Slashdot Mirror
QuickTime To Move To MPEG-4
spav writes: "Looks like Apple will be embracing MPEG-4 for its new versions of QuickTime according to C|Net News.com. That could mean quicktime for Linux, but would we need it?" This sounds like a start toward OS-neutral video, but until companies decide not to add proprietary layers making otherwise widely-available formats unavailable, it won't be the end. The first half of this article dwells on QuickTime's 10th birthday, but then gives slightly more detail on the MPEG4 transition.
Ok, label me as naive here, but how does the inclusion of MPEG-4 video have anything to do with Quicktime being available for Linux? (Which it already is by the way, in a manner of speaking.)
It isn't like the Sorenson codec couldn't run under Linux. It runs just find under BSD/Darwin with Quartz (read as OS X). Apple just has absolutely no interest in making a streaming video client for Linux.
The standard and original Quicktime libraries have been available on Linux for a while, check out http://www.heroinewarrior.com/quicktime.php3 but all of the "cool movie trailers" available on Apple's website are in Sorenson, and it's Sorenson that isn't available under Linux. Chances are, if they *do* embrace MPEG-4 it will probably be an Apple / Quicktime specific version so that we still won't see it under Linux.
However, I've read that their streaming video server runs just fine.
Just my 2 cents worth of nothing
"Genius may shine aloof and alone, like a star, but goodness is social, and it takes two men and God to make a Brother."
This is good news for Apple, but there is a snippet of this article that raises an interesting issue:
Analysts predict that rather than pursue an "embrace and extend" strategy, Microsoft and RealNetworks will stick to their guns and continue marketing their own formats. Although those products will not have MPEG-4's interoperability, the companies say advantages include smaller file size, better image and sound quality, and more advanced digital rights management software. Both RealNetworks and Microsoft have invested heavily in creating anti-copying technology that would make it safe for record labels and other content owners to sell their products online.
Steve Jobs' stance has always been that stealing music is a problem of the "community" and not "technology". I wonder if Apple will stand behind this philosophy with MPEG4 or join Microsoft and Real Networks in their security schemes. Just a thought.
"Electric Relaxation" - ATCQ
- Bwana
You *do* know there are various different kinds of things that are labeled "MPEG 4", right? Up until recently, we couldn't play "DiVX ;-)" files, for example, on Linux, and that was a hacked-up version of Microsoft's MPEG-4 implementation (which we also couldn't play). The only reason they play on Linux at all is because someone swiped the libraries from a Microsoft player and figured out how to hook into them. Do you really think, once Apple figures out how to make their own, proprietary version of MPEG 4, that Linux will stand a chance in Hades of playing any more movie trailers than it can today?
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
We'd have had it eventually anyway.
Sooner or later Apple will tire of shipping and supporting two OSes, and they'll have to write code for OSX supporting all their technologies.
Once they do, it won't be hard to wrap an emulation layer or two around it for Linux.
Well, OK, it'll be hard, but not beyond the capabilities of a small Open Source project.
I personally don't have a problem with proprietary layers from various sources. As with the MPEG4 spec, it clearly states that its framework is the starting point and was intended to be both a superset to select from while also the basis for a grander 'format'. However, since it was planned and designed that way, apparently the hope is that any 'optimizations' added are just that, and to be blessed as a true MPEG4 based standard, it would need to be compatable with any other vanilla MPEG4 readers/writers.
An analogy would be cars on the road, and the standard of how they operate. If I produce a different style of car, perhaps a completely radical powerplant and driving controls, it would still need to operate as any other car would. If my potential customers have to completely relearn how to drive, they will then cease to be my customers. If they cannot easily switch between their other (or their friends') cars, then still they will not like me. Even if the car flies and can operate like a submarine, it would still need to operate the 'same' as any other car when on land.
The key here is long term planning. While the tactic we most often see in M$ is a basic short term assumption that by making their stuff incompatable with everyone elses, that the users will be forced to adopt the rest of MS's 'stuff'. This plan worked for awhile, when there was really no real competition. Now however, we see many development houses, enterprise customers, and individual customers demanding that the products they buy actually work as promised, with the features as promised, and do indeed act as a tool of the information age should... to interconnect with other information age tools. It is not just M$'s strong arm tactics that drove people away, but rather it is the very market that they operate in. Funny thing about the free market, it is like watching many people fight. When a bully type of aggressor lashes out to strike his latest victim, a wise person notices that he generally opens himself up to attack. The Samurai knew this and counted on it, so that someone attacking them (and that did not know better) would just see some scared looking soldier accepting death. Well, they definitely accepted death, but where not scared... the result was accepting a glancing blow (hopefully none at all) while ripping their attacker up. (and usually gaining a weapon to boot).
Whether this is about MPEG4, internetworking protocols, messaging protocols, display, etc... it all comes down to "how easy will it be for customers to use my products and services?" I can tell you from personal experience, that after going through MANY vendors for certain functionality, that we found that the main problem was not proprietary formats of internal logic and control, but when those proprietary wrappings extended to the actual display, interface and interconnectivity of the various inter and intra components. By 'hardwiring' in these aspects instead of practicing modern professional abstracted design, we found that their products would cost us more in the tooling (integration and config), software and hardware upgrading and switchover, and the maintainence and training for these new setups.
Sorry, but gotta use another analogy. If I want to by a new lawn watering system, what if I found that this system didn't follow 'standard' hookup and operation? What if I would then have to switch my internal plumbing to this new 'innovative' format? And because my electrical system is grounded through this, I then find that it is dangerous in its 'legacy' format and I must then 'upgrade' the electrical system to be compatable. This of course makes most of my electrical devices in the house not work with the new electrical wiring. I can buy the water system company's converters for some of my electrical devices, but only for some of them, and they would operate less efficiently (due the the conversion overhead and such). So, I am going to have to by a ton of new stuff. Gee it just soooo happens that this Landscaping company also makes TV's, VCR's and DVD's... however I will not be able to use my existing set of VCR's and DVD's... etc, etc, etc.
I also see here a tie in to the patent issue. I think that there is a definite parallel between a company or individuals choice on what is patented and how their little 'innovation' interacts and interfaces with the world. If I make either a new car or a new sprinkler system, I can guarantee you that it would be in my best long term interests to make it compatable with as large a group of existing systems and people as possible and to make it as simple as possible to integrate. I also would then be foolish to try to patent the idea and interface, because of the already stated reasons. However, my IMPLEMENTATION can easily be patented if I so desire. I think that we will continue to see a tremendous growth in Linux, not just because of its strive toward quality, but because it is becoming a tool for the user, not forcing the user to become its slave. A smart designer of systems would do well to learn from recent history and not hardcode so many aspects of their products as to make them impossible (and more expensive) to port and update.
I seek not only to follow in the footsteps of the men of old, I seek the things they sought.
Well, gee. You mean Microsoft and DivX didn't wait for the stiffs at ISO to release a 'standard' before producing something consumers wanted?
I bet that just frosts those guys at the ISO who were hoping to sell copies of their published standard for $500 a crack (no electronic copy available, too easy for people to distribute.)
Ok, lets set this straight. The *file format* for MPEG-4 is based on that of quicktime. Defining the file format is like a millionth of the total work done on MPEG-4. ISO didn't define the file format for jpeg for example, which led to some problems, so this time they decided to define everything. Oh, and speaking of microsoft and divx, this is how I recall things happened (an mpeg guy told me): Microsoft offered the group to implement all ideas for the format, so that they could see the effect of various decisions. This naturally was a good thing (TM), however, when others wanted to see the actual code, ms denied that. So a european initiative started under some German company IIRC, to develop an open source implementation. Maybe it was called divx already here, maybe not. They caught up pretty much with MS, but then there was some problem with that code, it belonged to the company even though it was open source, so the project forked, one was rewriting it from the ground, and another continued on the work already done. So I believe that the rumour that divx is based on a hacked ms codec is bull. Also, MS added some extra bits to the file format, and doesn't call it MPEG-4 anymore, but rather MPGE-4 based or something to that effect. Sorry I'm so vague with the details.
it's that we need to NOT need it. What I mean is that the only movies I can't play right now are the ones with Sorensen and other proprietary codecs. Were Apple and folks to stop using these, I would be able to play pretty much anything.
:)
I use MPlayer. It supports every codec (save Sorensen et al) that I've run across. It has a gui now, or it runs from the command line (for all the people who want to script their multiple-file porn). Furthermore, it's actually better than WMP for several reasons, my favorite being that WMP requires you to have an entire AVI file on disk before it will play it, whereas with MPlayer you can start watching while you are still downloading it.
If this doesn't seem important to you, consider downloading a 200MB file only to discover its crappy quality. With MPlayer, you can check it as soon as you've downloaded enough bytes to play a few frames, thus saving tons of bandwidth, not to mention disk space or time spent unraring things.
I use MPlayer only, but I have seen other OSS players and they are just as good. Lastly I will mention that the day I got MPlayer up and running was the same day that I killed my last Win* partition. I haven't rebooted since
Something that most people forget is that ALL of the MPEG codecs are possibly non-free in the US due to software patent issues. This is because MPEG as an ISO standards body accepts patented technology when deciding on standards.. (oh yeah, and because the US has evil software patents in the first place) Contrast, for example W3C, the web standards body, which does not accept patented technology, although this was recently debated. So either way, open standard or not, MPEG4 is freely available for use on Linux.
Software patents are a threat to free software and free speech. Just say NO!
Because of all the low-lovel codec code that needs to be ported and optimised for the OS, porting QT is apparently an Evil Job, and they wouldn't have ported to Windows if it wasn't for the fact Windows had such a huge market share.
You're basically right on the money, except for one detail: it's not codecs that make QT difficult to port, it's the huge amount of MacOS Toolbox code.
When Apple ported QT to Windows, they ported around 60-70% of the MacOS Toolbox to Windows in order to do it. As you said, an Evil Job, but it's like when IBM ported Linux to their 390 series mainframes instead of porting Domino to MVS - sometimes it really is easier to bring the mountain to you.
A few years later, Apple's first plan for what's now called OS/X included only Cocoa and Classic. Developers naturally rebelled against rewriting everything from the ground up, and Apple looked around for a way to smooth the transition.
What they began with was the more-or-less portable subset of the MacOS Toolkit they'd already ported to Windows. They added support for most of the remaining Toolkit API, and called the result Carbon. Again, it was simpler to adapt the BSD environment, with the addition of the Core Foundation classes, HFS+ support, and so on, than to adapt the MacOS Toolbox and QuickTime to an alien environment.
QuickTime apparently just isn't very damn portable at all. In a very real sense, Apple isn't going to port QuickTime to UNIX, because they've already ported UNIX to QuickTime.