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.)

Comments

Finger pointing on QuickTime for linux

[eXtro]

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.

QuickTime for Linux no longer enough

[AirLace]

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.

Re:QuickTime for Linux no longer enough

[Dr.Dubious DDQ]

I find it at once annoying and gratifying at the same time that Sorenson has no problem using Free Software - their website appears to be running Apache with PHP (can't tell what the OS is). Checking the IP addresses, it LOOKS to me like the server is actually physically part of their own network, rather than some outside ISP contracted to host the site for them...

I agree - I think the future will be with, if not "truly" open codecs, at least "openly available" ones (Sorenson seems to be the ONLY "major" video codec in use that isn't available in some form on Linux - even MPlayer can handle "windows media" files. I suspect if Sorenson would manage to find a loophole in their agreements with Apple (who I think probably considers the popularity of the extra-proprietary "QuickTime with Sorenson" media format to be the biggest thing that they have to fight against "open" systems) and released even a binary-only codec that could be plugged into MPlayer or xanim or whatever, that their popularity would take off, at least in the short term - from what I have heard, that would then give them indisputably the "best" overall video codec that's widely available.

From what I've seen and heard (which I must confess isn't very much), VP3's quality is about the same as Windows Media (i.e. not that great). I get the impression that there are fewer visible "artifacts" but that the image is somewhat "blurrier". Even so, it'd be nice to see VP3/Vorbis in .ogg files become popular, just so that there'd be a completely "open" standard available to build from for video "content"...

broadening qt technology

[azosx]

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.

Flash MX Could Kill QuickTime Player

[DoenerMord]

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.

These codecs are not the same (Macromedia)

[nedron]

According to Sorenson, the codec they provided to Macromedia is not the same codec they developed for Apple. According to Sorenson, the codec they developed for Macromedia is for relatively low bandwidth applications, while the codec for Apple was designed for the best quality for visual media (movies, trailers, etc.) on the web.

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).