Slashdot Mirror


QuickTime On Your Cell Phone

blamanj writes "Apple and DoCoMo are confirming that a new version of QuickTime is on the way supporting MPEG-4 images over 3G cellular service." Now if only these would make sense in the U.S. ...

36 of 186 comments (clear)

  1. Nokia's Communicator has RealPlayer by DrunkenPenguin · · Score: 5, Informative

    Nokia's Communicator cellphone has included RealPlayer for at least 1.5 years.

    1. Re:Nokia's Communicator has RealPlayer by Boss,+Pointy+Haired · · Score: 5, Funny

      How did RealPlayer install itself on a Nokia without the [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE \ SOFTWARE \ Microsoft \ Windows \ Current Version \ Run ] to install about 3 billion entries in that start every time your turn on your computer, consume resources and pop-up random messages??

      The day RealPlayer respects my computer will be the day I respect RealPlayer.

    2. Re:Nokia's Communicator has RealPlayer by dimator · · Score: 4, Funny

      Amen, brother. You got to click through about a hundred dialogs just to disable the damn StartCenter or whatever the fuck their stupid resource-hogging tray icon shit is called.

      And they do things like "Are you sure you don't NOT want to NOT DISable StartCenter?" to confuse the pants off you, so that you accidentally click yes instead of no. Disgusting, really.

      --
      python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
    3. Re:Nokia's Communicator has RealPlayer by simong_oz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      couldn't agree more on this. I hate that bloody app. I hate the way it seems to take over every file extension known to man even though that damn startcenter thing is disabled. It has decided that it is the default player for any audio CD's even though I specifically told it not to do that. Then it leaves the 10+MB worth of setup files in it's damn directory (even after uninstalling it!) just in case I uninstall it and ever want to use it again. And how the hell do you switch that stupid message center thing off?

      Unfortunately I don't know anything else that plays realmedia and rm seems to be pretty common on the web.

      If this streaming is going to become common on mobiles, then please, for the love of everything decent, DON'T USE REALMEDIA.

      --
      "Because it's there." - George Mallory, when asked why he wanted to climb Mt Everest, March 18, 1923 (New York Times)
    4. Re:Nokia's Communicator has RealPlayer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      For example RealPlayer for Linux doesn't need a registry :)

      I think that's a brilliant point. A lot of people on this thread seem to hate Real Player, but they are obviously using Windows version. I have used both Linux and Windows version of the Real Player and the Windows version really is bloated with all kind of crap and it does some nasty things. Linux version is completely trouble free. No annoying ads or messing with file extensions..

    5. Re:Nokia's Communicator has RealPlayer by KAMiKAZOW · · Score: 3, Informative

      Visit the Helix Community and download the Helix DNA Binaries.
      This pack comes with an application called HelixPlay. This player is crappy and not very user friendly, but it's small (~2MB compressed; ~5MB expanded) and has no spy ware. It's enough to view RealVideos, if you have to.

  2. What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The only reason they keep trying to add such technology to phones is so they can continue to rip you off with their charges. Do you really want to pay air-time rates to watch tiny tiny tiny movies?

    Here in the UK the mobile phone companies need their clients to spend an average of £50 per month ($70-$80) just to allow them to recover from the enormous debts of the 3G licences they lumbered themselves with.

    My bill is much less than that a month, and I really don't intend to use any gimicky technology they offer me to tempt me to pay them stupid amounts of cash.

    1. Re:What's the point? by Boss,+Pointy+Haired · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think i've heard that one of the reasons for SMS pricing is the network capacity to actually handle the volume of messages - not air time, i'm talking about the processing and delivery at and between message centers

      Any cheaper and they wouldn't be able to cope. I've not done the maths but it sounds plausable.

    2. Re:What's the point? by bsartist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The real answer ... is to lock people with proprietary codecs and/or file formats.

      Your "answer" ignores one important fact - that neither the MPEG4 codec, nor the MPEG4 file format are proprietary.

      --
      Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
  3. iPhone by HaveBlue34 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Can you say iPhone?

    does this mean i can watch the twin towers divx rip on my toilet?

    1. Re:iPhone by tamen · · Score: 4, Funny

      Nope. But you might be able to do it on your phone ;)

  4. iPhone by iomud · · Score: 4, Informative

    Should be interesting to note that apple also owns this domain.

  5. Pr0n by KecCu · · Score: 5, Funny

    I guess this will give a whole new dimension to phone sex ...

  6. New from doubleclick.net by fatgav · · Score: 4, Funny

    We at doubleprick.net are pleased to announce our new and exciting range of pop-up video ads for the new generation of mobile phones. Increase your hit rates with a multmedia extravaganza that your customers will look forward to receiving. The best bit is that your customers will pay the download costs for you. They will love you for it!! Enquire today!!!!!!

  7. DoCoMo does NOT serve the "western world"... by interactive_civilian · · Score: 5, Informative
    So...it is pointless because you folks over in the states can't use it? Gimme a break...

    In the country where this is being marketed, there is already an "actual 3G network" in place, so this isn't pointless technology. I am currently a DoCoMo customer who happens to be in the market for a new phone, and I must say, I am quite excited about this. It will be nice to have the media that my phone uses play nicely with my iBook, unlike the format that J-Phone uses, which if sent to a computer, can only be viewed on a PC.

    And this technology is not entirely useless in the US. My family happens to live there, and with this, I will be able to send them quicktime movies from my phone...sure, it is a novelty, but it sounds good to me. :D

    Just my 2 yen.

    --
    "Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
  8. Video on a Phone... by MosesJones · · Score: 5, Insightful


    Makes MMS look positively naff, why send a single picture when you can send a video stream ?

    BUT if you think about the bandwidth requirements of streaming then it becomes hard for the mobile infrastructure to support.

    20 million phones, say only 1% active at a time means 200,000 phones active, each streaming at 256 kilobits means 6400000 kilo bytes of bandwidth required. In other words that is 6.4 GigaBYTES of bandwith required by the mobile network.

    Video is a nice idea, and for low usage it works okay within a network, but either the quality has to be crap, or the network investment has to be huge to support video-phone technology over IP. There are better compression elements out there that could work at 64 kilobits, but that is still over a Gigabyte per second network.

    AND that is just for a country with only 20 million mobiles.

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
    1. Re:Video on a Phone... by pwagland · · Score: 3, Insightful
      BUT if you think about the bandwidth requirements of streaming then it becomes hard for the mobile infrastructure to support.

      20 million phones, say only 1% active at a time means 200,000 phones active, each streaming at 256 kilobits means 6400000 kilo bytes of bandwidth required. In other words that is 6.4 GigaBYTES of bandwith required by the mobile network.

      Yes, but if we assume that this 1% usage rate is true, then that means that each person would be viewing (on average) 1 minute of video, every 100 minutes, or 15 minutes of video per day!

      Further, lets assume that this is true, and that the 256kbs thing is also true, that is 480 Kilobytes in traffic per person per day. Looking at current plans that is around 50Euro cents per person per day (at the cheapest rates), or in other words we are talking a 10 million Euro revenue stream per day.

      If this was possible, then you can be sure that the phone companies would ensure that the bandwidth was there!

    2. Re:Video on a Phone... by EvilNTUser · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "20 million phones, say only 1% active at a time means 200,000 phones active, each streaming at 256 kilobits means 6400000 kilo bytes of bandwidth required. In other words that is 6.4 GigaBYTES of bandwith required by the mobile network."

      Only if you route all traffic through one point, which would of course be terribly silly...

      --
      My Sig: SEGV
  9. Re:oh yeah by zwoelfk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Course, bandwidth problems come into play but imagine the possibilities...can you see me now?

    3G phones currently support video playback and transfer. For example, he new J-Phone even has video capture. So the interesting bit is not that it has video, but that it's in Quicktime format.

    From the article: Microsoft and Real incorporate Digital Rights Management (DRM) technology in their file format, giving companies an added feeling of security when publishing their content. This, Jones thinks, could be a disadvantage for Apple.

    Two things: 1. Have you ever tried to pull data off a cell phone? Especially streaming data? Security through obscurity may not be a great method, but it sure is a pain in the ass. 2. Those people who have issues with DRM should take note. If Apple continues their No-DRM policy, these phones could become the Fair-Use-Geek's first choice.

    From the article: Analysts see the adoption of QuickTime by DoCoMo as a way for Apple to broaden its customer base and to have customers associate the QuickTime brand when they buy content.

    I don't see this as a very good thing. Video playback should be seemless to the user. I don't want or care about codec branding. What this probably really means is that there will be an annoying Quicktime splash screen every time I open up a video (in order to have me "associate the Quicktime brand") blah.

    [...] but imagine the possibilities...can you see me now?

    I don't have to imagine. When I get on the train and see twenty people in my car using camera phones, it creeps me out. It'll be worse when video is used everywhere. Who knows how many people are taking pictures of you, anywhere.

  10. Bang! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    1. Select movie to download.
    2. Billed $9.99.
    3. Downloading...
    4. Downloading...
    5. Downloading...
    6. "I'm sorry, Quicktime has performed and illegal operation and will be closed. Please report this fault to Apple inc. Thank you."

  11. Re:oh yeah by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 4, Insightful

    QuickTime is NOT A CODEC, it's an architecture that supports HUNDREDS of graphics, sound and movie codecs - along with sundry other formats like FLASH 4, text layers, sprites etc etc etc. That's why MPEG-4 was based on it - it's fucking beautiful! So, if you 'phone had QT, you might be able to take a series of pictures, compile them into an image sequence and send them to a friend as an MPEG4 movie stream; or maybe compose a ring tone as MIDI and send it somewhere; or open a TGA or TIFF file, or a wav, mp3 or aiff file etc etc etc

    --
    That was classic intercourse!
  12. US and 3G by JimBobJoe · · Score: 5, Informative

    Now if only these would make sense in the U.S...

    The Economist had a great article a few months ago about 3G around the world. Asia does lead the US in 3G, and both places are way far ahead of Europe. Essentially, Europe's insistence on one standard, which worked nicely for 2G, screwed the pooch raw with 3G, that, and the fact that Asia and the US didn't license out 3G, so European cell carriers had to take on debt for billions for 3G whereas no one else did.

    There's no doubt in my mind that Asia will continue leading in 3G...for the simple reason that while 3G is developing here in the US, it's been pretty hard to sell Americans on anything other than just talking on the phone. There is some cultural difference that makes Asians all giddy about spiffy 3G features, so it doesn't surprise me to see the newest and greatest 3G tech. over there.

    1. Re:US and 3G by spewn- · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The article in the Economist is(in my eyes) misleading and holds false information..'why?' you ask..well since I own a 3G Phone myself, and have done for almost a year now..I can safely say, that yes..Asia is pretty much leading the field..but if there was a second place prize..it would be given to my local telecoms company.

      This is their little page about the 3G network on the Island I live on. Owning a 3G, and using it day in day out, I can make a fair assessment that the technology is limited at the moment, it's still all a bit of a novelty..the handsets hold little or pointless functionality, and it only comes into its own when u plug the little thing into a USB port on a laptop/desktop. At that point, u get a broadband connection on a mobile device..I'm sure as time goes on, and technology evolves..so too will the handsets, but the main issue for 3G at the moment is that no manufacturer wants to produce 3G phones. This is due to the fact that even on a global scale..3G is relatively unheard of, and it all comes down to the old supply-and-demand..there is no point in making what people don't really want.

      The US attitude is probably right at this moment, because 3G is nothing more than a toy..until it begins to get some fundamental uses rather than just to 'look cool' then its gauranteed to be successful..but at the moment..the 3G Flag flies with Asia :)

  13. Hmmmmmmm by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Are there really more users who own 3G phones AND want to watch movies on them AND who will pay the horrendous bandwidth charges required than there are desktop Linux users who want to watch movie trailors? I don't think so.

    1. Re:Hmmmmmmm by matthew.thompson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There may well be soon. Remember that the number of people who own mobile phones is numbered in billions.

      If the trailers are free of charge or minimal charge kids, in the UK at least, will use the service and then video phone to their mates to arrange to see the film etc. etc. etc.

      The issue here is for future market share available - not current market share. The estimates for increases in Linux desktop share are, I would imagine, far lower than the number of people expected to move to 3G mobile system in the next 3 years.

      By getting Quicktime onto phones Apple provide a way to sell their encoders and lever Microsoft's format off of the mobile platform.

      --
      Matt Thompson - Actuality - Insert product here.
  14. Re:good stuff by purrpurrpussy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Dude....

    The problem is that this is technology for the sake of technology rather than any actual practical use. Yes live video feeds are useful but not to many people. Emergency services, surgeons... probly. Me! NO! I have NO use for this AT ALL and neither do 99% of the population.

    IMNSHO The current 2G (2.5G) phone system and the handsets in use have NOT been fully exploited. There are NUMEROUS things that could have been done with that technology and ESPECIALLY the connectivity.

    To see how a device can REALLY be exploited look at the GameBoy - 10 years and still new stuff is turning up. Technology for the sake of technology is pointless without software to back it up and I do not see that happening.

    --
    "None of this shit works" -W.Shatner
  15. Great quote: by MoneyT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Microsoft and Real incorporate Digital Rights Management (DRM) technology in their file format, giving companies an added feeling of security when publishing their content. This, Jones thinks, could be a disadvantage for Apple.

    "The big hurdle that QuickTime has to clear is that it isn't a nicely bundled solution of video creation management and security," said Jones. "They don't have some of the content management and DRM capabilities that Real and Microsoft have."


    Everyone else calls that a plus. No DRM, no security, less crap to deal with.

    On another note, someone was asking whether there was truly a greater demand for this than a Linux port of QT. Perhaps there is, but also, this could be a way to pave the road for video phones.

    --
    T Money
    World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
  16. Re:tired of proprietary formats, muddied waters by BlueGecko · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Apple also keeps confusing the issues with their claims that MPEG4 is somehow based on QuickTime; there is some historical relationship, but they are different.
    Last time I checked, they both share exactly the same container format. The difference is simply the default encoders they choose to use--and seeing as QuickTime can use the MPEG4 codecs, even that difference can be eliminated.
  17. Re:I just don't get it by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I completely agree. I recently bought a new phone for my Sprint service (after the old phone decided it didn't want to work anymore). The 19-year old at Radio Shack showed me his Sprint phone, with the color screen and talked about how cool it was. Although it was cool, I could not figure out why I would need a color screen, when the phone would spend about 90% of it's time closed and the other 10% of it's time pressed against my ear.


    Quicktime on a phone kind of reminds me of the new BMW 7-Series. Has anyone else seen the inside of this car? It has a new computer screen that controls every aspect of the car (audio, temperature, etc.) with a touch-sensitive, menu-driven screen. It's a neat idea, except for the fact that only an insane driver would mess with touch-screen menus at 70 miles per hour. This basic problem makes a $70,000 car about as useful as Quicktime on a phone.

  18. A name for this by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Funny
    I think this is a remarkable innovation. Just think - a person will be able to receive video and audio signals transmitted over radio waves within a few miles of a suitable transmitter.

    We could call this equipment a name that reflects its nature - perhaps "tele", from the Latin for "far", and "vision", reflecting the visual nature of the content transmitted. Visiontele. It has a nice ring to it.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  19. AT&T GPRS vs QT6 by scotty1024 · · Score: 3, Informative

    AT&T thinks they have this capability today in the US with their GSM based GPRS service. But as I see it AT&T has two challenges with customers using something like a QT6 player on a Tungsten via Bluetooth to watch movies. 1. Their GPRS network has still never delivered even 57,600 bits per second to me. 2. At $0.01 per 1024 bytes a two hour movie delivered via their network would cost me around $500 if they were capable of delivering 57600bps!

  20. Re:tired of proprietary formats, muddied waters by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Such as Apple's Quicktime?

    It can support MPEG4, MJPEG, and h.XXX out of the box, and has Ogg and MPEG2 components (for both encoding and decoding) and can decode MPEG1 without any special effort.

    What, exactly, is your problem? Quicktime, I believe, *is* documented. The only thorn is the Sorensen codec... which is just a codec, and not a container and not a platform.

  21. Argh. by xmutex · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Look, I want to make phone calls with my cell phone. I want to sometimes receive them.

    This is all. I don't want my cell phone to take pictures, play games, play QuickTime movies, launch surface to air missles, sing to me on lonely nights, do the jig, reminisce about the halcyon days of yore, and so on.

    All this whizz bang cell phone "technology" is obnoxious and a textboox example of feature creep.

    STOP THE MADNESS!

    --

    jack's bicycle is music to my ears
    1. Re:Argh. by superdan2k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I dunno...the abitily to launch surface-to-air missiles with a cellphone would be pretty groovy. (Obligatory USA PATRIOT Disclaimer: I am NOT advocating or planning any terrorist activities.)

      Actually, I'm of the opinion that extra features in a cellphone generally suck. I just cancelled my web access ($5/month) on my SprintPOS (er, PCS) phone because I never use it.

      Right now I want exactly TWO things from my cellphone: decent coverage area, and Bluetooth capabilities to I can use my iBook to surf from wherever and keep all my phone #s straight between my Palm, iBook, and cellphone (because I have so many floating around, I never remember them all).

      --
      blog |
  22. Yes, they are proprietary. Licensing $$$ by xiphmont · · Score: 3, Informative

    You'll need to license over a hundred actively defended patents to play in the MP4 kiddie pool.

    The standard is well and publicly specced, and this is indeed a much better thing than it being secret. But you're required to pay money even for the right to build your own from scratch.

    Monty

  23. Incredibly misleading headline. by robla · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The headline should be "3GPP support to your cell phone", and it's not all that surprising, but it's very good news for everyone (including RealNetworks, where I'm from). We've been doing a lot of work in the 3GPP, and it's great to see that work paying dividends. If you really want to find out what this stuff is about, look at the spec (and yes, I hate the fact that these are Word docs in zipfiles as much as anyone).

    Much of the confusion around this subject comes from a lack of understanding of the difference between .mov, .mp4, and .3gp. DoCoMo's announcement was good news for 3GPP, and given the support throughout the Helix platform for 3GPP formats, codecs, and protocols, we view it as great news for the Helix Community.

    As another poster pointed out, only a piece of 3GPP is based on Quicktime is the container file format itself (the bit that says "here's a 3000 byte chunk of data with this 32bit codec identifier"). Another piece (the protocol) is based on work RealNetworks pioneered (RTSP). Moreover, the Helix DNA Client supports the 3GPP specification today.

    RealNetworks added MPEG-4 and 3GPP support 10 months ago with the RealSystem Mobile Server (see press release),
    and MPEG-4 support will be included in the Helix DNA Server when it is released in the near future.

    As for the speculation about Apple releasing 3GPP encoding support, we would welcome them to the party. In early November we announced that a version of our Producer product for creating 3GPP content will ship in Q1 of 03. (see press release) Moreover, we offer our encoding framework as open source (and naturally open APIs) so that you can add support for whatever format you want to. We've given you a head start by implementing Ogg Vorbis support.

    Again, the new phones sound great. Lots of new devices for Helix encoders and servers to work with.