill, we have this man's opinion. Robert X. Cringley, self declared cyber evangelist telling us that QuickTime is the end-all, be-all of ALL multimedia formats. Aside from the fact that he's always prone to blow things out of proportion, Cringley has very little technical knowledge, let alone an understanding of software strucutre (or "guts" as he puts it). (Note he completely ignores that most features found in QuickTime today such as streaming capability and portal functionality were derived from RealMedia's software.) Oh yes, QuickTime has brought about a revolution in digital media! It brought democracy to the web! And nobody has ever duplicated it or surpassed it since! Nonsense.
This is all just foolishness and people need to calm down. It's a media format wrapper (not a codec like MPEG as most of these Slashfools are contending). That's all. QuickTime didn't start a revolution. It didn't change the world. And it certainly isn't the greatest thing in multimedia today. Similar technologies were being developed by a number of groups at the same time and we have equivalent if not better tools for producing and converging digital media today.
Why bother.
DivX ;), Windows Media and other MPEG4 based solutions have already killed them. They take less bandwidth and scale from palm-based to near-DVD quality.
You completely missed the point. Think back to the state of movie playing on desktop hardware in 1991. Hint: There wasn't one. Quicktime was the first attempt to bring movie playing to personal computers. This was years before the huge full-motion-video multimedia explosion that started in late 1993.
I miss the old QuickTime installs that would put themselves on a Windows box and be a codec for other media players. (True, the Windows 3.1 insall was hell at first. Manual editing of the system.ini, etc...) What was wrong with following standards? Why do I need this bulky media player now to play Quicktime 3 and above content?
Quicktime definitly has not gotten better in the 10 years it has been out.
I am constantly amazed at the Quicktime UI. Apple, without a doubt, has some of the most talented designers in the world. And after so many years to work on it, it still manages to release the most incredibly AWFUL client software for Quicktime.
It's an historical case study in bad interface design! And every subsequent version is just as bad. Clunky UI elements. Inconsistent behaviour. Complete absence of any sort of optimization.
The very awfulness of it is fascinating. It's the roadside car wreck of software development.
hell the current version of the Windows client still hasn't even implemented a full-screen mode...
Oh, it's there. But you have to pay extra for it! Unbelievable.
It required an expensive video editing system, that included a $10,000 professional video card called a HyperCard
Wasn't hypercard the popular freebie utility included with Macs back in the late 80's? Was the name later reused for a hardware device?
--- -- - -
Give me LIBERTY, or give me a check.
Hey, I was selling Amigas in 1991... :)
What Quicktime got right (and it saddens me to see people falling over themselves to flame it B3KUZ 1TZ PRUHP1Et4RY) was that they spec'ed a really nice, solid API with architectural room to grow. When Quicktime was released, mainstream personal computers had 16-33 MHz CPU's, maxed out at 8-16 megabytes of RAM, a 32-bit video card cost >$1000, etc.
Quicktime's API was so clean that a video playing application (such as Popcorn or the original Simple Player) written for Quicktime 1.0 in 1991 can still run on top of Quicktime 5.x today, taking advantage of all the codecs written in the interim period. When Apple added PNG support to Quicktime, any program that relied on Quicktime for graphics file import immediately gained the ability to read PNG files, without even a recompile.
Quicktime is not a video player, it is not a streaming plugin, and it is not a replacement for MPEG.
Quicktime is a system. The system manages codecs, input, output, and time domain synchronization. Sorenson is a codec for Quicktime. Quicktime is not based on Sorenson.
Um, Quicktime has little to do with the compression format. It uses other people's compression algorithms to store the compressed video. The person who sets up the video can choose any number of compression formats.
I know there are some people out there who are annoyed that Linux is unable to read some Quicktime files out there. That's not Apple's fault at all, rather it is the fault of the compression format used. Most of the Quicktime files are compressed using the Sorenson codec, because of the superior quality and great compression it offers. The problem is that Sorenson holds the patent on the codec and they have only produced a decoder for Windows and MacOS. In order for Linux users to play those Quicktime movies which use the Sorenson codec, Sorenson would have to produce a Linux version of the decoder. There are a few programs out there that can play Quicktime movies, but only the movies that use codecs supported by Linux.
The same thing has happened with AVI on the Mac. There are a few Intel codecs that are used by AVI files which have no Mac version of a decoder. Thus, viewing an AVI on a Mac is kind of a crap shoot. I'm sure that this is a planned thing by Intel. Fortunately AVI seems to be dying a slow death as better formats are appearing.
That being said, Quicktime fully supports mpg. In fact, there are only a few odd or proprietary formats that Quicktime can't or doesn't support.
Sapere aude!
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
I had a QuickTime movie of my rabbits, on my personal homepage in 1995 which, if you had the QT plugin installed, would start playing as soon as it calculated it could reliably play the whole movie without having to pause. The little control bar filled up with gray and then it started playing automatically... very cool.
Considering that the prototype of pro-quality streaming was QuickTime Conferencing in 1994, allowing n people each to stream video to n-1 friends, I think you've got your chronology turned around a bit.
And I don't know what you mean by "portal functionality" but if you mean what I think, that's pretty trivial :)
Well, that's kind of the point; it wasn't just a codec. At a time when everyone else was doing FLC animation (shudder) or straight-shot MPEGs, Apple envisioned a media format which was extensible and flexible. Its design played well with time. Basically the multimedia revolution has been another case of Apple being the skunkworks R&D department for the entire industry.
About the only thing Quicktime was fast at was telling me I didn't have the right version.
On a windows platform they were better than REAL, but not WMV
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
DiVX * MPEG4.
The next version of Quicktime will support MPEG4 but not DiVX.
The file format MPEG4 uses is the quicktime file format.
It really is Apple's fault, to some degree-- the Sorenson codec (probably the most popular quicktime video codec) is patented, and any open-source implementation of it would be illegal.
Not to mention that even a closed-source implementation is currently not possible, since Sorenson is only licensing their codec to Apple through an exclusive deal. So unless Apple or Sorenson write a Linux version, there won't be one.
Here's a link that mentions it in regards to xanim, and another on ZDNet that states "Apple has never released a binary player for Linux or a binary module for the XAnim video and animation player, and it has no stated plans to do so. Moreover, the company won't allow open source programmers to make their own Sorenson-aware players."
So before you bash the hardworking folks who make linux do as much as it does, make sure you have your facts straight.
The ADB port was also available on the Apple IIgs. I remember plugging in my IIgs' keyboard into my Mac IIci because I liked the smaller size of the IIgs' keyboard.
Apple Desktop Bus. That thing that the keyboard and mouse (and possibly other things like modems and what not) used to be plugged into. It disappeard about the time the iMac first showed up.
When they switched to a new stanxdard which was based on ADB called USB.
Not many people know that the USB protocol is based on the ADB protocol.
And before Apple started to use USB, USB was better know as "unused Serial Bus'.
Apple was the first to really use it.
Well, ADB was neat for its time, but wasn't it severely bandwidth limited? Google found articles that said it was 10kbps (thus making it possible to have 2400bps ABD modem... neat hack), meaning that it is/was usually only useful for keyboards and mice. Of course that's what it was designed for. However, saying USB is but a lousy ripoff sounds bit like an overstatement. :-)
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Converting a single three-minute music video from videotape to a digital video could literally take several days... It required an expensive video editing system, that included a $10,000 professional video card called a HyperCard, a Macintosh and a laser disc player.
Admittedly, I originally presumed Apple's graphical programming language (based on an index card metaphor) was hardware, but that was when I was in Jr. High. These guys could use some fact checking.
You, and the idiots who moderated your spew up.
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.
An open question:
My familiarity with this field is week, but I acknowledge the need to maintain an accurate history free from marketting hype. It was my understanding that the Amiga with the early VideoToaster cards was the first consumer-targetted machine with video editting capabilities, and that the capabilities of Video Toaster was well beyond anything QT could do for several version.
I couldn't find the exact dates on the Video Toaster inception, in my brief search, but I know the amiga was circa '85. Is it that the Toaster isn't considered a consumer-grade video editting tool, or that it is hardware as opposed to QT, or that it came out after 1991 or that the amiga is simply forgetting in a corner of modern computer history?
VP3 is an open source QuickTime video codec that some people claim rivals Sorenson in quality (I haven't tried it myself).
You have no idea what you're talking about. The release version of Quicktime 4 fixed none of the problems listed. Quicktime 5 still suffers from many of the same problems.
It still brazenly defies one of Apple's own cardinal rules of UI design -- that you should always use common UI elements and dialogs, so that all applications behave consistently. Instead, the Quicktime client does everything with a custom, nonstandard hack, even simply opening a file. The UI community has learned since then that that is not always the case.
You say that like it wasn't already painfully obvious even before the software was released.
Apple envisioned a media format which was maximally under their control, and at that they have succeeded. Quicktime's plug-in architecture was a further attempt by Apple to tie users to its software. Quicktime is a marketing and business construct, not a technical one.
Technically, there is little reason to put animation, MPEG video, audio, and other features all into the same viewer: the amount of content that usefully mixes multiple formats is negligible. And technically, there is every reason not to have "plug-ins": you want well-defined, standardized codecs, not a profusion of proprietary codecs.
I'm kind of glad to see Quicktime losing market share to alternatives. While the alternative are just as proprietary, they may show that Apple's gamble is not working in the long term. Maybe if Apple sees itself excluded from its own home turf by Microsoft, Apple will adopt open standards next time around.
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.
The article refers to something called a "HyperCard," although HyperCard was a trademark of Apple's well before 1991. HyperCard, in many ways, explored the possible functions of the WWW, and helped people learn to program in HyperTalk. However the article says: It required an expensive video editing system, that included a $10,000 professional video card called a HyperCard, a Macintosh and a laser disc player. Well, Hypercard and Quicktime both kick lots of ass. That is all.
--hongpong.com
1. That isn't "most features" that is one feature (two if you rally consider "portal functionality" a feature).
2. QuickTime's streaming technology is drastically different from Real's; It uses some of the same codecs as non-streaming video and really helps blur the line between streaming and non-streaming video, making the different versions of the video much easier to manage. QuickTime also uses the RTSP standard.
3.QuickTime's streaming technology delivers at least 4x the clarity of the same video encoded with the Real codec at the same bitrate, so in any event you have to admit that QT streaming video runs circles around Real and WM
4. QuickTime Streaming Server is open source, so you can go look at the "guts" yourself and stop your reflexive Apple-bashing
Oh yes, QuickTime has brought about a revolution in digital media!
True; the sarcastic parts of your post seem to be more accurate.
And nobody has ever duplicated it or surpassed it since!
I think a large part of the article was about how many people have duplicated it. QT still ships with the best codecs, integrates more technologies, and lets content creators do more, so player notwithstanding it is still the best video technology.
It's a media format wrapper (not a codec like MPEG...
That is why it was such a revolutionary technology, although Apple does take a role in the development of some of QT's important codecs, the reason QT allowed multimedia to spread was that it allowed you to deal with codecs transparenttly, even today most people still just think they're dealing with QuickTime video whether it is compressed with the Video or Sorenson codecs, nor will they be aware if the audio is uncompressed, MP3, PureVoice, or QDesign, or even if the author switches codecs midstream (do that with your "equivalent if not better tools").
QuickTime didn't start a revolution. It didn't change the world.
Yeah, that multimedia thing never really caught on.
The author has a very valid point: QuickTime is one of the very few technologies that was responsible for the explosion of a technology and is still the premier technology for it. Don't try to tell me that there are better technologies for multimedia content delivery; real multimedia professionals are not using MPEG or Real, and WM is almost as big a joke as the current Real codec. Today, Cleaner and the Sorenson codec are the Photoshop of high quality web multimedia, sure there are GIMPs of web multimedia, but don't try to say they are better.
I know many /.ers can't use real QuickTime, and I really think Apple should create a Linux version, but lets not have a bunch of sour grapes.
"Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity" -Alvy Ray Smith
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.
"Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity" -Alvy Ray Smith
Sigh. No. Go back in time to 1991. Notice those "amiga" computers? Get one, either a CDTV, or an A500 with an A570. Watch Neil armstrong walk on the moon, spooled from CDROM..
Sorry, no. That was a novelty for hardware that almost no one owned (even Amiga owners!). It had no effect whatsoever on getting movie playing to be a desktop standard.
It really is not Apple's fault that Linux developers have payed so little attention to developing Linux based solutions for Apple formats.
If the quality of responses here is representative of the Linux/Open Source community at large, and I hope it is not, then it would seem that they can't even comprehend what QuickTime is.
QuickTime is not a movie format, at least in the sense that a LOTR trailer is a movie. It is not a codec. It is not an application with a window. It is an architecture and a set of organizing principles to tie time-dependent data together that negotiates amongst an essentially unlimited number of codecs and data formats.
Now, it just so happens that one common use of QuickTime is LOTR trailers. It also just so happens that a lot of people use the Sorenson codec. It also just so happens that there's a somewhat ugly piece of software called the QuickTime Player 4 (but the previous version still works and is nicer). However, that doesn't define what QuickTime is. Maybe people are confused by the fact that the name QuickTime is used in conjunction with other words. Maybe people are confused by the fact that the word used in QuickTime is "movie," even though Apple goes to great lengths to explain that it is not necessarily a literal movie of image frames. Honestly, though, I would expect a community of hackers to be able to look under the hood.
For the people talking about MPEG4, well, it does begin to approach this level of universality, but that's because it is based on Quicktime, with Apple contributing heavily to the standard! MPEG4 is, to all extents and purposes, a new version of QuickTime with some codecs included.
There is nothing to stop you, me, or any Open Source developer from using the QuickTime architecture and file format to do anything from a movie player to controlling the geometry in a 3rd-person shooter to keeping track of thunderstorm data. However, in order to do that, it is necessary to appreciate the value of an overarching architecture rather than a tool to do a thing in a file format.
I wonder if this lack of what must be called "vision" is emblematic of Open Source. I certaintly hope it is not. However, it would be consistent with some of the problems with making a desktop acceptable to the consumer.
One doesn't need to integrate software to the point of stupidity as does Microsoft. However, to achieve synchronicity in a system of pieces, it is even more important to have architectures and organizing principles on the order of QuickTime.
I can produce an image file on the Macintosh and write drivers for QuickTime and be sure that any reasonably well written image-processing program on the Macintosh will be able to use it automatically without my having to do anything else, and that's just the beginning. Doesn't anyone think this kind of capability would be useful on an open operating system?
No, no, no ... you guys are talking about this like it's a QuickTime vs Real vs MS Media Player war, like the only issue is the media player clients, or streaming video. The video has to exist on the computer in the first place before you can convert it to Real or MS formats and stream it. What you're taking for granted is that this stuff even exists on computers at all. That's what the 10 year anniversary of QuickTime is about. It's the UNIX of multimedia. Saying that QuickTime is no good because more people watch streaming video in Real or MS than in QuickTime Player is like saying whether ASCII or XML is good or not depends on which text editor you use. The reason there are multiple text editors in the first place is because we have these text formats that are easily interoperable, so much so that we take them for granted. That's what QuickTime did for video and multimedia.
... the authors are using QuickTime, the editors are using QuickTime. In other words, there's a workflow that starts in a camera and ends in your RealPlayer or MS Media Player and QuickTime was in the middle somewhere. In a sense, RealPlayer and MS Media Player are QuickTime players, but you convert the QuickTime to Real or MS formats. The fact that all this stuff has a long, long history and is well-integrated into the entire Mac platform is why Apple's iMovie and iDVD are years ahead of everyone else in consumer DV editing and DVD creation (really, the only true consumer entries, not even requiring any hardware or software installation beyond plugging in an iMac). Working with these different rich media types is just much older news on the Mac. The maturity benefits the user like the maturity of Apache over IIS benefits the server user. Apache and QuickTime are so much better than IIS and Windows Media that serving Web pages or working with rich media is taken for granted and many people don't actually ask themselves whether Microsoft's tools just aren't cutting it in the real world, to the level that other tools are.
The video you're watching in RealPlayer was at one point a QuickTime file
QuickTime is also much more than just streaming video or Sorenson streams. It handles all kinds of media, and a QuickTime movie is actually a wrapper for multiple media tracks. So you can easily add a MIDI soundtrack (just by cutting and pasting) to a video presentation, playing the lightweight music file through the built-in software synth that supports DownLoadable Sounds (DLS). Then you can layer on a Flash movie for an interface, and a spoken narrative in MP3. You can add transitions that are built-into QuickTime itself. All of these tracks exist within the single wrapper file.
Really, you can't overstate how important QuickTime has been and is now to any kind of computer multimedia.
Microsoft's earlier Video for Windows effort was even found in court to contain stolen QuickTime code. The didn't just copy the architecture, they also used Apple code. It's not surprising, but it's just symbolic of how much more of a leader Apple has been on this front.
It's not the patent that's the issue-- it's Apple and Sorenson's refusal to allow 3rd-party open-source OR proprietary software using the Sorenson codec to be built. Check out the links in my first post.
/. great. Cheers!
MPEG is patented, yes, but the patent holders have most definitely allowed other people to produce their own proprietary implementations of the MPEG codecs. Additionally, they seem to be very lenient on open-source MPEG implementations. (I don't know if this means open-source versions are legit, or just ignored, though)
And finally, doesn't anonymous name-calling make you feel especially good about yourself? It's folks like you that make
I am fed up with this Quicktime !
I am running Unix systems on my machines and I am really fed up to hit the famous: This web page require a quick time plug-in, go to download it !
THERE IS NO QUICKTIME PLUG-IN FOR UNIX
How good can be a format that is not OPEN ????
Developper have to buy the right to code a reader for this format !
This is outrageous ! But, after all, Apple and Microsoft have the same goal... world domination. Microsoft had just done some steps further than Apple. That's all.
I am fed up with this Apache !
I am running Windows systems on my machines and I am really fed up to hit the famous: This IIS server needs to be patched in order to not kill routers and tie up Internet traffic with malicious worms like Code Red and Nimda! Go run Apache if you want a real Web server!
THERE IS NO APACHE WEB SERVER FOR WINDOWS!
How good can be a Web server be that is not running on Windows ????
Developper have to buy a non-Windows computer to run this Web server !
This is outrageous ! But, after all, Microsoft and Linux/UNIX have the same goal... world domination. Microsoft had just done some steps further than Linux. That's all.
I have found QuickTime to be every bit as stable as Real, and much more stable than WMP. I have had movies played through the plug-in crash the browser, but the browser will also crash for no reason on its own, as well. Plus, in the short time that I actually tried to use Real's browser plug-in, it never worked.
Sure, QuickTime isn't perfect, but it's the best alternative, IMO.
Mr. Sharumpe
-- The above comments are just my opinion. If you are going to flame me, save your time. I am fireproof.
QT doesn't have a codec, precisely. It's a framework. The QT format allows for multiple codecs.
For example, QT for the Mac comes standard with the following codecs for video:
You can also install your own codecs. I seem to have:
There are a comparable array of audio codecs.
Most of the stuff you see on the web these days is Sorenson. But content creators usually don't work in Sorenson; they work in the higher-quality codecs. I'm leaning towards On2VP3 these days, although in the past I was pretty much a straight-up Indeo man.
It also allows you to encode without using a codec, i.e. raw data & Big Files. This is what the really serious editors with the Really Big Drives (Avid and so on) use.
BTW, the DivX ;-) player for the Mac uses a QuickTime framework, and can play the DivX inside QT player.
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
Video compression had been worked on for years by that point. People were already talking about object-based video compression. The 68020 was being used in desktop workstations running UNIX.
Both then and now, Apple put a nice face on existing technology.
When Apple licensed the Sorenson codec, didn't they license it under an agreement that forbade its use with other media players? IOW, when they licensed Sorenson, didn't they do so with the specific intention of preventing Windows Media Player and other apps from playing Quicktime movies encoded using the Sorenson codec?
If so, that's hardly open, by even the most generous definitions of open.
Taking a complete guess here, but that is more than likely due to the fact that the game programmers looked for a specific version of quicktime, rather than looking for a version equal or greater to what was needed. This used to be a common mistake in quicktime games
Time for some tasty Shiner Bock!
someone modded my original comment as 'flaimbait'. i think it's a reasonable complaint, after all, the MacOS plugin exposes an object model to AppleScript (hardly a standard) why not expose the same model to JavaScript?
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
1- Who told anyone they couldn't write their own movie-player? Once the architecture is installed, any app on your system has access to that architecture. I have had multiple movie players on my system, including Peter's Player that would load a whole movie into memory to ensure no skipping back on my slower proccessors and hard drives. This includes Sorrensen and any other codec you can get for Quicktime. Once it is installed, it is available to all applications.
2- Quicktime for Java is available from the regular quicktime installer. Go install the thing and write a movie player on Linux., or for your other java-enabled portables. I don't know what you're complaining about!
3- Quicktime is the basis of the next mpeg standard precicely because it is widely available and a great architecture for combining all kinds of different media. It is robust and scalable (very tiny streams all the way to HDTV). This is not a closed platform, and will only become more open when mpeg4 is finalized. Sorrensen is licensed, but there are just as many other small-compression formats you can get for free that plug-in to the QT architecture just as well.
4- I use different operating systems for different things. Unix has traditionally been great for server things, Macs for graphics and multimedia, and Windows has been good for keeping Tech Support staff, Security Experts and Lawyers gainfully employed. I am so happy under MacOS X to have a Unix server AND Quicktime AND a decent GUI. I'm not saying it's better for anybody else, but I really like it. If I didn't like it, or I wanted to continue to use other OSes as well, or thought Apple charged too much for hardware, I wouldn't be running it-- but I also wouldn't be complaining that they should give it all away for free.
-The Minister of Quicktime
Well, here I go.. Feeding the trolls again..
If the interface on the client is so horrible, find an undergraduate CS major taking a software design class and having him help you build your own!!! Quicktime is a programming API... The client is just an app that passes calls the API.. Have you ever used a Mac? If you have one available, or can find one to sit down in front of for a few minutes, pop open something like SimpleText and open a movie.. SimpleText will call the Quicktime API and have it play the movie within the SimpleText window.. Then pop open iCab.. iCab is happy as a clam letting Quicktime render images and movies..
The point is, that there's no reason a simple, bare-bones, client couldn't be written that supports playlists, and windows 3.0 type dialog boxes..
As for the 99% cpu at double size option; all I can say is Wow!.. I just popped open one of large pixar trailers on my B&W G3 450 with 64MB RAM and at double size it used about 10% of the cpu at 12.25 fps, and at some size (non-integer scaling) greater than 200% it only used less than 15% of the cycles.. Huh..
Movie playing WAS a desktop standard, for them.
Silly troll. I've used Amigas. Great machines. Far too underpowered to really decode movies on stock hardware, though. You could hardly call the Amiga a movie-playing machine.
The fall of Russian Communism?
Well, it started around then anyway. I think it's impacted more lives in better ways than id Software or Linux have.
Quicktime on the other hand, was the pioneer of digital video. Without digital video, we wouldn't have DVDs, digital cable, streaming media (not good media anyway), or people digitally filming movies in Australia and sending the recording to California to have special effects added.
I'd rather have the fall of communism, but QuickTime has (indirectly) affected more people in more ways than Linux or id have.
--Dan
I have nothing against MNG - in fact I await the day we have MNG support in Quicktime as yet another example of QT's flexibility.
The point of my MNG comment was rhetorical, and properly expanded/disambiguated would have been soomething like this:
"What suitable replacement options do you have for the Quicktime architecture? MNG?"
Yes, MNG has it's place, and will I'm sure be supported as an import, track, and export media type within Quicktime. We currently have PNG support everywhere that counts, it's not much of a leap. My point was that all the non-Quicktime options out there are primarily distribution formats/codecs, not the all-encompassing media architecture that Quicktime provides. Even if you were wanting to end up with an MNG file there would be benefits to using Quicktime to produce it - namely, the application support and integration of multiple media types available on Mac OS and Windows. Yes, if you just have a bunch of still frames to merge into an MNG this is trivial - but if you want to produce video in an NLE with content coming from a variety of sources, Quicktime is the foundation that makes this happen.
Cheers,
BB
Hypercard is what I used to learn how to program. I did some stuff with BASIC on an Apple][e and C/64 before that, but it never amounted to much.
Hypercard, on the other hand, let you do some seriously cool stuff. Once I got into programming Hypercard it opened up a whole universe to me. It had an API (RCMD) that allowed you to hook C or Pascal programs in, which got me into C, and the rest is history :)
If the rumours of Apple bringing it back are true, then I will be really happy. I can't think of a better way to get kids into programming.
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
Well, indeed, I'd rather have the fall of communism over any of the above as well, but here in Poland we usually think of the year 1989 in this context, because it was that year when the important things happened for us.
-jfedor
Thank you for the compliment.
This response was, yes, meant to be sarcastic. Brian Eno is one of those guys who people in the music industry seem to attribute everything to. First he invented synth music. Then he invented electronica. Then he invented synthesized drums. On and on and on, like a snowball of stupidity. The guy is basically responsible for nothing. Synth music is over a hundred years old. Electronica was around in the late 1930s. Synthesized drums were around in the 1950s. Brian Eno popped up in the mid '70s, and took credit for the work of other obscure musicians and inventors..
I felt it was worthy of pointing this out, because to this day people still slap his name on news articles like he's some sort of authority. He isn't. Brian Eno's opinion on X, whatever X is, matters about as much as asking the local assistant pastry chef at a bakery about subatomic physics.
.
Bowie J. Poag
I know there are some people out there who are annoyed that Linux is unable to read some Quicktime files out there. That's not Apple's fault at all, rather it is the fault of the compression format used. Most of the Quicktime files are compressed using the Sorenson codec, because of the superior quality and great compression it offers. The problem is that Sorenson holds the patent on the codec and they have only produced a decoder for Windows and MacOS. In order for Linux users to play those Quicktime movies which use the Sorenson codec, Sorenson would have to produce a Linux version of the decoder. There are a few programs out there that can play Quicktime movies, but only the movies that use codecs supported by Linux.
Sorenson has nothing to do with it. Apple has exclusive licensing rights for the codec. Steve Jobs would rather lose his left testicle than see a Sorenson codec for linux. Honestly - that is all there is to it. People from Apple have posted as much to Slashdot if you care to search the archives. Sorenson has responded as such to queries from the xanim developer.
The patent will not expire for more than a decade, so this one is going to stick. The only tractable solution is to bug every single person that uses the Sorenson codec to please use another codec - like Cinepak or Radius. Sorenson is a really nice codec, but the web was founded on open formats.
I found this great quote two days ago (thank you fortune()!).
Guess "Windows Media" sells ...
It's sad, I can play Real and Windows Media under Linux, but can't get Quicktime 5 trailers to work. (Note the '5' - they changed the codec.)
You are confusing APIs and streaming/archival formats. I don't care what kind of formats you or Apple use for authoring or in the privacy of your own home.
What I care about is the fact that huge amounts of video data of public interest are being stored in a proprietary format that only Apple has the keys to.
Unless you have pointers to a project working on a cross-platform multimedia architecture then methinks you haven't the foggiest.
See, unlike you, I actually have developed video software. I don't want Apple's "architecture". In fact, dealing with Quicktime has been one of the most problematic issues when developing cross-platform solutions. I want a reasonably high quality, publically documented interchange and streaming format that I can use together with libraries and viewers of my choosing. And I don't want a couple of companies to hold the keys to media content.
Controlling video content is a lucrative business and Apple's business strategy has been deliberate. But there is no reason that the rest of the world should go for that. Video content is too important to leave it at the whims of a couple of big software companies with uncertain futures.
As a "digital media specialist", I think you should think a little further than just the next web site.
Yep. Because it's possible to design and conduct tests with meaningful results that provide information as to the ways in which people behave under certain circumstances. I strongly encourage you to read nearly any scholarly work (i.e. not 'design user interfaces in three easy steps and eight hundred hard steps') and you'll see.
It's really less to do with the underlying reasons as to why people behave differently depending on their stimuli as what those behaviors are.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
So, people don't write non-Sorenson codecs for QuickTime under Linux because they wouldn't be as good as Sorenson. Of course, they do write non-Sorenson codecs all the time, just not for QuickTime under Linux.
So QuickTime is bad because it can use the Sorenson codec which is better than the codecs you can use with or without QuickTime. Writing a codec without QuickTime is good, but writing a coded with QuickTime is bad, because QuickTime is bad. So if you write a codec, make sure to write it without QuickTime, because otherwise you'd be bad. Of course, you don't get any advantages from QuickTime, but that's a small price to pay for purity. Also, because you don't use QuickTime, then that means it doesn't exist for Linux.
Of course, the "you" in the preceding paragraph does not mean you personally. I'm also not questioning your description of the logic; it's just a kind of logic I don't see often outside the White House and old Beavis and Butthead reruns.
It's too bad someone modded that as flamebait, because you are correct.
That's why I'm sad. Linux developers shun QuickTime, because Sorenson is not available on Linux. They shun the very mechanism that could free them.
Attention Linux codec authors:
QuickTime is not the codecs! QuickTime is a standard way for software to USE codecs. Write your codec for QuickTime, and all the software out there that understands QuickTime can use your codec.
-pmb