QuickTime To Get Boost From "More Accurate" Statistics

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."

Comments

Get rid of the ad

[hackwrench]

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

What Quicktime Needs

[Sentry21]

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

Re:What Quicktime Needs

[benwaggoner]

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.

Re:What Quicktime Needs

[Alan Partridge]

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.

For you Windows users here...

[inkswamp]

... 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

Re:For you Windows users here...

[feldsteins]

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.

Re:Alternate Title Large Corp Lobbies To Change St

[benwaggoner]

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.