Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

QuickTime To Get Boost From "More Accurate" Statistics

Posted by pudge on from the statistics-is-as-statistics-does dept.

Justen writes "Nielsen is expected to release a new set of ratings for media players on July 1. Apple lobbied the firm to use new methods to form usage statistics. The new methods are expected to dramatically increase the reported market share of QuickTime. Nielsen says it doesn't reflect a dramatic jump in actual installations, just a more accurate picture of what's been there all along. The article also mentions the new beta of QuickTime 6 and its support for MPEG-4, ahead of Real and Microsoft."

50 comments

  1. LP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Long play!

  2. Get rid of the ad by hackwrench · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Now if only they'd get rid of the ad that pops up for QuickTime Pro almost everytime it launches.

    1. Re:Get rid of the ad by PythonOrRuby · · Score: 4, Funny

      You can actually do that yourself. Just pay the $29 for Quicktime Pro and it goes away. ;-)

    2. Re:Get rid of the ad by pi+radians · · Score: 1

      It really should be an option to have that disabled though. The Quicktime Pro package is not really needed by most general users, and the annoying pop-up is just that, annoying.

      --

      sin(6cos(r)+5A)
    3. Re:Get rid of the ad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently, if you set your computer's date to, say, sometime during 2012, open Quicktime, click later, close it, and then set your date back to correct values, then it won't bother you again until 2012.

    4. Re:Get rid of the ad by andya16 · · Score: 2, Informative

      to get rid of the ad, move up your system time a few years, start quicktime, click the 'later' button [for the last time], and reset your clock. you may need a restart in there.

    5. Re:Get rid of the ad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Registered to: NSA_CRACKERZ_TEAM
      Organization: NCT
      Registration Number: WUWM-GPPJ-T4GA-W2T3-5678

      For Quicktime 5 Windows version. If Apple want to cripple their precious little media player and strongarm big media sites to use their filthy proprietary codec, they don't deserve a single penny of revenue from their 'Upgrade to Pro' Nagware.

    6. Re:Get rid of the ad by PythonOrRuby · · Score: 1

      And having paid nothing for this high-quality software, you're certainly entitled to no annoyances, especially the well-known ones.

      If you don't like the ads, only use Real or Windows Media documents. I guarantee those players' annoyances won't be seen as prominently. I'll leave it up to you to figure out whether or not that's a good thing...

    7. Re:Get rid of the ad by PythonOrRuby · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, that darn proprietary Apple! Not like the standards-compliant folks at Real or Microsoft. And their Quicktime Streaming Server is so expensive.

      I mean, why should I be forced to stream out high-quality content for free when I can pay for something inferior? This is America and we're capitalists, damn it!. We don't do things that way.

    8. Re:Get rid of the ad by edesjard · · Score: 1

      Here is how to get rid of the ad: Change the system date of your computer to 10 years in the future. Launch QuickTime. Click "Later" on the banner. Quit QuickTime. Change the system date back to today. Launch QuickTime again, and enjoy!

  3. MPEG-4 support by reverius · · Score: 0, Troll

    Supposedly Quicktime 6 supports MPEG-4... but that is presumably in the QuickTime file format.

    Any word on whether it will play back MPEG-4 movies in the AVI file format (aka DivX 4 and 5, OpenDivx, etc)? Those are quite common, and I have many.

    I'd like to use the QuickTime player rather than the WindowsMedia player on Windows, and this support would allow me to do that...

    1. Re:MPEG-4 support by Megane · · Score: 2

      It won't play most DivX AVI files without conversion, because VBR MP3 audio is not in the AVI spec, and apparently Apple refuses to break the spec to play them.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    2. Re:MPEG-4 support by pi+radians · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Straight from Apple's QT6 FAQ

      Will Apple MPEG-4 interoperate with other MPEG-4 technologies?
      The MPEG-4 specification is large and contains provisions for many technologies. However, any .mp4 file containing compliant MPEG-4 video and AAC audio should interoperate with QuickTime 6. If you find any interoperability issues please let us know. Other technologies that report to be MPEG-4 compliant, yet are not contained in an .mp4 file, will not interoperate with QuickTime 6 or other MPEG-4 players. Divx and MPEG-4 from Microsoft are common examples.

      Well, there you kinda of have it, no. Although I heard that DivX5 will be completely compatible. But I don't know for sure.

      Apple decided to actually follow standards, and not just jump on the "buzzword bandwagon" and do their own thing. Only time will tell if it pays off.

      --

      sin(6cos(r)+5A)
    3. Re:MPEG-4 support by benwaggoner · · Score: 2

      Indeed. .divx is NOT a MPEG-4 compatible file format. It is MPEG-4 video and MP3 audio in a .AVI file. Now, QuickTIme knows how to play MPEG-4 video, and MP3 audio, and AVI files, so it might work, but it won't work because of QuickTime's .mp4 compatibility.

      QuickTime's MPEG-4 playback doesn't do B-frames (so that only every other frame of a B-frame encoded file will be shown). Folks targeing QT playback with .divx shouldn't use those (GMC and quarter pel motion estimation are just fine, and quarter pel especially has a good quality boost).

      --

      My video compression blog
    4. Re:MPEG-4 support by Aram+Fingal · · Score: 2, Informative

      I have been able to play all MPEG-4 and DivX versions of AVI except for DivX 5.0.2 with Quictime 6 beta and a few components downloaded free from Versiontracker.

      For DivX 5.0.2, you can use the free (GPL) program VirtualDub (www.virtualdub.org) on Windows to convert the file to a codec which QuickTime can understand and then transfer the file back to a Mac. Be warned, it took hours for Windows to convert a file I had from DivX 5.0.2 to Cinepak. Fortunately, it only took minutes for QuickTime Pro on the Mac to convert the file back from Cinepak to standard MPEG-4.

    5. Re:MPEG-4 support by reverius · · Score: 1

      Why would you use Cinepak? Isn't it a much lower-quality codec? There should be some sort of QuickTime encoder on the PC... if there isn't, it's a shame. One should be able to go straight to QuickTime MPEG-4.

      Maybe I'm just an idealist.

    6. Re:MPEG-4 support by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      Cinepak is a fully supported video codec under QuickTime.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    7. Re:MPEG-4 support by bursch-X · · Score: 1

      Yes, and it's about 400 years old and looks exactly that way.

      --
      There are two rules for success:
      1. Never tell everything you know.
    8. Re:MPEG-4 support by gbooker · · Score: 1

      I for one would prefer that Apple keeps to the spec. It maintains a better operating client because then they don't have to maintaing two branches of the file reading routines (one to handle the official, and one to handle the hacked). Also, with the DivX video codec, I imagine that it will not be included with QT because of its shady history. In its current incarnation, it has a chance if the lovely people at divx.com would get their act together and put out a decent version of the codec for QT.

      If you want to play DivX WELL in MacOS X, get vlc. It plays VCD's, SVCD's, DVD, DivX, MPEG 1, MPEG 2, and supposedly MPEG 4. The MPEG 4 part is the only aspect I have yet to test in this client.

      Apple has the problem of supporting stuff and at the same time keeping in good legal standing with other companies that might try to sue them. If they were to release a DivX codec, they might be walking a tightrope. Also, they may have code under a licence to read the avi file that doesn't allow them to modify to read VBR MP3's.

      In short, put yourself in their place and try to figure out why they may not do something before you critisize them. I am not sure which country you are from, but in the US (where Apple is based) and most other countries, a companies primary goal is to maximize profit. I doubt that VBR MP3 in avi is a profitable venture for them, and so they are not likely to do it.

      --
      You see? It's like I've always said. You can get more with a kind word and a 2x4 than you can with just a kind word.
    9. Re:MPEG-4 support by gbooker · · Score: 1

      Or... You could get the DivX codec (v. 5) from divx.com and then convert to MPEG 4 in QT.

      Warning: it is Alpha, and I have not tested it on QT 6. I currently use vlc to play DivX and have not come across a file that it cannot play.

      --
      You see? It's like I've always said. You can get more with a kind word and a 2x4 than you can with just a kind word.
    10. Re:MPEG-4 support by Aram+Fingal · · Score: 1

      I have the DivX codec (v. 5) on QT 6 and it does not play the DivX 5.0.2 AVI clips which I have. I don't know if that means it supports only up to 5.0 and 5.0.2 is too new or whether there is some other glitch. I did rule out an incorrect fourCC as explained in the DivX Tool 1.2 documentation.

    11. Re:MPEG-4 support by Aram+Fingal · · Score: 1

      If I had another 8 GB or so free on my HD, I would have converted it to uncompressed video instead of Cinepak. Cinepak is the only codec which comes with VirtualDub that is common to QT and also has no restrictions on proportions, framerates, etc. Converting to Cinepak as the intermediate format does cause the end product to be a little grainy but, at least, I can have a look at what's in the movie.

    12. Re:MPEG-4 support by Megane · · Score: 1
      In short, put yourself in their place and try to figure out why they may not do something before you critisize them.

      Please tell me where I was critisizing anything? I was merely stating things as I knew them, without any commentary on what I thought of it.

      I personally don't care how Apple handles .AVI files. AVI files aren't a very good design to begin with. I would rather have proper MPEG 4 take over this mess that is DivX, considering all the people coming up with different fourcc codes for the same encodings, and incompatible encodings with poor performance such as DivX 5.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  4. What Quicktime Needs by Sentry21 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Apple doesn't need statistics re-worked to get better market share. They have to do very few things.

    First, make the player on Windows not suck ass. As in, re-code the app. Right now it's too bloated. Make it more responsive. Optimize optimize optimize. Even MP7 isn't as slow, and that's saying a lot.

    Second, use native codecs when possible. MPEG-2, for example. If you're not going to optimize your codecs for x86/pentium (and that would take a lot of work, I'm sure) then use the work of those who have. In addition to quicktime formats, use the native windows CODECs. They're all registered already, all you have to do is hook in.

    Third, fix the plugin/associations. For people who know what's what, Quicktime isn't a problem (anymore), but for the average user, taking over PNG from the browser is stupid, especially since it doesn't add better handling anyway. Likewise for most other formats. Make all non-Windows non-Mac file formats open in or plugin with Quicktime by default, UNLESS there are other associations for them. Mac file formats open with QT. Windows file formats don't get touched unless the user requests it.

    Basically, QT does three things. Lags my system down, wastes clock cycles doing decoding poorly, and trashes my associations unless I'm careful. Fix these three things, and more people will install it.

    You can't get market share if your product sucks. Just ask Steve Case. Er, wait..

    --Dan

    1. Re:What Quicktime Needs by feldsteins · · Score: 2

      Apple doesn't need statistics re-worked to get better market share. They have to do very few things.
      First, make the player on Windows not suck ass.

      Point taken - using it on Windows isn't what it could be. I only wish Microsoft had to do such things in order to gain marketshare. Alas.

      --
      You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
    2. Re:What Quicktime Needs by dcstimm · · Score: 1

      Mod the parent up, he isnt a troll, he should be informative. He has stated everything quicktime needs to do to be a better app. I totally agree with this guy! Please realize that not every app is perfect even if it is made by APPLE.

      --
      keanmarine.com
    3. Re:What Quicktime Needs by benwaggoner · · Score: 4, Insightful

      First off, Apple isn't trying to manipulate statistics - they were badly, badly undercounted before. In one study, only application launches were counted for playback, so any QuickTime viewed in-line inside a web browser didn't count. Since QuickTime by default works in-browser, while WM and Real go to the player by default, this erroneously hurt QuickTIme's ranking.

      Kudos to Neilson for recognizing their bad statistics, and trying to correct them.

      As for your other points, have you tried a recent version of QT Player for WIndows? While QT4 had an ugly UI, QT5 is quite nice, and QT6 is better yet. Also, QuickTime has a smaller installer download than either WM or Real now, when you run the web installer. How's that bloated?

      There is plenty of optimization for Intel processors in QuickTime. Sorenson Video 3, the main video codec, had a lot of hand tuning in it for Intel (bear in mind Apple didn't create it).

      It sounds to me like you haven't installed QuickTime since 2000 or so. Give it a whirl today and see if you like it better.

      --

      My video compression blog
    4. Re:What Quicktime Needs by bruckie · · Score: 2

      And one other thing—get rid of the purposefully annoying features.

      Remove the "Do you want to upgrade to QuickTime Pro?" window that appears each time you start the program. Most people want to use QuickTime to view a movie; the free version does this fine, so there's no reason for most people to upgrade to the Pro version. All the nag screen does is annoy people.

      And while they're at it, make it not put the "Upgrade to QuickTime Pro" icon on my desktop each time I launch QuickTime. If I wanted an icon there, I'd put it there. I certainly don't want an Apple ad there. It even comes back after I delete it!

      These two annoyance features make me avoid QuickTime if I possibly can.

      --Bruce

      --
      There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't.
    5. Re:What Quicktime Needs by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd second all of that. Bear in mind that QuickTime cannot just offer blanket support for MPEG2 without attracting a licensing fee from MPEG LA, and bear in mind too that QY OPlayer is an infinitely more capable application than Media Player or Real player.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    6. Re:What Quicktime Needs by piznut · · Score: 0

      You have perfectly stated every single gripe I have about the current, and previous versions of quicktime. These are also the reasons that I refuse to keep it installed on my windows systems. I would also add get rid of the nag screen. I have no use for the pro version, and no intent to voluntarily pay $29 for features I don't want/need. Maybe us non apple users out here should start a petition to get this stuff done like so many disgruntled apple gamers.

    7. Re:What Quicktime Needs by PythonOrRuby · · Score: 1
      Actually... the people who do pay the $29 are paying for the features they and others want and need. Software development is expensive. Pay the $29 and Apple will be able to make QT7 even better.

      Otherwise, use one of the incredibly simple hacks, or just chill out, realize how minor the single ad is, and enjoy watching high-quality video on your computer for free.

      One would think clicking "later" was the end of the world.

    8. Re:What Quicktime Needs by piznut · · Score: 0

      In the world of video this is out of the norm.

      WMP and Realplayer both provide high quality without the annoying nag screen. Im not trying to say that it doesnt do what it was designed to do, or that it doesn't work well for some people.

      What I am saying is that for *me*, the annoyances of having it installed do not outweigh the minimal benefit. If Apple cared about their market for Quicktime they would spend more time optimizing their software than they apparently spend playing with market statistics.

    9. Re:What Quicktime Needs by gbooker · · Score: 1

      > Second, use native codecs when possible. MPEG-2, for example.

      QT 6 final is supposed to have MPEG-2 encode and decode support. Supposedly, it barely missed being included in the preview. Just wait, it is comming.

      --
      You see? It's like I've always said. You can get more with a kind word and a 2x4 than you can with just a kind word.
    10. Re:What Quicktime Needs by Sentry21 · · Score: 2

      It sounds to me like you haven't installed QuickTime since 2000 or so. Give it a whirl today and see if you like it better.

      In fact, I've used every version of QT for Windows since 2.0, up to and including the latest 6.0 beta.

      For comparison, my P120 can play MPEG-2 encoded music videos at what I would consider entirely an reasonable playback rate (our G4 is not much smoother) in Windows Media Player. In Quicktime (any version), it is literally unwatchable. I get most of the audio track, and the occasional frame. Usually, I get one frame and it stays like that until I get sick of it and stop the playback.

      This is what I'm talking about. I don't expect to be able to play movies on a P120, but WMP handles it fine and QT chokes badly.

      As for the installer, that means nothing, it's a web installer. It downloads stuff later. The UI (again, on a P120) is almost unusable, it's so laggy, while Media Player 6.4 is fine, perfectly responsive, and functional without trying to be pretty. QT is beautiful, sure, but unusable because of it on my baseline system. Again, I don't expect it to run perfectly on a measly P120, but WMP does, because it's ugly, it's boring, and it works fine.

      I'm not saying the statistics weren't flawed, I'm saying to hell with the statistics, basically. Still, it's nice to see Apple with a great showing. QT is beautiful on Macs, it just sucks on Windows.

      It sounds to me like you have the money for good hardware. Not everyone does. I can't expect Apple to work on shitty computers, but WMP does, so I'll keep using it until something better (hardware- or software-wise) comes along.

      --Dan

  5. this is how to get rid of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hi,
    although i havent tried this myself i have read that this stops the Quicktime pop ad.
    set the date and time of your machine forward 2 years.
    then open quicktime and close it again.
    reset your machine to the correct time

    hopefully you will never see the add again

    1. Re:this is how to get rid of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, then you won't see it for 2 years. Set it for 50 years and then you're really golden.

  6. For you Windows users here... by inkswamp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... who are compaining about the annoyances with QT for Windows, you have two simple options.

    1. Send your suggestions/compaints to Apple. The current Apple isn't the same as the circa-1995 Apple that wouldn't listen to its users. Apple seems strangely eager to cater to users nowadays. Go to their site and make your thoughts known.

    2. Get a Mac. I'm not being a smart-ass or a nutball Mac advocate, but Apple specializes in Mac software. Their Windows version of QT is so-so, but the Mac version is beautiful. I've used WMP, Real and QT on both platforms, and QT on Mac is light-years ahead of any other combination (with the possible footnote that Real's audio streaming seems to have a *very slight* edge, although QT's audio stream doesn't litter your drive with those annoying .rm files.)

    I have a feeling that Apple will likely never make Windows QT better or equal to QT on the Mac and I can't say I totally fault them for it (not justifying it, but I can't see the rationale.)

    --Rick

    --
    --Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
    1. Re:For you Windows users here... by feldsteins · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have a feeling that Apple will likely never make Windows QT better or equal to QT on the Mac and I can't say I totally fault them for it

      I don't agree. I believe Apple would love to make their own player the best one for the Windows platform. If they fail at that it's either because the apple developers messed up, or because the MS engineers put them at a disadvantage with "secret API calls" and the like which the MS player technology gets to have but nobody else does. I understand that some people will put zero credence in that last point while others will be sure it's true automatically. But one thing I think is obvious - Apple has no dis-incentive to making QT the best Windows media player there is.

      --
      You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
    2. Re:For you Windows users here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Apple has no dis-incentive to making QT the best Windows media player there is.


      I belive you missed the point. Apple could make QuickTime for Windows the best media player for that platform but make the Mac version even better. Thus "I have a feeling that Apple will likely never make Windows QT better or equal to QT on the Mac and I can't say I totally fault them for it."

    3. Re:For you Windows users here... by feldsteins · · Score: 2

      We have a disagreement of emphasis, I think. Or, put another way, we see the "bottleneck" in different places. On the goal of making Windows QT the best it can be I see the bottleneck in their ability to do so, largely the fault of microsoft, not themselves. You see the bottleneck in their willingness to put forth sufficient effort.

      --
      You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
  7. How to Get rid of the ad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hi,
    although i havent tried this myself i have read that this stops the Quicktime pop ad.
    set the date and time of your machine forward 2 years.
    then open quicktime and close it again.
    reset your machine to the correct time

    hopefully you will never see the add again

  8. Windows Media Player by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Have any of you who are whining about QT on windows ever used WMP on a Mac? I think not, it's bloated, only supports the WMP native format, and not responsive at all. Yet, I never hear any one on the mac side complaining, that's because we know it's there just so Microsoft can say it is.

    1. Re:Windows Media Player by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      it doesn't even support ALL of the native Windows Media codecs. It's really fucking shoddy. Having said that, at least there IS one (hello Real? where is your OSX player please?)

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    2. Re:Windows Media Player by Hes+Nikke · · Score: 1

      don't forget that it wants to be a classic app, it doen'st perform well unless i renice it -18, and even then the interface is slow and unresponsive, with the spinning wheel of death up 2/3 of the time :puke:

      --
      Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
  9. Alternate Title Large Corp Lobbies To Change Stats by hotsauce · · Score: 2, Flamebait

    When companies can lobby to change stats in their favour, what stats am I supposed to believe? Very interesting coming on the heels of "Macs Now Found To Be Cheaper Than PCs".

    --
    Lies about crimes
  10. Re:Alternate Title Large Corp Lobbies To Change St by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, macs are cheaper, aren't they?

    You'd see that if stats would include "time and money invested in installation, reinstallation, fixing and making good or just barely adequate".

    i know many good reasons to buy a pc, one of them being that it's gratifying to tinker with it or to soup it up, overclock it and play great games, but whenever you're in a work-situation and it's actually your time being clocked, go mac is what I say.

  11. Re:Alternate Title Large Corp Lobbies To Change St by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 4, Informative

    Read the article.

    Apple got them to recalculate the stats in their favor because their earlier algorithms were, um, erroneous.

    Then think about this quote, from Mark Twain I believe. "There are three kinds of lies. Lies, damn lies, and statistics."

    Statistics is all about taking raw data and making predictive or explanatory statements from them.

    How can you count Quicktime usage?

    How about downloads per month?
    How about upgrades per release?
    How about hits to Apple.com/quicktime per month?
    How about number of .movs downloaded per month?

    All of them are reasonable.

    Would you believe, that until now, Quicktime .movs streamed to web browsers weren't counted? That's what Apple convinced Nielson to do. Count embedded .movs.

    --

    GPL Deconstructed
  12. Re:Alternate Title Large Corp Lobbies To Change St by benwaggoner · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You do what you always do: read the fine print about how the study was run, and what it measured.

    Apple lobbied Neilson because their methadology was really, really, bad, and way overcounted Real and way undercounted QuickTime. The linked article shares some details about what went wrong before, and what they changed.

    Draw your own conclusions from that about how the final numbers are relevant to what you're trying to do.

    Honestly, it's hard to say what decisions these kinds of studies help us understand. They tell us how many individual users watched what file types. That doesn't really tell us all that much.

    --

    My video compression blog
  13. Statistics have already been released. by finnatic · · Score: 4, Informative

    There are two *newer* stories on cnet than the one referenced:

    http://news.com.com/2100-1023-938423.html

    and

    http://news.com.com/2100-1023-938827.html.

    The result? Apple is closer to it's competitors, but Real still leads, and is losing it's lead to MSFT.

    A better link for Nielsen/Net Ratings (or whatever they're called - at least it's not "monday"):
    http://www.nielsen-netratings.com/

  14. Date by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    I set the year to 2060 and QT crashed...and crashed.