Slashdot Mirror
Apple Sues Sorenson Over QuickTime Codec
ScooterComputer writes "According to Bloomberg and a bunch of others, Apple is suing Sorenson over their licensing a codec to Macromedia for Flash MX, for 'developing, marketing, or licensing any version of the compression software used in QuickTime to competitors.' For years we have seen finger pointing going on between Apple and Sorenson as to WHY the Sorenson codec can't make it to the Linux platform... and things usually end with Apple saying it is Sorenson's fault. Well, I'd say Apple lied. So, can we all just start putting big pressure on Apple again to release QuickTime for Linux?"
(Reminder to Apple users to visit Slashdot's Apple section for more Apple-related news.)
I feel dirty for doing it, but I use the crossover plugin to view quicktime movies (as well as windows media crap). In my experience, it has worked extremely well, and the installation is a snap!
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
Actually, Real does.
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
Sheesh. You'd be hard pressed to find more sensationalistic headlines in the Weekly World News.
Anyway, here's what's likely the case: Apple developed Quicktime. Sorenson developed Codec. Apple asked Sorenson if they could include their codec in the next QT release (which would have been 4.0, I believe). And had them sign a little piece of paper. Likewise, Sorenson had their own little pieces of paper for Apple to sign.
The default Sorenson codec in Quicktime Pro compresses like ass- you get small files, but the color shits out. If you want it to NOT shit out, you have to pay Sorenson a chunk of cash for a media key to plug into its little panel in the QT setup controls. Pain in the ass, but it doesn't prevent you from viewing "properly" encoded "pro" files- like the Star Wars trailers.
Since you don't have to pay to play Sorenson files, and you do have to pay to encode them properly... and 99% of the productivity apps that produce video run on MacOS and Windows (re: NOT Linux)... what incentive does Sorenson have to port the codec? The likelihood of securing any form of revenue stream on a Linux port of Quicktime is pretty shitty, at best.
So Sorenson has their own legal BS with Apple, and Apple likely has a different legal BS going on with Sorenson. Probably something along the lines of "exclusive". Which explains why Apple is pissed at them. I can't blame them at all- Macromedia has been even more sluggish about porting to OS X than Adobe has, and the fact that FlashMX includes the ability to run video may be something of an issue of "percieved competition".
With CodeWeaver's CrossOver Plugin, you can run Quicktime 5 and Windows Media Player 6.4 under Linux. Now it isn't free but you can purchase it for $24.95.
Check Out http://www.codeweavers.com/home/
For example, Macromedia have been supplying a Linux Flash client for years, yet it has failed to validify the Flash format as an open standard.
By "Flash format," I assume you mean SWF (not FLA). SWF version 4 has a publicly available specification. (Read More...) Do you consider a format not "valid[...] as an open standard" because it hasn't been submitted to an international standards body?
Will I retire or break 10K?
NO.
QuickTime is a time-based architecture for working with objects and events. It's also an authoring environment. Nothing constricts QuickTime to working only with video, animation, or audio. It is not simply a 'movie' format. If you really believe this, I urge you to read some of the technical documentation on Apple's developer site.
QuickTime can handle a number of media formats through extensible codecs.
Products like Director and Flash have always made Apple a little nervous, even as they've brought users to the platform. .
It looks like that Linux media players run Windows Media formats by loading the Win32 DLL.
It even seems that these Microsoft-authored Win32 DLLs are distributed by various projects, which on the surface appears to be a copyright violation and probably a licence violation.
Now, the open problem for someone interested in tapping into Apple/Sorenson intellectual property is (1) how to load internal QuickTime codecs outside of QuickTime (2) how to distribute the QuickTime codecs outside of Apple.
Sorenson Video 3.1 (the current version) gives approximately the same results as the best MPEG1 encoders at around ONE THIRD the data rate. Sorenson Video 3.1 also has a sharper colour subsampling regime, and therefore portrays colour detail better at any given frame size. At higher data rates (say, over 1Mbit/sec) MPEG1 will close the gap somewhat as Sorenson Video's higher CPU load makes high rate files rather difficult to decode. Horses for courses, as ever with video encoding. But, make no mistake, SV 3.1 is an excellent state of the art codec whereas MPEG1 is a decade-plus old trail blazer, and the lingua franca of desktop video.
That was classic intercourse!
Ogg Vorbis is NOT an open standard. There is no standards document for Ogg Vorbis bitstreams beyond the framing layer. The only "standard" is the Xiph source code, which is hardly readable and is controlled by Xiph. At least with MPEG you can buy the standards documents and independantly implement your own compatible code. With Ogg Vorbis, you have to emulate their code, bug for bug.
My other first post is car post.
QuickTime is actually a huge multimedia API, not just a .mov en/decoder. For an example, you can use the exact same API calls to play audio, video, or show images, and supports a wide range of media formats. Sorenson is just one of the video codecs supported by QuickTime.
As for audio, with "Classic" MacOS there's the Sound Manager, and in MacOS X there's CoreAudio. It's really up to the programmer to decide whether to use QuickTime, Sound Manager/CoreAudio, or some combination of both.
---
Open Source Shirts
Additionally, Apple provides Darwin Streaming Server as an open source project.
However, hopefully Apple's licensing difficulties with MPEG4 LA will persuade them to pay more attention to the various Ogg codecs.
I have a website. It's about Macs.
Folks,
For those curious about the details of the technologies in question, here goes. FWIW, I was a beta tester for both codecs, have taught classes with them, and cover them both extensively in my forthcoming book.
Sorenson currently sells two different codecs, Sorenson Video 3.1 Pro, and Spark Pro, both bundled with versions of their Squeeze encoding tool.
Sorenson Video 3.1 Pro is an advanced version of an encoder/decoder built into QuickTime. It's an excellent codec, with good compression efficiency, a B-frame mode that dramatically improves QuickTime streaming, and many other groovy features. All versions of Sorenson Video are QuickTime only.
Sorenson has also had a MPEG-4 codec in beta for forever (I did the first public demo of it back at QuickTime Live 2000). MPEG-4 is a superset of "baseline" H.263 (an older standard codec, designed for video conferencing), and any MPEG-4 decoder is required to also play back baseline H.263. Sorenson's MPEG-4 encoder includes a baseline H.263 encoder as well, so you can use the codec to make files compatible with H.263 decoders as well (like the Java Media Framework).
The Spark codec, which Sorenson licensed to Macromedia, and Spark Pro, the advanced encoder version included in Sorenson's Squeeze for Flash MX encoding tool, are derived from H.263, based on Sorenson's work with the MPEG-4 codec. Spark Pro is enormously better than the plain Spark incoder built into Flash - that one doesn't even let you specify a data rate.
I haven't read Apple's complaint, but I'd guess that they're alleging that parts of Sorenson Video were used to develop the Sorenson MPEG-4 codec, and which in turn wound up in Spark, which was licensed to Macromedia. I have no idea if this actually happened, or whether or not it would be permitted under their contract if it did.
Both codecs do have a number of features in common, like a configurable threshold for automatic keyframe insertion, an optional image smoothing (deblocking) filter on decode, and 2-pass VBR encoding.
Anyway, knowing as much as I do about these codecs, I feel completely unqualified to have an opinion on the legal merits of this case.
Hope this helped clarify things slightly.
My video compression blog
No. The codec in Flash is Spark, which is derived from H.263. It's very different from Sorenson Video 3, and their decoders are radically different.
Among other things, Spark was designed for the decoder to be fast (even on StrongARM and other non-desktop processors), small, and portable. Sorenson Video 3 was designed for high compression efficiency. Sorenson Video 3 looks a lot better than Spark at moderate data rates because it didn't have to make the same tradeoffs. However, Flash MX will play in all kinds of places that QuickTime won't.
My video compression blog
Apple had a skin removed because the effect resembled an _internal research theme_??? This carries things a bit far.
The story is much larger than that. Back in the early 90s all the talk was about Copland, some of which would eventually become Mac OS 8. One of the technologies Apple was previewing was the Appearance Manager, which was intended to make OS-level look-n-feel themes available for the user.
(Incidentally, as far as I know, Apple was the first company to talk big about a customizable user interface. I am NOT certain, by any means, but I heard about Apple's Appearance Manager plans long before I ever heard of Windows Explorer themes, or Winamp skins, or any of that other stuff.)
Apple obviously spent some time working on appearance themes; there are three that I remember seeing in Apple marketing materials and prerelease documentation and all that: Gizmo, Hi-Tech, and Drawing Board. The pencil-sketch theme that the great grandparent referred to was based on Drawing Board.
Along the way, a couple of things happened. First of all, the Copland project simply went Tango Uniform. Enough things went bad that the project as a whole was cancelled, although some of the technology made it into Mac OS 8 and 8. One of the things on that list was the Appearance Manager, and appearance themes.
At the last minute, the themes were pulled. I don't have any inside info, but here's my speculation: Apple's reputation was founded on the consistency and user-friendliness of their OS. They spent years and years-- and tons of money, to be sure-- developing a great user interface. Themes would have made it possible-- nay, even easy-- for third parties to throw away all of that hard work, and to make the Mac OS ugly or difficult to use. It just didn't make sense. For the hardcore user out there who was into customization, there was still Kaleidoscope.
So, for whatever reason, built-in appearance themes never made it out the door in an OS release. But they did make it out the door in tons of marketing info and developer documentation. And the Gizmo, Hi-Tech, and Drawing Board themes were all over that documentation in dozens and dozens of screen shots.
Apple still owns Gizmo, Hi-Tech, and Drawing Board. The fact that those appearances were never included in a released product doesn't mean Apple should necessarily give up their exclusive rights to those ideas. We've talked about it before; if Apple doesn't protect their trademarks (of which the Mac desktop-- even an unreleased desktop-- is one), US law dictates that they lose the exclusive right to those trademarks.
So given the facts, Apple did the only thing that made sense: they asked the developers, politely, to go get their own ideas and quit stealing Apple's. And the developers of these various themes have, thus far, complied with that request. Who knows? Maybe if one of those guys found a lawyer willing to work on contingency, the courts would end up revising what a company can and can't protect as its own. But so far that hasn't happened.
Apple's still fairly hung up about form over function.
That's too much of an oversimplification. Apple's hung up on the overall user experience. See, a Mac is capable of more or less the same stuff as a PC with Windows, or one with Linux. There's not much that a PC can do that a Mac simply can't, or vice versa. Apple's focus is on one thing: let's make using our computers as easy and pleasant as possible. Let's take the common tasks and streamline them to the point where people enjoy using our computers. That's why we get things like iTunes and iPhoto and iMovie released for free. They're basically included in the price of your Mac, because Apple believes that most people will eventually be interested in messing around with digital music, pictures, or movies. So they tried to make it as easy as possible.
The appearance thing is the same deal: overall user experience. I suspect that Apple did the math and decided that customizable appearance themes would detract from the user experience more than they could add to it. So they canned the idea.
I still don't see a problem with the way Apple does business. Sorry.
This story's now off of the main page, so I don't know if anyone will see it, but here goes:
I actually got a decent reply from the PR department at Sorenson in response to my question - I had asked them about what was preventing them from making even a binary-only decoder module available for something besides Windows/Mac...
The answer was interesting - as expected, the exclusivity agreements with Apple prevented them from making it available at all unless Apple wanted it done. Interestingly enough, though, the I was ALSO told that The exclusivity agreement in question expired last month (which may have something to do with the timing of Apple's lawsuit?) and that they are in negotiation with Apple about renewal, and if Apple doesn't renew, they'll be able to make the codec available, at least for licensing if nothing else.
I've got to give Sorenson this much credit, at least: their reply was prompt, polite, and informative, which gives me some hope for their future...
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend