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.)
As I understand it ANY application that uses multimedia on the Macintosh platform has to use the Quicktime "libraries" - including Macromedia. Doesn't that mean that anything that Macromedia uses on a Mac will necessarily use Quicktime??
Apple doesn't release on Linux for the same reasons Microsoft doesn't. They're trying to ignore it and hoping it goes away. Apple is trying to protect an OS monopoly just as Microsoft is. If all Apple applications were available on Linux, there would be no reasons to own a Mac besides the pretty case. They only release some stuff on Windows because if their stuff played only on Macs, it would only be viewed by a small percentage of the population.
Sorensen pointed at Apple and Apple in turn pointed at Sorensen. From the sound of things both parties are at "fault". The line from Sorensen has always been that their contract with Apple wouldn't allow them to do it, yet when Macromedia comes by they suddenly feel that they provide the CODEC to them. The only difference that I can see is that Macromedia could provide some financial incentive to violate their contract whereas Linux, or any party selling Linux operating systems couldn't.
Chris Kuivenhoven is a thief, beware
One thing has become very clear in the Linux world over the last couple of years since the dot com bubble burst. Open Source/Free Software is here to stay, and half-way proprietary solutions won't be accepted by the wider community.
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. It has become a "necessary evil" for sites that feel the need to look 'interactive', but has had minimal market penetration beyond that.
I don't think that releasing a binary-only QuickTime codec would solve any real problems: Firstly, it wouldn't be distributed with some of the most popular distributions like Debian and Mandrake for philosophical reasons as well as technical reasons -- without source code, there's no way to know that the codec will still work in 2 years or that it'll be made available for new architectures, or that bugs will be promptly fixed. NVidia's proprietary graphics drivers for XFree86 have, for example, backfired in many ways. Far from soliciting support from the community, their consistent failure to release specifications for their hardware has irked and frustrated the wider Linux community (not just the Free Software zealots) to the extent that the Tainting monitor had to be added to the kernel just to track bug reports from users of buggy proprietary kernel modules.
I'd say that the future lies with open video codecs like VP3 from On2 Technologies, who've announced that they'll be working with the community to ensure that their next release is LGPL'd and their patents made available in the public domain. This is the kind of codec that should become the de-facto standard on the Web -- not some binary-only QuickTime Sorenson codec that was withheld for years and released begrudgingly. A few years ago, Linux users were quick to praise and embrace vendors of proprietary software who supported Linux, but now, I think the community is big enough to look at the bigger picture and support open standards like VP3 and Ogg that will ensure a more accessible and independent future for Web content in the future.
Being a new Mac user, I have become increasingly aware that most online media content, wheather streaming or downloadable is now in WM or RM format. This is unfortunate for us OS X users because Windows Media Player is crap and Real Player is non existant (unless using OS 9). You would think anything that would make QuickTime technology more widely distributed would be beneficial to Apple. Apparently they don't really care what happens to QT considering QuickTime 6 is way over due.
But Apple previously claimed otherwise. Apple publicly stated that Sorenson was free to license a Linux player. Seems Apple wants to do a little after-the-fact revision of the terms. If I were the judge (or defendant) in this case, I'd be a little suspicious of Apple's claims...
Does this mean that if/when Macromedia gets FlashMX on Linux, we now have a useable library to build a native Sorenson video player on Linux? It seems like the library could be reversed engineered so that calls to the decoder can be used. Just speculation, I guess it depends on how the .so file is layed out.
I recently attended a FlashMX presentation from Macromedia and left amazed that Sorenson was bundled within the application itself. Essentially all your website users need is the Flash 6 plug-in to be able to view Sorenson-encoded movies in a Flash file. Only after seeing the lawsuit did I realize how harmful this could be to Apple's QuickTime technology. I hope for Apple's sake that they have a good exclusive contract in place...
My company is looking to use FlashMX's video capabilities *specifically* because then users won't have to download the QuickTime plug-in as well. This attitude could seriously be a detriment to Apple's already-struggling fight against Real and Windows Media Player. Even if the quality is better, this is just another reason to not download their plug-in.
O dear, O dear.
... he may not. I was considering getting a Mac OS X for my wife. Now I'm thinking about getting her a Linux box. My brother was asking me about computers, and may be getting ready for a purchase. I'm no longer likely to recommend Apple.
I'm not going to bother trying to put pressure on Apple. They were my favorite computer, but that was a very long time ago.
FWIW, I have this weekend recommended a Mac to a friend who may buy it. If he asks me again this weekend
I don't like companies that think with their lawyers. Apple has always had a tendency in that direction (I remember how difficult it was to move files from AppleBasic even to text. [I was converting them over to UCSD Pascal.] Silly, arbitrary restrictions.), and I guess that they haven't improved with time. Pity. Darwin had given me hope for them.
Much of what Apple has had going for it is the good will it developed by being a holdout against MS. But if they want to squander it, that's their business.
I doubt that I'll ever think as harshly about Apple as I do about MS, but that's because I doubt that I'll ever let them into the position where they can do me as much harm. (MS has cost me a couple of thousand dollars, even if they never saw much of that money. Basically in writeoffs of abandoned software. With Apple I used it until it wore out (essentially... the computer didn't get any faster and the competition did. But the software wouldn't transfer the the more recent versions of the OS.).
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I always enjoy any QuickTime article on Slashdot because it invariably turns into some big debate on why Apple is deliberately keeping Sorenson from licensing the codec to Linux developers, blah, blah, blah.
First off, Apple claims to have an exclusive license to what are commonly known as the Sorenson and Sorenson 3 codecs. Even if Apple decided to waive their exclusive right to this codec, who in the Linux world could afford the licensing fee that would have to be paid to Sorenson? Mark Podlipec? I doubt he has the (undoubtedly) thousands of dollars the license would cost.
As to the vast market available for a native Linux version of the QT player, that's relatively unimportant to Apple. They make their money on the production tools. So, for a platform to be attractive to Apple, it's one that production houses would be using day to day to produce content.
For now, there is no real content creation platform on Linux (and I'm not talking about digital animation or rendering).
* As is generally the case, my opinions do not reflect those of my employer.
Real and Flash play on linux, too. Hell, there's software for Linux for CREATING Real audio files and streams. And it's also command-line driven, which was seriously cool when I needed Linux scripting power. And there are lots of compatible players for many other multimedia formats... but QT for Linux is a no-go, as far as I've been able to find.
"Yet"? "Apple doesn't have a quicktime player YET"?! That's rich. What are they, um... SIX versions behind now?! Jeez, a roomful of monkeys and an infinite supply of cheesie-poofs would have generated a semiworking first version by now if Apple wanted it to. Occam's razor says they're not trying.
Why's it matter? Well, a port would:
In this same vein, I'm personally a bit relieved that Microsoft has chosen to avoid supporting Linux for their WMP/wimpy format. Between that and XP's anti-piracy mechanism, MS is only hurting themselves in the long run, which is good for the competition.
BTW, I love Apple. But I'm not delusional about their methodology. They're like Brain, trying to take over the world, but lacking the grasp of one fundamental detail: Apple can't conquer anything with just 5-7% market penetration.
Macromedia contracted with Sorenson to *create* a special codec for Flash. The codec used in Flash 6 plugin (Flash MX is the authoring environment) weighs in under 80k and is called Spark.
Here's why I think Apple is throwing a fit though... in a few months MM will release a linux version of the Flash 6 plugin and suddenly you have the ability to play movies on *all* platforms that has *no* visible branding on it. Think about it, the only way you see that Flash is Flash is by right-clicking on it. You can brand it to look like whatever you'd like. Suddenly... why bother with Real, Quicktime, or WMP for streaming video when you can do it all and lots more with a tool that costs less than $500? Hmmm...
Apple is hurting themselves in the production tools market by not having a linux player. I'm in a position where I recommend technology. I'm also a linux user. I'm fully aware that some movie formats will play on linux (MPEG/DIVX/Real) while others (Windows media, Quicktime) will not. I don't really care much of the reason why apple and microsoft don't release native linux players. The bottom line is that they are NOT there. So of course, I will be recommending against the QT and WMF technology in favor of something that WILL run on linux.
(And yes I know about the crossover plugin. Its a good tool, but I prefer active support rather than being a 3rd class citizen.)
In all honesty, video CODECs should be closed source (but I don't think they should be licenced like ht MPEG 4 stuff is going). If you open source a video CODEC, you run the big risk of hundreds of variations on the same format, which can cause muchos confusion.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Even as someone who might be called a "Mac zealot", I can see how QuickTime for Linux would make some sense. Linux is probably a growing market in the viedo industry, and there's at least some hope in expanding as a desktop OS.
On the other hand, I've heard folks from the QuickTime team claim that not supporting Linux isn't really a political issue, as many seem to believe, but simply a matter of not being attractive enough of a market to spend man hours for. After all, outside of Slashdot, Linux users represent a very small group of computer users, and there aren't significant enough reasons for Apple to port QuickTime over.
---
Open Source Shirts
And of course, if you are so worried about it, you can offer to help them.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
While I agree that porting the encoder to Linux probably would be financially dubious, there's always an incentive to port the decompressor. Getting the decompressor into the hands of as many users as possible makes the encoder more attractive to the producers.
Take me, for example. I encode a good amount of video. Currently I mostly encode to MPEG1, since I know my Mac and Linux and Windows friends will have little problems playing those videos. If this were true of Sorenson, I wouldn't mind shelling out some bucks to switch to a higher-quality codec. In the meantime, though, I'm stuck with MPEG1 (until ISO-MPEG4 becomes mainstream, if it ever does).