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.)
Obviously, some expert is going to have to sit down for the court and determine if the product for QuickTime and the product for Macromedia really are different. But if they're not, Apple has a totally valid lawsuit. A (legal and reasonable) contract is a contract. Apple agreed to pay $4.5 Million based on getting exclusive use of the (very, very good) software. If someone else can use it, that seriously dilutes its value to Apple, and there's no reason for them to have paid so much for it.
Maybe they should take movie features out of flash, and save us all from intros featureing home video footage of peoples cats....
There is no way for that post to contradict itself more.
sic transit gloria mundi
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.
Also if Sorenson did breach the contract then they should be sued. I see no room for anyone to bitch given what little we know.
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))"
Also, it doesn't answer the question as to why 99.99% of all other desktop software makers (Macromedia being a slightly on-topic example) don't release for Linux, since they have no OS monopoly to protect.
The sad fact is there's no money to be made in the Linux desktop market. Linux user's don't buy desktop apps, they don't buy games... They might buy highend workstation software like 3D modellers, but this has less to do with the "Linux community" than it does with animation houses trying to cut costs by going with a free (as in beer, they could care less about the other supposed benefits) operating system.
For most software, any money a developer spends creating and supporting a Linux version of their software is money that is pissed away, never to be recouped. That's no way to run a business.
posting a haiku
on slashdot simply implies
you're a karma whore
Apple doesn't release on Linux for the same reasons Microsoft doesn't. They're trying to ignore it and hoping it goes away.
Right. Which is why they're including with their OS *and releasing patches for things they fixed back to the community* parts of freeBSD and other unices, as well as many GNU tools such as egcs.
Um, no.
Look, apple's stance on linux is simple. They don't really care about it unless they're getting something out of it. They have no coherent strategy on it, and the different divisions within apple probably look at it in an inconsistent way. The Core-OS/API group gets something out of passing small bits of code back and forth with the Open Source community, so they do it. The rest of apple doesn't have much reason to fear linux, and certainly doesn't get anything out of developing for it (apple does much less cross-platform development than they used to), so they don't pay any attention to it. If it were otherwise, those portions of apple would be either trying to compete with or trying to develop for linux. But they aren't.
Also, it's possible for apple to be completely happy with the idea of linux becoming popular and common as a desktop/server OS but still be very unhappy with the idea of anything which promotes linux's usage in a multimedia production environment. There's a good chance apple is okay with supporting linux, but if it comes to anything-- say, the wealth of apps which would become easy to do if a quicktime library implementation were available for linux-- which could make linux a likely threat later in the video/audio production environment, which right now is one of apple's last fortresses, they'll just go, um, let's not go there right now.
Real has Linux drivers, and I've even been able to use it to watch my secret shame (the US version of Big Bother) until they started charging for the feed.
I wouldn't describe the Linux driver as particularly good, but from what others said it isn't much worst than the Windows version. That's why I didn't pick up the MLB baseball season ticket (which would have gotten me BB for half the price advertised) I have a cable modem connection, but the quality of the image just wasn't acceptable.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
My opinion is that putting pressure on Apple won't have any affect. Apple is pushing their own Unix and is probably not interested to make a QT plugin for thrird party Unix. Availability of Linux for PPC is probably a threat (or more like a bug) in their eyes and supporting Linux would be probably inappropriate and agains bussines nature in their eyes.
Mod me up, if I'm getting it wrong!
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
That's like saying 100% of the Mercedes market is a monopoly, because nobody else makes Mercedes automobiles except Mercedes.
mark
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
Hm. Last I checked, Quicktime and Flash occupied rather different niches in the "things move on your screen" realm of the world. Quicktime is a movie and, to a lesser extent, audio format. Flash is a vector-graphics animation and interaction product that just happens to have support for raster graphics, sounds, and now movies. Even with movie support in Flash, I wouldn't use it to /play/ movies....
This flies in the face of science.
There once was a heckler from Thread #30
Whose comments were usually wordy
You're karma whorin' he cried
With japanese poems he lied
To fight haiku with haiku is just playing dirty
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.
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".
If their product is engineered in a reasonable fashion, there really isn't anything for them to lose from releasing SOME sort of sorenson decoder for Linux. The cost should not be "enormous".
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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/
it is apple DEVELOPERS that are not sharing aqua. it is some apple USERS that are badmouthing X window system.
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.
Apple's anti-Linux commercials. (Sending all other UNIXes to /dev/null)
But.... Linux Is Not UniX
Cat, the other, tastier white meat.
Nowadays sound is considered part of Quicktime, although it was seperate in the past. What is of issue here is how much of the OS services you use to get your "multimedia". People tend to use the OS services for sound because they don't want to go directly to hardware.
Regarding video when software developers are creating video technology for Mac OS (Microsoft Media Player, Real) they don't use QuickTime, they write their own stuff. Multimedia developers on the other hand, tend to use QuickTime.
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?
In this economy, you really have to be profit-driven simply to survive. I'm as annoyed at that "Upgrade to QuickTime Pro!" box as you are, especialy since I own Final Cut Pro 3, which is supposed to hold in it a complimentary edition of same.
But I am resigned to today's reality. It's not as fun as reality from a few years back, but, well, we're living it.
D
Nice troll...
I'm a Linux user, let's see, in the past year I've bought
Star Office (through a Mandrake subscription)
Quake III from Loki (would've bought a load more games off them if they hadn't gone bust)
Codeweavers crossover plugin (to view quicktime)
Am I an atypical Linux user ?
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.
Apple to my knowledge has never bad-mouthed X Windows; in fact the Unix ad you mention shows XDarwin running. And Apple has opened up far more of their source than they are required to. Yes, they're only releasing some of the code they've spent millions of dollars writing, rather than all of it. That hardly makes them the enemy.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
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...
Limericks are not my choice of verse.
Rhyming three lines is horrid, the worst!
Rhyming two lines is fine,
I do that all the time,
But making the third line rhyme is completely out of the question.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
I sincerely hope you're correct about this - I'd LOVE to have some way of dealing with the one last codec that I ever find myself wishing I could use...
I actually, just a few minutes ago, sent a polite question to their (Sorenson's) public relations address asking for their side of the "why sorenson's not available on Linux" story, so hopefully at least a little more of the background will come out.
It DOES sound like the codec they licensed to Macromedia is different from the one used in QuickTime currently, though. And, there's also the question of if and when Macromedia will get around to releasing "FlashMX" playback for Linux.
Still...it'd be a step in the right direction. If nothing else, perhaps it'll warn off other companies considering "exclusive" agreements with Apple. (I almost get the impression from the stories that in essence, Apple feels the mere 4.5 million [a lot of money by MY standards, but for a major corporation? Chump-change.] they paid Sorenson legally paralyzes Sorenson's future development of income for the duration of the agreement...)
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
It appears to me that the reason apple does not release quicktime for Linux because they can't. If they release quicktime and don't release the source, they get bad PR because they released a program onto linux but it isn't open source. Then if they release it with the sourcecode, they loose the control and proprietaryness (I do think some things should be closed source, multimedia playback being one of them, ask me for my reasons if you want) of quicktime. While I think it would be nice for quicktime to hit Linux, it's a very very muddy situation.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
...for the OS/2 version they promised about 7 years ago!
Do you really need an answer?
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
I'm asking, how much of these Apple behavior it takes for people to realize that Apple is not on our side and Steve has not changed a bit?
Who the hell cares? If Apple files lawsuits when necessary to protect their intellectual property, then good for them. Stealing other people's ideas and using them yourself is wrong, wrong, wrong. As computer companies go, Apple seems to be one of the most socially responsible: they believe (rightly or wrongly) that they can't stay in business selling open-source software, but that the many-eyes effect is real and good. So they compromised: they released the really important part (Darwin, the core OS), and kept the really valuable part (Aqua, the user experience).
What the hell, exactly, is wrong with Apple? Sounds to me like they're doing everything right!
But Flash MX (the one with the Sorenson-Codec) isn't. Must be Apple's fault.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
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?
They don't have to port it. They simply need to allow it to be ported, as a player, to linux. Right now my friends make vids using Macs, and I cannot view them using linux. I have legally obtained copyrighted material, and due to patent protection I cannot look at it unless I buy Windows or MacOS. There is something fundamentally wrong with that. It is a form of collusion to keep linux out of the desktop space.
sorry, hit the wrong button. Anyways, if you pick up the codec from that site. The new Divx CODEC allows for direct Divx viewing within quicktime. No external player nessesary. And if that isn't the one, I have the one that works, just ask me. The only problem is the WMA soundtrack seems to play faster than the video on some computers, this problem is solved by simply extracting the audio track (no time at all, once the file is open, it extracts in a second, and since you most likely have the file open already, and then, just set the video track ahead slightly (however much the video is normal behind by) and select play all movies. It isn't pretty, but they're working on a fix.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
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.)
The irony of it all being that this was the same type of death mongering we heard in 1996, and in 97, and in 98 when they released the iMac, and we heard this in 99 too and 2000, and 20001, and 2002. Whether you like them or not, Apple (and unfortunately Microsoft) is not going away. Learn to live with it. ANd take what you can get.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
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!
Hrrm, AFAIK neither Real nor WMP for Mac require Quicktime.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Could I ask why? Seriously? I dont' find it that bad. I little bloated, but it does a lot of stuff for a (mostly) free player. And I much prefer it over WMP cause I can actualy save a file in other formats than just .mov (or .asf in WMP).
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
I could have sworn I've seen this somewhere before. Oh yeah, like at the links in the post above me! Not only are you too afraid of loosing face to post under your login name, but you also can't say anythign new. I don't mind arguing a point, and conseeding defeats, but if your not goign to argue, don't post.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
And in a year you will start wondering: "Why is there still no Flash MX player for Linux. Could it be - SATAN?"
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
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
As for Quicktime on OS X - what the hell is that supposed to prove? That you can't do anything (including multimedia) without QT?
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
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.
I couldn't find anything about any non-windows versions of real player from www.real.com either, but a little googling turned up this.They have builds for GNU/Linux, Irix, AIX, Solaris, HPUX, and Unixware, on i386, Alpha, PowerPC, and MIPS.
That's gotta be about as many platforms as I've seen supported by any commercial free-beer-ware.
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
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
And the figure you quoted for MS software - well the majority of that $500 would probably go straight into Microsoft's pocket (certainly the OS and Office). So the amounts would be about equal. Thing is with Linux, I get a whole load of free apps as well.
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
Macromedia seems to have a Flash player available for Linux (Clicking on the link will give you the option to download Flash 5 for Linux if you're running under it...)
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Ardi produces a solution to that issue that currently works under x86 Linux and Windows. Of course, that would require them to license some 3rd-party clone to do it, but it's been done all the same.
Besides, all we really need is a binary implementation of the Sorenson codec to begin with since we HAVE a Quicktime framework or two that works under X anyway.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
>The sad fact is there's no money to be made in >the Linux desktop market. Linux user's don't buy >desktop apps, they don't buy games...
:). Crossover comes to mind.
That line is a crock of BS. Most users in my Linux Users did in fact buy Linux games, and many others I know actually purchased Crossover apps. But its a competitive market in certain areas, indeed for one to release an Office app you're up against quite a few free versions that actually work pretty well. Compare the how Appleworks deals with docs vs OpenOffice or Abiword for a good comparison. Actually insulting to say that because I use Linux I don't pay for desktop apps...If its worth it would
If you are thinking about Loki, well read the numerous articles about how it was run and how they mis-judged the size of the market amongst other things.
>For most software, any money a developer spends >creating and supporting a Linux version of their >software is money that is pissed away, never to >be recouped. That's no way to run a business.
How much money is RealMedia pissing away on free versions of realplayer? That has its own cost too. Its the understanding of the market and what the market needs, if you decide to sell a text editor when the market has a hundred then you deserve to fail.
You think that all MSFT Windows users pay for Office?
Out of all the individuals I knew I cannot remember a single one buying it, beyond some educational discount, which was then copied to all his mates.
You see, its natural to share.
Why downloading a overbloated system that kills CPU usage and hogs down the system (on PC that is) like media player 7 and above does, if you could have it in a tightly optimized and efficient distributed way? I say: go macromedia.
Flash is everywhere, like it or not, and they do a good job at porting the plugin to a lot of platforms (even if it's not EVERYWHERE yet) Like it or not, if you surf the web a lot, you hit flash content, the plugin is small, you don't need a 5MB download and install and useless clugging down just to view one file once in a while.
Most of the people on windows are downloading quicktime to almost exclusively view movies encoded with that sorenson coded, mainly because most of all of the other codecs supplied by apple sucks (exept the dv).
I mean, most of them are about the quality of microsoft AVI RLE encoding (aside from the mjpeg and mpeg and dv and anythign high bandwidth that isn't impressive over the net). I do a lot of video editing, I did codec research and analysis a few years ago, made codec-buster files and evaluated most of them with their strong and weak points, if apple would want quicktime to take off and become useful on something other than a Mac, they would have to bring in big guns. Sorenson is nice but it's not even close to DIVX in quality and performance (try playing a quicktime movie at 1280x960 for example, and feel the jerking and all). Why download a 20megs movie preview if you can fit it in 5 megs with about the same quality? that's an extra 4:1 compression (I'm talking roughly here and not considering the time of encoding and all).
Usually if I want to distribute a movie on PC with the maximum quality at lowest bitrate possible, I think DIVX. If I want to distribute cross-platform, with no hassles, MPEG comes to mind. there are VERY good mpeg encoders and if you know what you are doing and how mpeg works, you can output VERY nice results taking minimal bandwidth and competing directly with realvideo (well for anything above 80x80 like most people like encoding in RV). The BIG problem with mpeg movies, is the people encoding them. They hack a cable signal to their tv tuner and encode without knowing what an I-frame is and where they could cut off or optimize the bandwidth usage. The result? most mpeg movies on the net sucks and gives a bad name to mpeg.
I think most people that have basic video codec knowledge here aren't impressed by sorenson, especially when leeching a 20+ meg movie trailer for the resolution it gives, at these file size we're used to double of that resolution with about the same quality when using PC codecs like mpeg-4 based.
Yeah quicktime 6 will have mpeg-4 I know, good for them, but too late, DIVX got the crown there, plus it's EFFICIENT, I can watch HDTV video on my athlon with that beast.
--- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
Apple people laughing at X Window system, while they know that Apple leech the community and refuse to share Aqua. (If you don't wanna share Aqua, fine. But why flame X? Did we ask for humiliation?)
Yes, you did..
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.
I really doubt it's an active conspiracy on Apple's part - the software business is at best a shaky balancing act: R&D vs. ROI.
The return on porting or allowing Quicktime to be ported to Linux would be nil - there aren't enough Linux users who would be willing to BUY the QT player to make it pan out on the R&D end.
Second, the goodwill generated would be short-term at best, since the most vocal Linux users don't want anything to do with commercial software. It's hard to justify providing a product to someone for free when the loudest barking dogs are barking at you.
Then again, it could be a conspiracy - but Apple is under no obligation to provide ANY tools to Linux users, since that could hurt their own bottom line with OSX.
When it comes down to it, Linux on the desktop has yet to prove that it can generate a long-term sustainable business model, except in a few limited instances. Things are going well on the server side, but the desktop is headed in so many directions, it's impossible to tell who's on top and therefore deserves the largest chunk of development money.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
Redundant, you say
comments that repeat others
correct for first post?
drinkypoo wrote:
;)
... everyone else does. ;)
> Apple only helped put linux on mac (MkLinux) because people would
> do it anyway,
And people did do it anyway, if the box of Suse Linux for the Power PC sitting on the shelf of my local CompUSA is any indication.
> But apple doesn't want to create linux as a real competitor to MacOS.
Why would they care what OS a person is running? The OS and all the software they develop has only one purpose: selling the hardware by adding value to it. There is no Mac OS tax, since they make it themselves. Run whatever you like.
> And in order to compete it has to run mac software (possible, for
> older stuff, using emulation) and it absolutely must have quicktime.
Why? Aren't there Linux applications out there that are just as good? If there aren't, either work to fix it, or dual boot with an OS that can run that app. QuickTime has two competitors: Real and the Windows Media Player (evil). Either get one of those two to work, or win the lottery and finance Apple's porting efforts.
> Apple has, in a practical sense, OS monopoly on the Mac
Yep, and Linux has an evil OS monopoly on the Sharp Zaurus SL-5500. Boo! Hiss! (And of course it is a very nice little OS with a very pretty GUI - not OS X mind you, but the best I've ever seen on a PDA.
> to the extent that 99% of the mac world will use only Apple-produced
> operating systems on their macs. They don't consider linux to be a
> real thing.
Somehow I doubt CompUSA would carry an OS that only runs on 1% of hardware run by 4-5% of the desktop market.
> Never mind that linux/PPC may actually be more stable than MacOSX.
I don't know, I never tried Linux/PPC. I have three Macs running OS X (this one since OS X was first released), and I have to say it has been many months since I've seen a crash. The older Linux box downstairs could never say that. Granted it was more Netscape's fault than Linux, but I frequently landed in single user mode to repair my hard drive after a crash. I love OS X, it is everything I've ever wanted in an OS and more.
> This is the same sense in which windows has a monopoly... not exactly,
> but so damn close as makes almost no difference.
Windows is used on over 92% of the desktop machines on the planet. Microsoft got that monopoly by playing dirty, and kept it through brutal tyranny. It has left a broad trail of broken and bloody corpses of companies. Apple was nearly one of them, thanks to Windows 95 (and Motorola's chip delays and their own stupid greed).
Apple and Microsoft are nothing alike now. Microsoft's way is for computers (and OSs and software) to be a way to capture and contain customers, forcing them to pay and pay. Apple's way is to combine beautiful design, industrial strength Unix, and the best of open standards, open source and the traditional Mac culture to build elegant, powerful tools that empower the user to do whatever they want to do with a computer. Apple has taken stands for royalty free web standards, and against some of the obnoxious behavior of the RIAA and MPAA (Gateway has now followed in their footsteps).
If Linux wants on the desktop, look to Apple. They've shown you how to take an open source Unix and make it a success on the desktop. Follow their lead
On December 14, 1996, Mothra resurrected a charred Apple sapling ("Mosura" 1996).
On December 14, 2001, Mothra returned to see its fruit ("Gojira, Mosura, Kingu Ghidora: Daikaiju Soukougeki").
OS X: the Apple of Mothra's Aqua eye.
But you see, Apple isn't really a monopoly anyway.
Those Mac clone makers were not forced to make a Mac clone because Apple had a monopoly. They chose to make Mac clones. Once Apple nixed the clones, these companies had other places to go if they so chose.
My point is, it is quite odd to say that Apple has a monopoly on its 5% of the market. It doesn't have much meaning at all.
mark
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
I think you are over-simplifying and assuming the Sorenson people actually want to support the open source community...
However it would make a very cynical bastard (me) very happy if even half you say turns out to be true.
No sig for the moment.
Actually, both MPEG-1 and Sorenson Video 3 use Y'CrCb (aka YUV) 4:2:0 color, where there is one color sample for each 2x2 block of pixels.
The older Sorenson Video 1 & 2 used YUV-9, which has one color sample for each 4x4 block of pixels. This isn't nearly enough, and caused quality problems.
My video compression blog
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
If you're getting bad color, you're probably using Sorenson Video 2 (just called "Sorenson Video" in the QuickTime UI). The Basic, free version of Sorenson Video 3 (called "Sorenson Video 3") built into QuickTime since 5.0.2 doesn't have this problem, and is much, much higher quality and much, much faster than the old free codec.
My video compression blog
Hardly. The only thing open about the codec is the decoder, and that's only as open as Flash in general. No one charges for decoders for web formats - nothing new here.
The Spark Pro encoder is only available with Sorenson's Squeeze for Flash MX product, which they sell. It's a good piece of software, and worth the money for those doing professional Flash creation. The free Spark encoder built into Flash MX can work for simple projects, but doesn't come close to Spark Pro for mission critical quality.
Apple is actually backing MPEG-4 hard, which is much closer to an open standard than Sorenson's codecs.
My video compression blog
That was one of the biggest loads of crap I've ever read. Lets start from the bottom and work our way up. OS X has lots of text config files and lots of GUI config programs sitting on top of them. I'm using Red Hat 7.2 and I don't need to touch config files unless I want to (this is for all desktop style configuration, when it comes to servers, YMMV). Lets all try using the Linux distros of 2002 and forget about the Linux distros of 1998 (unless you're still using debian stable, because then you're still living the linux distro of 1998 ... *zing*).
Next, that whole "we need to test under 2^64 different configurations" argument is crap. Provide an RPM for Red Hat and maybe Mandrake and a tarball. If you require Gtk or Qt or wxWindows or whatever, say so. The Linux kernel is the Linux kernel. Unless you are using wierd ioctls or installing a device driver (and even for that, NVidia and VMWare are managing)there is nothing to test. X, same deal, it's been binary compatible for 10 years, there was even a slashdot article about it. Real has managed to release a Linux version of their media player for years and I've never heard people complain about it not being available for everyone. I mean, everyone on every platform complains that real sucks, but no one complains about availablity.
See, the big problem in my opinion is all these software development houses are so used to developing for Windows or the Mac where changing API's and system calls out from underneath everyone that they can't think of things being different. The Unix system call set hasn't changed significantly in probably 15 years. X hasn't changed in at least 10. Gtk and Qt change, but all point releases stay compatible and no one is gonna scream if you say you require Gtk 1.2 or Qt 2.x. There is no "business reason" to screw your users in an open source development model so no one does so.
In conclusion, if you want to post on why a company should or shouldn't do port something to Linux, you should have at least a little knowledge of what Linux in 2002 is like or you come off sounding a) ignorant or b) a troll.
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).
Darwin Streaming Server isn't Open Source! It's proprietary-with-source, a bit like Microsoft's Shared Source. Get your facts straight!
VP3 is Open Source; XVID isn't. This is because the authors of VP3 are releasing their code under the LGPL license. On the other hand, XVID is made of a combination of Open Source GPL'd code and proprietary OpenDivX licensed code. Notice that the OpenDivX license has a number of restrictions which make it proprietary and non-free. The XVID codec could, for example, never be distributed with Debian, Mandrake or any other Free Software operating system, whereas VP3 could. XVID may be a great codec, but don't spread lies about its licensing, fluor2.
I'll bite. You're ignoring the specific complaint. Apple had a skin removed because the effect resembled an _internal research theme_??? This carries things a bit far. Granted, I'm the type that prefers a snappy, efficient (not necessarily intuitive, but that's nice) interface over any "Oooh! Shiny!" interface. Apple's still fairly hung up about form over function.
"'Tis great confidence in a friend to tell him your faults, greater to tell him his." --Poor Richard's Almanac
Actually, it's trademarks.
"'Tis great confidence in a friend to tell him your faults, greater to tell him his." --Poor Richard's Almanac
I really doubt it's an active conspiracy on Apple's part - the software business is at best a shaky balancing act: R&D vs. ROI.
I'd bet a bunch that Apple has a player in house already. After all, they have a Unix version.
We are not really talking about major costs. The whole API is exposed by open source players already, and the source for the codec is in house.
Then again, it could be a conspiracy - but Apple is under no obligation to provide ANY tools to Linux users, since that could hurt their own bottom line with OSX.
I was just pointing out the obvious problem wrt forcing me to buy Windows or MacOS in order to view copies of copyrighted material I own.
And, as I pointed out, Apple needs to spend NO in house $$ to port. Real didn't - they just provided specs. Intel and Radius both allowed xanim to make binary-only plug-ins, and no one in the community is up in arms.
Steve Jobs is scared sh%tless about the potential for linux on the desktop, and probably also feels a major market for OS X is people currently using linux that would like Microsoft Media Player and QuickTime.
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...
I think you really mean political reasons rather than philosophical reasons. As the recent discussion on LKML over the use of BitKeeper (a non-free source control system) shows, technical reasons are the logical reasons to choose to use one software package over another. Using inferior tool for political reasons is just foolish.
And before someone mentions it, yes, I do "buy" my Linux distributions. I buy the install CDs from the vendor who produces them because, as the recent Mandrake cash crunch shows, they can't continue to develop new distributions if no one will pay to use them. Since Mandrake distributes software like Star Office, I think they'd have no problem with a closed-source QT.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
Okay, to start, I think you make a lot of assumptions about the community. I will accept totally proprietary solutions depending on what they are. People need to realise that there is a balance to strike between freedom and commercialism. Both are needed, and indeed, are good for Linux.
Look - Free software is great, necessary even, for some parts of computing. The OS is one example, IMHO. The Kernel/display layer/desktop environments should be free software. However, there's ABSOLUTELY NO REQUIREMENT WHATSOEVER for everything to be free/open source! Is Flash core part of computing? No. Therefore, does it have to be open sourced? No. In fact, I think we should be encouraging Macromedia - the SWF format is well documented and free for use by anyone. This is arguably more than can be said for Ogg Vorbis (though of course the ogg docs situation is temporary). Macromedia make a good product, that people are willing to pay for, and they have opened up the SWF format to the community so nobody can be locked in. Good going Macromedia!
NVidia - are drivers a core part of computing. Arguable. Is it realistic to expect a key competitor in the cutthroat world of 3D accelerators to open up their specs? No. Not right now, anyway. As far as I'm concerned, releasing Linux drivers has not backfired at all, if anything I'm now considering an NVidia card for my next computer because I know it'll work with Linux (a priority) and better still, will work WELL. Eventually of course it'd be good for the specs to be opened up, so everyone can use their hardware, but for the next few years at least we must compromise.
Sorenson - the hot potato. Is video compression a core part of the OS/core part of computing? I'd say ... no, it isn't. Of course preferably we should use open video standards wherever possible, to prevent future lockin, but at the end of the day Sorensen have right to develop a codec and sell it. They don't produce a version for Linux, that sucks and they should change it, but I'm not going to lampoon the company on those grounds. It simply means they're pissing some people off, not at all uncommon for companies I think you'll find.
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.
And I'm sure that, as a child, you might have said, "Girls?? Ewww!!!"
People change with the times and, in the case of Jobs, with business. In NeXT's time, X did suck, but it got better.
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
Unless you meant Macromedia makes versions of it's software only for PCs, there's nothing new here.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Under Red Hat at least, as long as your video card is supported by the distro (and you do check, right), then it would be a matter of running Xconfigurator. It's in the docs that come with the box set as well as at www.redhat.com. I know mandrake and suse also have tools to configure X after the initial installation. If we're talking about a video card that isn't supported by the version of X that comes with your distro, to bad, it's not gonna be easy to get it to work. Not that it would be easy to get a card with no OS X drivers to work under OS X though. With wireless cards it's the same deal. If it's supported it should just work. If it's not, expect to work. It's like that on every other OS.
/etc is full of your normal unix config files (tho the syntax is different on many of them). And dont get me started on Netinfo. Netinfo makes doing the simplest things into a giant headache. It's sorta like the windows registry, and IMHO, sucks just as bad.
... linux users would be happy with anything, and the average user isn't using linux), or nitpicking the linux desktop (standard UI's? maybe if Quicktime used the MacOS stardard UI you'd have a point), etc.
OS X has lots of config files. Havent you ever opened the Terminal.app and poked around? Most applications have a xml based global config file and user local config file.
The locations of libraries in Linux is standardized. Anyone not following the standard should be flogged. Furthermore, the Linux dynamic linker is capable of finding the library as long as it's in a directory it knows about. So, unless a distro has a lib in a non-standard location *and* has a misconfigured dynamic linker, the application writer doesn't need to know or care about where the lib is on the target system.
RPMS are a very nice and easy way to install something. The fact that SuSE (the biggest culprit) handles RPMS differently then just about everyone else doesn't mean they're non standard. And I specifically said, make 2 or 3 RPMS for your common desktop distros and a tarball for everyone else. I'm not gonna complain if you give me a tarball to install. "The average user" probably isn't who's gonna be installing quicktime on linux anyway which makes the entire point moot.
Window managers are meaningless in an applications context. In linux you don't care what window manager is running. The application doesn't even know the window manager exists. X has been backwards compatible for at least 10 years. And the distros did get together and decide where things were gonna be. All directory locations are standardized now. Not every distro strickly adhears to it, but as in my previous point, most of those locations are not something you need to worry about. A standard desktop isn't necessary either. Especially if we're talking about quicktime which happens to break most of Apple's UI guidelines, who cares if it looks out of place on linux too.
And, in conclusion, as I've stated several times already, *there is a standard for what files go where*. Google for the FHS. It will tell you all about it. Linux works fine, lots of commercial applications work on it just fine. There is no reason apple couldn't release a quicktime player for Linux and the all of the arguments you give are either unnecessary details (the window manager), moot points (tarballs vs rpms
Hmm. I didn't much cre for linux/PPC. It had all sorts of problems installing on my B&W g3. Yellow dog's a champ on it though.
Mod point free since 2001
That's right, I just said they would do it anyway, are you a parrot?
There IS a MacOS tax; You pay for MacOS when you buy a mac, and you have to pay for MacOS with every major revision. This is no surprise, it's not like windows is any different, but the point is that they want to keep making money on MacOS.
It's not about linux apps which are just as good, that's an ignorant view of how the market works. It's about market share/mindshare, and the linux apps do NOT have that. So you need to be able to run mac apps from a business standpoint (yes I know there are progressive businesses which know better, but I'm speaking in generalizations here) and that means MacOS, realistically.
I don't know if I'd compare Apples to Zauruses, or really, PDAs. At least use a leader in the PDA market, like PocketPC or PalmOS-based devices. On Palm, there ARE other operating systems, but who runs them? So few people as to be statistically insignificant. The same is true for some of the PocketPC devices; Sure people run other operating systems, but realistically, it's the OEM crap.
Why not? Linux DOES have some hype attached to it. CompUSA just doesn't want to get left out - As I'm sure you know, they are SERIOUSLY unclued. All they know is, some people are buying it, so they want to sell it. Also they can afford to take it as a loss leader; Even if they only sell five copies, if people come in to MAYBE buy it, perhaps they will buy some batteries or something. CompUSA has that kind of power - The same power as Microsoft.
I've been seeing lots of anecdotes from people crashing MacOSX. So you must be lucky :)
This is the same sense in which windows has a monopoly... not exactly, but so damn close as makes almost no difference. Windows is used on over 92% of the desktop machines on the planet. Microsoft got that monopoly by playing dirty, and kept it through brutal tyranny. It has left a broad trail of broken and bloody corpses of companies. Apple was nearly one of them, thanks to Windows 95 (and Motorola's chip delays and their own stupid greed).
Sure. Apple wants to make the OS *and* the hardware, and that creates both special opportunities, and special problems. I agree that Microsoft didn't play fairly to get where it is, but then who does? Apple wants their little monopolies and they want to control their little spaces, like quicktime for example, which is crap anyway in every way except the sorenson codec, which has been talked about extensively in other /. stories recently, so I won't go into it here; But suffice to say that streaming in quicktime sucks. While it's downloading, playback chokes, and I'm not talking about reaching the end of the buffered content either. Damn it, there I went, off on a tangent.
Apple doesn't have anything to gain by promoting closed web standards, because they don't have any closed web technology, outside of quicktime. Then again, doesn't quicktime count? Apple doesn't have Microsoft's power, and they never have. The fact that they tried to sue Microsoft over the whole GUI thing after picking it up at a xerox demo is absolutely ridiculous. Since they lost there, they've been losing since, and they never had a CHANCE to rival microsoft.
In the meantime, while Apple's path has been to recycle (the wrong) technology, IE OpenStep and BSD instead of shiny new BeOS, thereby sacrificing speed... Windows has been working on their own OS. Windows NT is actually quite a viable platform, though they have certainly thrown a lot of crap on top of it lately. Don't get me started on that stupid dock, either. I would have far preferred the original NeXTStep Dock. I liked that thing. Of course, I like Be's launcher or whatever it's called even more.
I don't think I'd agree with that, except for the fact that everything started being made translucent after apple did it. Also, they have showed how to take a closed source unix and make it a success on the desktop, unless they open-sourced the NeXTStep code and I missed it. Only PARTS of their OS can be called open source.
Now I will grant you that they have made a Unix a success on the desktop, in much the way I've been advocating all along; The user never has to know it's Unix. If you EVER have to resort to Unix to get something done, then it's not good enough. This is why linux isn't yet ready for the desktop, which you probably knew.
I still believe that if Apple and Microsoft switched places (in the market) say, two years ago, the world would be a worse place today than it is now. Given Apple's history of closed systems, a lack of available hardware documentation, and their unwillingness to cooperate at all with developers who have not paid for their toolkit... well, they're just like microsoft. The difference is that wintel is way the hell cheaper than the mac route, always has been, and probably always will be. And let's face it, THAT is what sells people. The price point is king when you can do all the same crap on both machines.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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
Suggestion, stay out of CompUSA, and try your local apple retailer. Just as you wouldn't go to a Volkswagon dealer to test drive a Honda, you shouldn't go to a PC store to test a mac.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
OK, so some Open Sourcer will compile the thing for free, but that's not where the monetary loss comes in. You lose money whenever you allow any advantage to your competition and apparently, Apple fees that Linux is competition.
Be glad that your choice of OS is making people sit up and take notice, but you should not get mad when someone starts treating you like real competition.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
Alan,
Yes, the proper digital terminology is Y'CrCb. YUV strictly only applies to NTSC analog video.
I used YUV in this context because it is what most software engineers use, and thought the post had sufficient terminology pedantry already.
My video compression blog