Open Source VLC Media Player Coming To iPad

Stoobalou writes "The people behind VLC, quite probably the most useful media player available right now, have submitted an iPod version to the Apple software police. VLC — which is rightfully famous for having a go at playing just about any kind of audio or video file you care to throw at it — should appear some time next week, if it makes it through the often unfathomable approval process implemented by Apple. The Open Source Video Lan Client has been tweaked to run on the iPod by software developer Applidium."

Comments

GPL Violation?

[omnichad]

I was under the impression you couldn't release the full source code of an iOS app without open-sourcing the iOS libraries.

Re:GPL Violation?

[Wumpus]

You can release the source code. You just can't distribute the binary, since you can't satisfy the conditions of the GPL and of the statically linked platform libraries.

Although there is an exception in the GPL to allow linking to libraries that are part of the OS, or are normally distributed with it. Things like the standard C runtime library fall under that. Maybe this applies here.

Re:GPL Violation?

[Anonymous Coward]

What? You mean like how I can't release a windows app as GPL without open sourcing Windows?

Re:GPL Violation?

[DdJ]

To add to what others have already mentioned, I'll point out that VLC is very specifically GPLv2, not GPLv3. Version 2 did not have the "anti TiVoization" stuff that version 3 has. The restrictions on what you can do really are different.

Re:GPL Violation?

[omnichad]

If Windows required the binary to have DRM, maybe....

Re:GPL Violation?

[DdJ]

Heh, anyone who's been around long enough should be very aware of those exception clauses. The GPL, Emacs, and GCC all predate glibc and Linux by a lot. Back in the day when I wanted to run GPLed software, I had to run it on a SunOS (the name "Solaris" hadn't been invented yet) or Ultrix or AOS system using the vendor's C library (and often compiler). The GPL does not "infect" the whole "stack" from kernel to system libraries to universally included frameworks.

Re:GPL Violation?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm trying to figure out why they haven't released the code yet. It is touted as "open source", why not let those of us that are iPhone Developers install it today, instead of waiting for Apple to approve it?

When Firefox Home was being developed, they released the code so I was able to use it weeks (or months) before it was submitted and available on the AppStore.

Re:GPL Violation?

[DdJ]

Waiting until Apple can give feedback on it, as long as the wait is not too long, is a way to demonstrate to Apple that you're acting in good faith and attempting to comply with their policies and processes. It shows that if Apple finds a minor fault with the app and requests something be changed, they're willing to wait to incorporate those changes before letting non-compliant versions get "out into the wild".

The wait may not be necessary, but it's certainly a decent idea for someone who wants to work with Apple instead of adopting a "fight the power!" attitude. It's a show of respect. And the gesture probably does appreciably increase the odds that it'll get approved.

Re:GPL Violation?

[Myopic]

Awesome! How many bytes of RAM did you have on your abacus?

(joke only! mad respect!)

Re:GPL Violation?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are wrong. I heard that was true in the beginning, but not for a long time. There was a discussion about GPL on the iPhone here on slashdot before, search for "xpilot", and the consensus was that there are no problems with releasing a GPL app for it. Anyway xpilot is on the Appstore, is GPL and the source code is available.
Applidium doesn't have to release the source before they distribute the app, so you can get worked up about the little details once that happens. I assume that there is going to be the usual round of complaints about minor things that always happens here when a GPL app is released on a controlled platform. See xpilot, iD games (with DosBox) on Steam, etc.

Re:GPL Violation?

[Anonymous Coward]

backwards? More like 100% wrong. Apple has no such requirements. If you own the source code, you can do whatever you want with it, including licensing it under multiple licenses. The individual who ported GNU Go to the iPhone did not own the source code and the FSF has an opinion on what exactly can (and can't) be done with their source code.

Re:GPL Violation?

[DdJ]

I'm not sure you've read the developer agreement closely enough. You're allowed to do open source, explicitly. Download the latest version of the agreement right now, and look at section 3.3.20. Right there it says essentially "using FOSS is completely okay, as long as you can follow all the rules in this document and all the rules in the applicable FOSS license at the same time".

The FSF certainly says that the app store is incompatible with the GPL. They also say people should never use GPLv2, just GPLv3. The GPLv3 has an anti-TiVoization clause. Heck, read it in the FSF's own words right here:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html

Focus on the sixth paragraph. That makes the GPLv3 incompatible with the App Store (or with appliances like the TiVo) in ways that simply do not apply to the GPLv2.

(I researched this a bunch while kicking around the idea of taking the last version of Emacs that was under GPLv2 instead of GPLv3 and porting that to the iPad. I ultimately decided against it, but not for reasons of license compatibility.)

Re:GPL Violation?

[tlhIngan]

OK. Maybe I've said this a little bit backwards. To put your app in the app store, you have to agree not to release your source code. That's not GPL violation, but iTunes Developer Agreement violation. As far as I know, Applidium haven't actually released the source code for this modification under GPL yet. Apple might be violating the GPL if they distributed it without providing the source code themselves, to. Apple rejected Gnu GO likely for this reason, and the FSF also say that Apple's app store is incompatible with the GPL, though I don't remember why.

No, open-source apps have been in the App Store for a long while now. I think it was a yeaf after the App Store opened up that Apple relaxed the policies regarding licensing. Thus, open source apps are allowed, provided:

1) You are allowed to distribute it
2) You follow all the requirements of the original license
3) You do not use it in any way that would force Apple's software to be open-sourced.

Most of the open-source stuff I see is that there's a link in the app description to the web site of the developer, and there is the source code for the app. In a more ideal world, there would be a way for the tools to bundle in the source code into the IPA file, so downloading the app downloads the source code as well. (An IPA file is just a regular ZIP file). Knowing the format, iTunes can actually strip out the source code so you're not stuck transfering useless stuff to your device.

GNU Go was a different problem. Someone ported it to iOS, but didn't release source. FSF alerted Apple to the license violation, and Apple removed the app for violating the license and developer agreement.

The App Store is a tricky place. The FSF holds the position it's GPL incompatible because it's Apple that's distributing the software, not the developer. Apple is maintaining their position on the App Store is it's a marketplace, i.e., a store, and while it's facilitating transactions between customer and developer, and it's hosting the content on behalf of the developer. (The difference is subtle - say you provide a binary of a GPL program. You upload the binary onto your webhost. Is your webhost now distributing the binary (which means they need to do the distribution of source and 3 year requirement), or just hosting hte binary (and you the developer are responsible for pointing to the source).

Re:GPL Violation?

[toriver]

The developer CAN distribute the app, but it is more convoluted: The "ad hoc" distribution profile can target up to 100 devices, and the developer needs to know the device id for all of those. In effect it is just practical inside a company or between friends. (For large companies there are other ways as well).

For an example of an OSS library for iOS, look at KissXML, which is a close-ish "API-port" of MacOS NSXML released under the Apache license if I remember correctly.

Re:GPL Violation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why didn't you want emacs on an iPad? I can think of no other device in its size range that would be better suited for editing text.

Re:GPL Violation?

[DdJ]

A few reasons I didn't go forward with it:

1) Even though I'm pretty sure the GPLv2 and App Store are compatible, I'm also pretty sure the FSF would raise a stink and I wouldn't have the resources to fight, and thus Apple would end up removing it from the store anyway, and

2) In order to get the full behavior I'd want with a bluetooth or USB keyboard, at this time I would have to use undocumented APIs, which would piss off Apple. An example of what I mean: I wouldn't be able to get the control keybindings to work properly without using undocumented APIs. And without correct keyboard behavior... what's the point?

3) In order to comply with the "users can't download interpreted code to the thing", I'd have to keep people from loading elisp on to it. But elisp files in Emacs aren't some special magic thing, they're just files. How could one absolutely prevent people from downloading elisp? By preventing network access and (most) file transfers. What's the point?

(In the end, #2 was the biggest reason. If the keyboard APIs open up a bit more, I'll re-evaluate.)

Re:GPL Violation?

[coolsnowmen]

I have a problem, I answer rhetorical questions even though I know they are.
My abacus is can represent 13 decimal digits. The binary number required to do that is 44 bits. So my abacus is can store about 5 1/2 bytes.

Re:GPL Violation?

[WNight]

Waiting until Apple can give feedback on it, as long as the wait is not too long, is a way to demonstrate to Apple that you're acting in good faith and attempting to comply with their policies and processes. It shows that if Apple finds a minor fault with the app and requests something be changed, they're willing to wait to incorporate those changes before letting non-compliant versions get "out into the wild".

What a toadying and servile response. It's open source, what the fuck business do they have saying they support it if they're trying to quash non-approved changes.

This is the state of Apple developers though, always sucking up and rationalizing away every cruel thing Apple does, as their world revolves so entirely around it.

Being a dick with your API, and refusing to let someone into your app store on technicalities certainly counts, is one of Microsoft's signature moves. Way to go Jobs, think just like the other shithead monopolist.

Re:GPL Violation?

[ceoyoyo]

Just like you can't release the source code to a Windows app without open sourcing the Windows API, right?

Re:GPL Violation?

[CharlyFoxtrot]

We also already have VIM so there's really no need for another text editor. *ducks*

Re:GPL Violation?

[DdJ]

And thus we have a demonstration of that "fight the power!" attitude I mentioned.

They do support some FOSS, quite explicitly, and their agreements have been revised specifically to make this clear. There's plenty of FOSS in the app store right now, like the Wordpress and Redmine client applications.

But it's also still a curated platform, and Apple will maintain absolute and unflinching control over the end-user experience, period. There is no pretense or duplicity on this point. Anyone who's not comfortable with that fact ought to stay away from the platform.

This is not a contradiction, and it's not arbitrary "cruelty", and being willing to work within this framework isn't "servile". People who don't understand the value of a curated platform won't "get it". Even people who do understand the value of a curated platform, but who consider it a no-brainer that absolute end-user freedom must always trump that value, those people also won't "get it". But there really is plenty of room for reasonable compromise and respectful interactions, for a lot of folks who don't match those descriptions.

Re:GPL Violation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now you're just assuming it's an 8 bit architecture. Things were weird in ye olden days, many abacus were 64 or 128 bit.

Re:GPL Violation?

[Type44Q]

I have a problem, I answer rhetorical questions even though I know they are. My abacus is can represent 13 decimal digits. The binary number required to do that is 44 bits. So my abacus is can store about 5 1/2 bytes.

OCD andAspergers?! :P

Re:GPL Violation?

[Kalriath]

Because the iPad already has an operating system, it doesn't need another...

Re:GPL Violation?

[node 3]

It's called "cooperation". Whats so wrong about that?

Applidium has other apps on the App Store, and thus have a relationship with Apple. I'm not sure exactly what you think that sticking it to Apple has to gain for them. Even if this were some lone developer with no other app and no desire to ship any other app, I don't see what starting out from a non-cooperative position is meant to accomplish.

Re:GPL Violation?

[rtb61]

let's be honest, the reality is it has a whole lot less to do with the FOSS that makes up the VLC player and everything to do with a free player VLC that is superior to the quick time player and it's profitable pro variant and how that all feeds into iTunes which leads to of course iPod, iPhone and IPad and the Apple content distribution tax on their hardware.

Question can you get quick time alternative http://www.free-codecs.com/download/quicktime_alternative.htm at the apple store ;)?

Re:GPL Violation?

[WNight]

And thus we have a demonstration of that "fight the power!" attitude I mentioned.

Do I get points if I called "Pretentious Dweeb" earlier in the evening? Or do I just score you under the bonus section?

But it's also still a curated platform, and Apple will maintain absolute and unflinching control over the end-user experience, period. There is no pretense or duplicity on this point. Anyone who's not comfortable with that fact ought to stay away from the platform.

Yeah, they're pretty clear about that.

They do support some FOSS, quite explicitly, and their agreements have been revised specifically to make this clear.

They support the bare minimum to qualify for the GPLv2 through the tivo-loophole. But that's not very open, and Apple shouldn't be calling themselves open-source friendly when their only concession is not refusing apps whose source has been published.

This is not a contradiction, and it's not arbitrary "cruelty",

Of course it's not arbitrary, like everything they do to their users it's to make them money. It's still a series of arbitrary restriction to the user, which amount to cruelty because they're intentional crippling of the device. Apple is going to more work to provide a lesser product simply because the user is more easily monetized.

And yes, it's a contradiction to open source. If you support open source you support the user doing what they want with their software. I am told that iPhone users can't even create applications for their own use, or modify open source, without paying to become developers or jailbreaking and pirating the tools. (Or is this incorrect?)

and being willing to work within this framework isn't "servile".

Yeah, it is. You just think it's worth it.

Re:GPL Violation?

[WNight]

What's sticking it to Apple about releasing open source in a "non certified" state? That's the whole point of open source, that users can choose how it works.

If Apple thinks they can exert control here they aren't really open source compatible except via the tivo-loophole and they need to be more honest about it.

And yeah, it's called "cooperation" in those air-quotes because it goes one way only. You sit and wait while Apple does who the hell knows what, leaves you hanging, and you "cooperate" by not discussing the issue on your blog where it might make them look bad.

Re:GPL Violation?

[Anonymous Coward]

www.milanmall.com wholesale online ipod ,iphone4, and other replica designer handbags purses

Re:GPL Violation?

[oiron]

You do mean beads of RAM, don't you?

Re:GPL Violation?

[node 3]

What's sticking it to Apple about releasing open source in a "non certified" state? That's the whole point of open source, that users can choose how it works.

You're just being deliberately confrontational here. When you go in with the attitude, "hey, fuck you, I'll do whatever the hell I want", you're not starting off with a very cooperative attitude is all I'm saying. It's Apple's store, if you're asking them to sell your product, walking in with your middle finger in the air isn't the most rational way of getting things off the ground.

If Apple thinks they can exert control here they aren't really open source compatible except via the tivo-loophole and they need to be more honest about it.

GPL != open source, it's just one license. Apple is very open source compatible. The core of their OS is open source. WebKit, and literally dozens of other things are open source at Apple.

Their App Store also supports the inclusion of open source software. The GPL, for all its benefits, is notoriously non-compatible. It's not even compatible with other open source licenses. You can't say that Apple isn't compatible with open source just because it's not compatible with the GPL (an unclear statement itself, but let's go ahead and assume it for the moment). BSD isn't compatible with the GPL. In fact, very few open source licenses are compatible with the GPL.

And yeah, it's called "cooperation" in those air-quotes because it goes one way only. You sit and wait while Apple does who the hell knows what, leaves you hanging, and you "cooperate" by not discussing the issue on your blog where it might make them look bad.

I don't know what you're talking about here. Appidium is discussing it right now. But going in with a "fuck you, I'll do what I want" attitude, while your right, isn't starting things off on the right foot.

Re:GPL Violation?

[darteaga]

Apple retired a GPLv2 application from the app store at, because the FSF was asking Apple to comply with the GPLv2:

http://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance

So I guess that this means that both Apple and the FSF Foundation agree that the app store terms are not compatible with GPLv2. As detailed in

http://www.fsf.org/news/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement

the key point seems to be that GPL explicitly says:

"You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.",

and the app store agreements impose further restrictions.

Re:GPL Violation?

[someone1234]

The only way is dual licensing.

Re:GPL Violation?

[DdJ]

Hm, but there's definitely GPLv2 stuff in there. Apple doesn't necessarily agree with the FSF -- they'll err on the side of agreeing with the copyright owner, they don't have a history of fighting 'em.

Re:GPL Violation?

[DdJ]

I went and re-read the details, and I don't actually agree that the FSF's interpretation is unambiguously correct (and I'm sure Apple doesn't either, but will remove FSF-originated apps upon request anyway). If it is, the anti-TiVoizaton clauses in GPLv3 weren't necessary, and the TiVo is already infringing!

In the iOS case, those restrictions they're talking about from the app store terms of service are (arguably) in practice not applicable.

The GPL guarantees you access to the source code. All sorts of embedded devices contain GPLed code, and distribute it, but hinder the ability to change that code on those embedded devices (in some cases via code signing, in some cases by burning the binaries to silicon, etc). But you can modify and run the modified code in other environments. That applies here! Anyone can obtain the iOS dev kit, including the emulator, and build the app targeting that and do whatever. If folks have a developer's membership, they can deploy it on real hardware. Yeah, that costs money and requires tools, but the same is true for the PROM burner required to modify code on some embedded devices.

I can really see an argument that that's sufficient -- anyone who gets the app can get a version that's not subject to all those restrictions, they just can't necessarily deploy it on an iPhone (which is really pretty analogous to the TiVo situation) without additional tools (which is analogous to all sorts of embedded situations).

And, I'm sure that Apple won't remove GPLv2 apps from the app store unless the upstream copyright-owner issues a takedown request (which we now know for sure the FSF will do even for GPLv2 stuff, thanks for that cite). There's GPLv2 stuff in the store! Have the upstream VLC maintainers issued a statement on this? If they're cool with the iPad app, I bet it'll all be fine. If they're not, well, a takedown request will probably be coming if it's approved.

Re:GPL Violation?

[Anonymous Coward]

and being willing to work within this framework isn't "servile".

Really? Because everything about your post, and an awful lot of Apple culture in general, reeks of servility

Re:GPL Violation?

[Raenex]

You're arguing from a very high-level, interpretive point of view, but that's not the way legal documents work. In doing so, you have mixed up TiVo (a hardware issue) with Apple's Terms of Service (legalize added by Apple which impose further restrictions). The latter is explicitly forbidden by GPLv2. The former is a loophole based on impracticality of modifying the software on the end-user device, which GPLv2 does not address at all.

Re:GPL Violation?

[freezin fat guy]

This is not a contradiction, and it's not arbitrary "cruelty", and being willing to work within this framework isn't "servile".

Happliy choosing to operate under another's absolute dictation and control is often useful, but it is still servile. That doesn't mean it's a bad thing, but it is what it is.

Re:GPL Violation?

[Raenex]

Hm, but there's definitely GPLv2 stuff in there.

Only the copyright holders have the legal standing to prevent Apple from violating GPLv2. In the case of Gnu Go, FSF holds the copyright. Nothing prevents a copyright holder from violating his own license.

Apple doesn't necessarily agree with the FSF

Maybe not, but the issue over Apple's Terms of Service seems pretty clear. Additional restrictions are explicitly disallowed.

Re:GPL Violation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not funny.

Re:GPL Violation?

[WNight]

You're just being deliberately confrontational here. When you go in with the attitude, "hey, fuck you, I'll do whatever the hell I want", you're not starting off with a very cooperative attitude is all I'm saying. It's Apple's store, if you're asking them to sell your product, walking in with your middle finger in the air isn't the most rational way of getting things off the ground.

No, you're just assuming that anyone not doing exactly what Apple wants is confrontational - not perhaps that they were doing their own thing and now Apple is trying to force THEM to change.

Open source, by definition, is about the user having the source, and excepting the Apple/Tivo bastardization, about the user about able to build that source to do whatever they want.

If the manufacturer is trying to tell you how the open source must be configured they clearly don't understand the open part of open source.

GPL != open source, it's just one license. Apple is very open source compatible. The core of their OS is open source. WebKit, and literally dozens of other things are open source at Apple.

Yeah, Apple is VERY open source. They'll use whatever is out there, but they'll tivoize your device to make sure you can't. Very open of them.

And Apple's main concession to allowing open source is not rejecting projects whose source is open. They don't have to do anything to support the BSDL, for example, so it's a gimmie. The only ones they'd have to be compatible with are the GPL, for example, and there they are only through a loophole. They certainly aren't GPLv3 compatible.

The GPL, for all its benefits, is notoriously non-compatible. It's not even compatible with other open source licenses. You can't say that Apple isn't compatible with open source just because it's not compatible with the GPL (an unclear statement itself, but let's go ahead and assume it for the moment). BSD isn't compatible with the GPL. In fact, very few open source licenses are compatible with the GPL.

OMG, it's the license's fault. Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize. We'll just go get a license that doesn't try to guarantee user freedom then. Sorry for all the fuss, Guv.

BSD isn't compatible with the GPL.

Let's come back to that for a sec though... the new (non-attribution) BSDL is actually totally compatible with the GPL. One of the many fine things you can do with BSDL code is re-license it under the shiny new AGPLv3.

I don't know what you're talking about here. Appidium is discussing it right now. But going in with a "fuck you, I'll do what I want" attitude, while your right, isn't starting things off on the right foot.

No, it's fake cooperation, because in a real cooperative process you don't need permission to build open source software.

And I'm not sure how you're hearing "I'm going to do the UI like this" as "FUCK YOU MOM! FUCK YOU DAD! I'M TAKING THE CAR!". It's not like you're mandating they adopt a new UI or anything.

It's simply that it's open source. In any sane world the decision is yours. Waiting for Apple to authorize your choices in the software you build for yourself and to distribute to friends is servile. If they were your employer you'd do this. Why otherwise?

Why can't they cooperate without air quotes?

Re:GPL Violation?

[dataminator]

A few reasons I didn't go forward with it:

2) In order to get the full behavior I'd want with a bluetooth or USB keyboard, at this time I would have to use undocumented APIs, which would piss off Apple. An example of what I mean: I wouldn't be able to get the control keybindings to work properly without using undocumented APIs. And without correct keyboard behavior... what's the point?

USB keyboard? I thought you had finally found the ultimate use of multi-touch on the iPad.

C-xC-s, C-xC-c

Quicktime?

[$RANDOMLUSER]

As VLC also plays Quicktime formats, it'll be interesting to see if Apple allows a competitor.

Re:Quicktime?

[The MAZZTer]

Who said they included that functionality? I assume there are QuickTime API calls on iPad already, they can just use those... VLC for PC includes QuickTime codecs for PCs since who knows if the users are going to have QuickTime installed (and AFAIK there's no Linux QuickTime). Wouldn't have that problem on the iPad, right?

Re:Quicktime?

[commodore64_love]

They allowed the Opera Mini browser, even though it directly competes with (and is ~5 times faster than) Apple's Safari browser. So I'm betting Apple will approve VLC too. - If they do reject it the reason will be something else - like ability to hack into iPad internals (same reason the C64emultator was rejected from iStore) rather than because of fear of competition.

offtopic:

Why isn't SeaMonkey listed on the EU's browser choice screen? I like its old Netscape style. :-|

Re:Quicktime?

[jonbryce]

The answer to your offtopic question is that they include one browser from each vendor, and firefox is the offering they include form the Mozilla Foundation.

Re:Quicktime?

[samkass]

Now that Apple publishes their app acceptance criteria, we can look this one up:

9.1 Apps that do not use the MediaPlayer framework to access media in the Music Library will be rejected

Oh well.

Re:Quicktime?

[leuk_he]

This just means VLC cannot play music form the music library. music outside the music library is no problem....
But then, if apple thinks different you still have a problem, not apple.

Re:Quicktime?

[omnichad]

c64emulator was rejected because it can run interpreted code, not because of low-level access to iPad hardware.

Re:Quicktime?

[commodore64_love]

But seamonkey is no longer part of Mozilla. They are a separate company called SeaMonkey Council, and should be allowed to submit their own product to the EU. ----- And if the argument is: "FF and SM use the same mozilla base," that is not valid either. There are two Webkit browsers on the EU ballot.

Back to topic:

I don't expect Apple to reject VLC. If they do it will make them look like hypocrites.

.

Re:Quicktime?

[AltairDusk]

Unless they changed this with iphone os 4 (the three letter IOS will always apply to Cisco devices in my mind regardless of capitalization) there is no file system access on the iphone. If VLC can't access the library due to Apple restrictions you would have to get music/videos on the phone through VLC itself (since the sandboxing prevents it from accessing other apps data).

Re:Quicktime?

[c6gunner]

So I'm betting Apple will approve VLC too. - If they do reject it the reason will be something else - like ...

... the ability to play Flash?

Re:Quicktime?

[VGPowerlord]

But seamonkey is no longer part of Mozilla. They are a separate company called SeaMonkey Council, and should be allowed to submit their own product to the EU. ----- And if the argument is: "FF and SM use the same mozilla base," that is not valid either. There are two Webkit browsers on the EU ballot.

"SeaMonkey and the SeaMonkey logo are registered trademarks of the Mozilla Foundation."

So, it's led by a different group... but is still a product of the Mozilla Foundation according to its own website.

Re:Quicktime?

[Guspaz]

VLC can *display* Flash videos, it can't *run* Flash videos. That's still handled by Adobe software, much in the same way that Media Player Classic (the original, anyhow) doesn't decode XviD videos; it extracts the video data from the file, passes it on to the codec, lets the codec decode it, and then displays the result.

Re:Quicktime?

[Guspaz]

iTunes allows you to copy arbitrary data to your iDevice for a specific application. I believe this is how some eBook readers get their content from PCs.

Besides, this doesn't really matter anyhow; the primary reason to use VLC is to play media that the existing iPod software won't play. If the iPod software won't play it, then iTunes won't let you upload it to the iDevice in the first place.

In other words, I couldn't put an MKV file in my media library even if Apple didn't have this restriction, for technical reasons.

Anyhow, the MediaPlayer framework lets you pass in raw data; there's no particular reason why VLC couldn't pass an h.264 video stream extracted from an MKV file to the MediaPlayer framework. The only issue would be playing content that doesn't adhere to the standards supported by the hardware.

Re:Quicktime?

[machxor]

I dunno, it's pretty vague (most of the guidelines are).

Why say "media" if it only applies to music?

What does "access" mean? Open a stream to and then decode in your application? Or actually decode through the MediaPlayer framework (ie: no non-Apple supplied codecs).

Overall reading through those guidelines were a waste of time for me. Most of them were common sense and the rest were so vague and subjective (I think that was the intention though).

Re:Quicktime?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention iTunes.

Granted, iTunes isn't much competition for VLC.

As an aside, are there any plans to port VLC to the iPhone? That would make the iPhone actually usable.

Re:Quicktime?

[Anonymous Coward]

(the three letter IOS will always apply to Cisco devices in my mind regardless of capitalization)

Why do you nerds get so worked up over stupid shit like this? Cisco gave them a license to use the iOS name so if they don't care why do you?

Re:Quicktime?

[AltairDusk]

You act like I'm angry about it, which is certainly not the case. When I hear someone say IOS (or iOS or ios, they all sound the same spoken) the first thing that comes to mind is Cisco IOS. Since I don't naturally associate it with Apple's OS I just call it iphone OS to remove the ambiguity. I noted what I did in parentheses because I figured the grammar/spelling nazi's would pounce on it otherwise.

Re:Quicktime?

[AltairDusk]

Interesting, they must have added that since I had a 3gs. Guess I learned something today.

Re:Quicktime?

[clone53421]

VLC for PC includes QuickTime codecs for PCs since Apple’s QuickTime codecs for PCs suck.

FTFY.

And when I say they suck, I mean they are buggy and full of security holes.

Re:Quicktime?

[toriver]

So what does the current C64 "looks like an emulator" app do? Have they re-implemented the games in Objective-C using CoreGraphics/CoreAnimation?

Re:Quicktime?

[omnichad]

The rejected version had a BASIC interpreter. You could type in code and run it in-app. That's what Apple didn't like.

Re:Quicktime?

[toriver]

Plenty of file system access, but each app lives in its own closed little world in that regard: You cannot access another app's file system with some very specific exceptions.

Re:Quicktime?

[Henriok]

Not a problem. VLC can use the MediaPlayer framework to play stuff in the Music and Video Libraries. Fine. And use whatever codecs of their own in their own library or streamed from the net. There's precedence here, like Spotify that plays locally stored and streamed OGG/Vorbis.

Re:Quicktime?

[unix1]

Opera Mini is not a "normal" web browser. It renders mostly static web pages that are encoded in a custom format going through and translated and compressed by Opera's proxy servers. In functionality, it is similar to BlackBerry's standard (not the new webkit) web browser but arguably a bit "better."

It still doesn't sound like Apple would allow any real alternative web browsers through its app store.

Re:Quicktime?

[Guspaz]

I believe it was added for the iPad, since it wouldn't be a very useful word processor if you didn't have some way of getting files onto and off of the device. The same thing was added to the iPhone.

This Apple document has some pictures of the process:

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4088

Re:Quicktime?

[netsharc]

But, the "upload file to device" tool doesn't care what file you're trying to upload or if iTunes can open it. That's why you can e.g. upload an Excel file for some 3rd party Excel-clone to display.. iTunes certainly can't open Excel files...

Re:Quicktime?

[DdJ]

You cannot access another app's file system with some very specific exceptions.

But one of those exceptions is very very relevant for VLC.

An app can register with the system to be a "handler" for files of a certain type. Then when all sorts of things try to present a file of that type, they can get an "Open in..." button that tells the OS to ship a copy of the file to the app in question so it can be handled.

What's this mean?

Well, it means for example that if VLC can play Theora videos, you'd suddenly be able to tap on links to Theora videos in Safari and get an "Open in VLC" option, or tap on a Theora video that's a mail attachment in the mail app and get the same thing. Kinda a big deal IMO.

If you want to see an example of this infrastructure right now, install "Stanza". It "handles" EPUB files. Once you've got it loaded, you can go to a web site like Project Gutenberg or the Baen free library that has DRM-free EPUB file download links, and tap on them, and see an "open in Stanza" option.

Re:Quicktime?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be keen to see VLC on the PS3.

Re:Quicktime?

[farble1670]

are you implying that it'd be okay to play quicktime as long as it used the native QT libs?

i think the no-competition clause is at the app level. that is, you can't get google maps on iOS because there's already a built-in maps app. it doesn't matter if the google maps app used the underlying iOS map services, it's that the google maps app duplicates the stock map app's functionality.

i don't know enough to say if they'd consider it duplicated functionality. my first though it yes, because a large number of people will use this app to play movies instead of itunes. on the other hand, i really doubt the authors went through the probably arduous porting process without some degree of certainty that their app will be approved.

Re:Quicktime?

[mattcasters]

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against the parent poster. However, ... every mf time I see that answer it pisses me off like you wouldn't believe. Am I the only one that finds it completely ridiculous and an insult to everyones intelligence that Apple calls C64 Basic a real programming language in this day and age? The only possible realistic usage is for hobby purposes. WTF! What a waste!

Re:Quicktime?

[omnichad]

It's silly but they ABSOLUTELY don't want to let anyone run any piece of software at all without it going through the app store process, and I suppose that even includes hand-typed BASIC. That is, unless it's on a web page using HTML/Javascript.

Re:Quicktime?

[Lehk228]

the market for phone games would be a lot harder to monetize if anyone with the ability to program BASIC games could deliver games to the iPad.

their business model includes charging at the gates of their walled garden and you don't understand why they would be unhappy with a tunnel under the wall?

Re:Quicktime?

[Lehk228]

I own a Bold 9700 and tried opera mini, it is certainly not "better" than the old integrated browser (i have not tried the new webkit browser)

unless you mean better at being crap

Re:Quicktime?

[mattcasters]

Well, it works on my Android box and I had fun trying commands like "POKE 53281,0". It's pure nostalgia. Why would they even want to deny anyone that experience?

Mmmpf, it would be interesting to see if this one worked: http://www.kingsquare.nl/jsc64 A JavaScript C64 emulator. I mean, what's the point. The instance you try to block something, people are going to look for ways around it. If that's too much of a hassle, they go elsewhere. I don't get the logic behind it on behalf of Apple.

Re:Quicktime?

[Confusador]

But then, if apple thinks different you still have a problem...

I see what you did there.

Re:Quicktime?

[jedidiah]

> http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4088

It would be much more simple and civilized if you neither needed iTunes nor iWork.

Re:Quicktime?

[c6gunner]

VLC can *display* Flash videos, it can't *run* Flash videos. That's still handled by Adobe software, much in the same way that Media Player Classic (the original, anyhow) doesn't decode XviD videos

I'd never heard such a claim before, so I went and checked - VLC running on a brand new installation of Linux plays .flv files without difficulty, without needing to have flash installed. Ergo, I would say that you are misinformed.

Re:Quicktime?

[unix1]

That's why I said "arguably." In either case, the point is not which one is better; I used BB browser merely to draw a parallel in functionality.

The point is Apple still doesn't allow 3rd party real web browsers that would be comparable to the default iOS webkit browser. And Opera Mini is not an example of this.

Re:Quicktime?

[ceoyoyo]

You don't need iWork. It works with any app that supports it.

As for iTunes, simple, maybe. Civilized... possibly. Apple originally suggested there would be a common document area all apps could access with 4.0, but later backed off on it and came up with the app-specific transfer mechanism and an app-to-app transfer method. It does involve quite a bit of hassle - apps would have to be able to recognize their own files and you'd need some sort of file management right on the phone. Also, with multitasking, file locking etc.

Re:Quicktime?

[cusco]

When has hypocrisy ever stopped Apple from doing anything before?

Re:Quicktime?

[omnichad]

Pulled up my iPhone Simulator on OS X. Let's just say it sort of works. There's no way to pull up the on-screen keyboard without tapping on an input. Of course the whole canvas of the C64 screen doesn't count. There is an input box next to this to "focus" the cursor, but it zooms and scrolls so that you can't see the screen.
 
I was able to load up a few programs, and also to type a character or two and see the C64 code respond to it. But it was incredibly frustrating without an always available keyboard. I managed to type in some BASIC code and get it to run:

10 PRINT 5

RUN

5

READY

Re:Quicktime?

[omnichad]

Correction - iphone screen was too small to see the input and C64 screen at once. I used the iPad Simulator for the rest of this. And I also simulated having a bluetooth keyboard connected. Even with all that, I couldn't type whenever I wanted to.

Re:Quicktime?

[commodore64_love]

>>>the market for phone games would be a lot harder to monetize if anyone with the ability to program BASIC games could deliver games to the iPad's [C64emulator app]

Again: Silly reasoning on Apple's part. You can't run BASIC games on a C64. I know. I've tried programming some, and they all ran horribly slow on the C64 1 megahertz processor. Like a DVD set on 10% slow-mo playback.

You can do a text adventure game using C= BASIC but that's about it. I have my doubts the few persons (3?) interested in playing a text version of "Drive In" would harm Apple's profit potential. Their excuse to remove BASIC functionality was pure bullshit and anal-retentiveness. Maybe they used to be MS employees.
.

Re:Quicktime?

[commodore64_love]

Well Opera certainly LOOKS better in this video. It's fast. It has tabs. It has speed dial.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvyl7aI70ik#t=65s

Re:Quicktime?

[Kalriath]

But seamonkey is no longer part of Mozilla. They are a separate company called SeaMonkey Council, and should be allowed to submit their own product to the EU. ----- And if the argument is: "FF and SM use the same mozilla base," that is not valid either. There are two Webkit browsers on the EU ballot.

Because there's already too many browser options on that screen. Microsoft doesn't want to make it any bigger than it is (and Microsoft controls that ballot, not the EC)

Re:Quicktime?

[node 3]

The reason behind this is to prevent remotely exploitable apps. With 250,000 third party apps, this helps keep inadvertent security issues off of the iPhone.

Sure, something like a BASIC interpreter doesn't seem like it's going to be much of a problem, but the simplest solution is for Apple to just outright disallow *all* interpreters, which is what they've done.

As for web-based interpreters, this isn't a "work around". Apple explicitly allows any javascript/html the user wishes to run. A web-based C64 emulator is not an end-run around Apple, it's doing it exactly the way Apple would prefer.

Re:Quicktime?

[node 3]

That's not even remotely accurate. Apple's business model is to make money on the hardware. The App Store exists to make the hardware more appealing, *not* as a direct profit source.

Re:Quicktime?

[node 3]

Since I don't naturally associate it with Apple's OS I just call it iphone OS to remove the ambiguity.

I doubt anyone here is going to think you are talking about Cisco's IOS here. Context removes ambiguity.

You used plenty of words with multiple definitions. Here are a few:

act
about
case
sound
first
mind
since
associate
Apple
noted

None of which were ambiguous, because of context.

Re:Quicktime?

[Smurf]

you can't get google maps on iOS because there's already a built-in maps app. it doesn't matter if the google maps app used the underlying iOS map services, it's that the google maps app duplicates the stock map app's functionality.

First, the "stock map app" itself uses Google Maps. Don't believe me? Look at the five-letter word at the lower left corner of the map screen here. That's why there is no Google Maps for iPhone, the Maps application itself is (at this time) Google maps.

But more to the point: How do you explain iPhone apps like MapQuest, Waze, and others, including those from GPS manufacturers, each of which provide their own mapping and driving directions technologies, clearly competing with the built-in maps app?

Re:Quicktime?

[commodore64_love]

>>>(and Microsoft controls that ballot, not the EC)

That's not correct. The EU judge's court order specifies which browsers will be listed, from most popular to the 12th most popular, and then randomized each time it's displayed. The order also specifies the list will be updated by the court every year.

Re:Quicktime?

[Guspaz]

It would seem so. I must have missed VLC merging in an opensource Flash solution.

Re:Quicktime?

[Guspaz]

That was my point; the lack of permission to play stuff from the iTunes library doesn't matter, because anything you probably want to play couldn't go through there anyhow.

Re:Quicktime?

[toriver]

Yeah I noticed that in Mail; a PDF attachment wanted to let me open it in either iBooks or Stanza, both of which had apparently registered for that content type...

Hey, it even seems easy to do: "To declare support for file types, your application must include the CFBundleDocumentTypes key in its Info.plist file. The system gathers this information from your application and maintains a registry that other applications can access through a document interaction controller."

Android

[fenring]

I was hoping for VLC for Android first, but I guess I could be happy for the IPhone owners.

Re:Android

[Anonymous Coward]

The RockPlayer app for Android has played every movie format I've tried it with so far, fwiw.

Re:Android

[denis-The-menace]

OT:
I'm holding out for an Android phone with a flash *and* picture quality as good as an iPhone. The Samsung Galaxy S is the closest but no flash and no image stabilization. VLC would be a must it it existed but I'll setting for a phone/MP3/Camera for now. I'm sick of nursing multiple batteries/chargers and SD cards.

I do not care to join the growing iPhone penile colony.

Re:Android

[korean.ian]

OT:
I'm holding out for an Android phone with a flash *and* picture quality as good as an iPhone. The Samsung Galaxy S is the closest but no flash and no image stabilization. VLC would be a must it it existed but I'll setting for a phone/MP3/Camera for now. I'm sick of nursing multiple batteries/chargers and SD cards.

I do not care to join the growing iPhone penile colony.

Are you ejaculating that Apple has erected a large user base of which you do not want to be a member?

Re:Android

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought only the captivate lacked a led flash. It does have image stabilization though. ( but the pictures pretty much suck). The Sony Erickson Xperia X10 has a pretty decent camera ... but Android 1.6. Supposedly that will be updated soon to 2.1 at least in Europe.

Re:Android

[denis-The-menace]

penal vs. penile: Damn you spellcheck!

I do not care or have time for the "Jail-breaking Game" just to get apps that I want. (e.g. tethering anyone?!)

BTW: Motorola is out with *there* androids, too. They want to create their own MotorolAndroid penal colony.

Re:Android

[denis-The-menace]

If operator would stop trying to control every f'n'thing things would be so much simpler.

Re:Android

[korean.ian]

I knew you meant penal, but the opportunity was too good to pass up. :) Although there is quite a large penile element to all-male (such as Slashdot) penal colonies...so you might not have been too far off the mark. heh heh.

Re:Android

[mattack2]

Damn you spellcheck! ...
BTW: Motorola is out with *there* androids, too.

You need grammar check, too.

Re:Android

[Mister Whirly]

Works just fine either way in this case...

Re:Android

[cynyr]

just get a point and shoot, or better yet, a DSLR if you want to take pictures. Avoid the fujifilm "fine pix Z70" like the plague. very very noisy photos.

Re:Android

[denis-The-menace]

Looks like you get the shaft either way:

http://techcrunch.com/2010/09/09/android-open/

Re:Android

[MunchMunch]

RockPlayer can't play OGM. It advertises being able to use embedded soft subtitles, but none have worked that I can find.

I also am a little sad that Apple's closed ecosystem gets VLC before Android.

It will probably fail.

[Zelgadiss]

This is plain as day, duplication of functionality.

Unless a Opera mini like miracle occurs.

Re:It will probably fail.

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, the built-in player doesn't have the "functionality" to play the same number of formats, but Apple won't call attention to that. VLC is committing the cardinal sin of competing with one of Apple's own apps; can't have that.

Custom mediaplayer on the appstore?

[TheGodxxxx]

I was actually under the impression that u could not release a media player that is not based on the stock one at the appstore because it would be count as replacing standard functionality. Has this changed or am I missinformed at all? Having VLC on iOS could be a dealbreaker for many people who don't buy a iPhone because of the lack of divx/xvid compatiblity.

Re:Custom mediaplayer on the appstore?

[Anonymous Coward]

there's a divx/xvid player already on the store. it's shit, but it was approved

http://itunes.apple.com/ca/app/id384098375?mt=8

Re:Custom mediaplayer on the appstore?

[grumpyman]

Currently there's yxplayer which works ok and another one (can't remember the name) doesn't work very well. I'd love to have VLC!!

Re:Custom mediaplayer on the appstore?

[jedidiah]

With a device like the iPad, hardware acceleration of video play back is simply not an option. It's absolutely necessary.

If you can't just "feed it to the GPU" then what you can do is going to be very limited.

I would be surprised if VLC can do much beyond offer an alternative UI to browse QT files.

Re:Custom mediaplayer on the appstore?

[Guspaz]

The iPad has a pretty capable processor. It can probably handle pretty much anything SD entirely in software, possibly even some 720p content with a very well written decoder.

Regardless, the hardware support doesn't care about the container format, so there's nothing stopping VLC from playing an MKV file with hardware acceleration (for video, at least), so long as the h.264 stream in the MKV container is compliant with the decoding restrictions. I imagine that it could then use overlays to display subtitles...

This would finally enable easy fansub playback on the iPhone.

Re:Custom mediaplayer on the appstore?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no reason for Apple to ever add DivX/Xvid compatibility to their products because there's no legal DivX/Xvid files anywhere. And if you're talking about CC or open licensed material, the authors can make standard H264 files available as well.

And don't give me that "H264 requires licensing" bullshit, because DivX/Xvid uses MPEG-4.

Re:Custom mediaplayer on the appstore?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it Apple day today? Just apple tags everywhere. But..
1. Google maps has several map applications already.
2. Safari has Opera mini.

Re:Custom mediaplayer on the appstore?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what came to my mind. The Divx player already got approved.

I guess a lot of the people bickering over Apple stuff don't actually own any Apple products.

Re:Custom mediaplayer on the appstore?

[jedidiah]

> The iPad has a pretty capable processor.

No. The iPad has a rather pathetic processor for 2010.

> It can probably handle pretty much anything SD entirely in software,

No it can't. Not even close.

Try your cult-of-Jobs propaganda to someone that hasn't already tried it.

Re:Custom mediaplayer on the appstore?

[jedidiah]

> There's no reason for Apple to ever add DivX/Xvid compatibility to their products because there's no legal DivX/Xvid files anywhere ...just like clockwork, here comes the "if it's not in Apple's in house format then it's pirated" nonsense.

The entire world (including CC authors) should not have to cater to a single monopoly-wannabe company.

The value of Divx is that it is not the most computationally expensive codec available. That helps during playback and transcoding.

Re:Custom mediaplayer on the appstore?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, no. The iPad has a 1GHz A8 CPU -- the N900 with only 600MHz A8 (stock) can decode scene XviD TV shows almost perfectly in software (using MPlayer),.and when overclocked to 1GHz it does play them flawlessly -- if the iPad can't match that performance it's either because Apple's OS consumes even more system resources than Maemo (which is basically a full desktop GNU/Linux stack, with dbus, xorg, the works) or because Apple's tweaks to get the ARM core running at 1 GHz cost it performance clock-for-clock vs. the core as licensed from ARM; neither of which seems particularly likely. And MPEG 2 (as on direct DVD rips and most ATSC streams) plays perfectly on the N900 even at the stock 600 MHz, so if that can't happen on an iPad, you're saying Apple pulled a Pentium 4 and kicked the clock speed up 67% while hurting total performance -- I don't like Apple any better than, well, pretty much any other Apple-hating geek, but that's just bullshit FUD.

What people like you don't seem to realize is that ARM, which started life as a better desktop machine than the competing x86es back in the day, has only gotten better, and with modern versions around the GHz marker, are comparable to x86 desktops from just a few years ago, and are quite competitive with modern low-power x86es (Atoms and the like) -- sure, the latest (and thus most computationally intensive and space-efficient) codecs won't run without dedicated hardware, but to think they can't do anything useful is to seriously underestimate them.

Re:Custom mediaplayer on the appstore?

[m50d]

Well, except you'd be subject to the other thing VLC is famous for - its poor-quality softsub rendering.

Re:Custom mediaplayer on the appstore?

[Guspaz]

No. The iPad has a rather pathetic processor for 2010.

It has a 1GHz (single core) Cortex A8. That's pretty much the fastest ARM processor shipping in a handheld device today; there were, if memory serves, a few devices running at 1.2GHz, but there aren't any devices shipping with the Cortex A9 yet. The iPad is still pretty close to the state of the art in handheld-class processors.

No it can't. Not even close.

It's a dual-issue in-order processor, with some decent vector extensions (NEON). It's got more than enough power to decode SD content in software, and I'll stand by my original statement; there's enough power available to do SD in software, but 720p is tricky (and unlikely, especially for anything beyond SP or ASP MPEG-4).

Try your cult-of-Jobs propaganda to someone that hasn't already tried it.

I'm a Windows user, you insensitive clod.

Re:Custom mediaplayer on the appstore?

[jedidiah]

> It has a 1GHz (single core) Cortex A8. That's pretty much the fastest ARM processor shipping in a handheld device today

Big deal. That makes it the tallest dwarf.

You use special purpose hardware for video decoding on a device like this.

The CPU simply isn't up to it.

Try your Cult-of-Jobs propaganda on someone that hasn't already tried it.

If you haven't actually tried it yourself then you are a clueless idiot regurgitating Apple fanboy propaganda.

Re:Custom mediaplayer on the appstore?

[jo_ham]

So, you got called on your bullshit and you try to reframe the argument?

The iPad certainly doesn't "[have a] rather pathetic processor for 2010" as you stated - it is pretty much state of the art. If you mean it doesn't have a Core i7 or something, then no, it doesn't. It's far from pathetic for 2010 though.

So, have you actually tried to use it to decode SD content in software, or are you just spouting unconfirmed speculation and regurgitating anti-Apple propaganda?

You missed something

[Sycraft-fu]

The iPad is just a large iPhone that can't make calls. It is not a general purpose computer. It runs the same general kind of CPU architecture as the iPhone (ARM) and uses the same OS. So it is a cut down, embedded type of device. Apps have to come from the Apple Store and so on.

Re:You missed something

[uncanny]

The iPad is just a large iPhone that can't make calls. .

ipod touch?

Re:You missed something

[MBGMorden]

For the regular version sure, but there still hasn't been a 3g iPod Touch that had net access without voice service.

Re:You missed something

[SpzToid]

Both the iPad and iPod touch can make calls via wifi (or via iPad 3g) using SIP compatible VOIP clients, to the best of my knowledge, (I've never used these apple products) Here's a nice review of iOS clients, and from a really neat site with its own tricked-out user friendly Asterisk PBX distribution called PBX-in-a-flash.

Re:You missed something

[Albanach]

The iPad is just a large iPhone that can't make calls. It is not a general purpose computer.

Did you just make up a new definition to suit your bias?

I think it's fair to say the iPad has at the very least a CPU, memory and I/O device.

It very clearly can be seen that it is capable of a wide variety of uses - web browsing, ereader, computer learning software, games, music player, video player.

Exactly why do you not consider it to be a general-purpose computer?

Re:You missed something

[snuf23]

Much for the same reason I wouldn't call an Xbox 360 or PS3 or Wii a general purpose computer. Unless hacked/jail broken you can't install software that hasn't been approved by the company that creates the device (Sony, MS, Nintendo, Apple). Nor can you program it and install your own programs.

The one thing that separates these products from general purpose computers is the limitations imposed on the devices through DRM and their company policies.

You can say that you can get around the DRM and make them general purpose but that still carries potential problems such as voided warranties and no support from the companies that make them.

Re:You missed something

[CharlyFoxtrot]

If it's "cut down" then people have been running "cut down" computers for decades. It's a pretty nice OS, you have to purchase a license to develop your own software for it (barring jailbreak) but then that's historically been the rule. It IS a general purpose computer: get a license, code whatever the hell you want for it and it'll run it. Though I think you'll find that most of which you want to develop is already in the AppStore.

Re:You missed something

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Here you go the way to code, run whatever you want on your iDevice. A lot of companies are doing just that, rolling their own applications and distributing it to their devices. Give the groupthink a rest and lay off the propaganda. You may not like this product, and that's ok, but it's no reason to regurgitate falsehoods.

Re:You missed something

[Draek]

you have to purchase a license to develop your own software for it (barring jailbreak) but then that's historically been the rule.

From what twisted, alternate universe do you come from? before Microsoft it was standard for any OS to come with a compiler or at least an interpreter for some given language (usually C or BASIC), and even Microsoft gave one away, just not on the same disk.

It IS a general purpose computer: get a license, code whatever the hell you want for it and it'll run it.

No, it's not. It has the potential to become one for as long as you keep paying Apple's fee, but the moment you stop is the moment it returns back to being nothing but a shiny toy.

Re:You missed something

[Anonymous Coward]

You, sir, have missed something. ARM is not only the same architecture as the iPhone, it's the same architecture as most Windows Mobile / WinCE phones, PDAs, tablets, and netbooks (which allow you to install whatever you want), most Android devices (which also allow you to install whatever you want), all Symbian devices (which allow you to install whatever you want), Sharp Zauruses, Nokia internet tablets, and the like, which run Linux and allow you to install whatever you want, to say nothing of the original Acorn PCs where the architecture got started, which -- bizarrely -- let you install whatever you want, and moreover were rather better PCs than their x86 competitors at the time*.

So it seems just a little odd that you should be using "but it's ARM" as an argument to claim iPad is not a tablet PC, and should not be expected to allow you to install whatever you want. There's one reason it's not and you shouldn't, and that's because it's an Apple product made since the iPod, when Apple discovered it's more profitable to sell people a series of single-purpose appliances than one general-purpose computer.

*I hope you already know that the reason x86 won was not technical merit, but a combination of IBM's name and the network effect of clones that would run the same software -- if not, brush up on your history; there's no end of embittered Acorn, Amiga, Be, Next, etc. fans who'll be happy to assist in your education.

Re:You missed something

[cyclomedia]

Except nobody but geeks and professional techies *wants* a general purpose computer, in fact people generally are terrified of them, think them over complicated (let's face it, using a microwave is complicated, and why do they need a clock exactly!?) and they look ugly. To use a television a person merely has to turn it on and press button number 2 to watch channel number 2, but they're still likely to get someone else to install it.

So basically, saying "yeah but it's not a general purpose computer" is meaningless and makes you appear aloof because nobody gives a crap so long as they can read web pages and watch videos on it.

Re:You missed something

[CharlyFoxtrot]

From what twisted, alternate universe do you come from? before Microsoft it was standard for any OS to come with a compiler or at least an interpreter for some given language (usually C or BASIC), and even Microsoft gave one away, just not on the same disk.

Sure, that's why Bill Gates got his start selling BASIC. You've been spoilt by living in the age of GCC.

No, it's not. It has the potential to become one for as long as you keep paying Apple's fee, but the moment you stop is the moment it returns back to being nothing but a shiny toy.

"But it's not freeeeeee." Suck it up already. Go to a large corporation sometime and ask them what happens to all their production COBOL code when they stop paying their license fees. Runtime licenses, developer licenses, etc. Some of these arrangements make Apple look like santa claus.

Re:You missed something

[stewbacca]

People look at my funny when I'm holding my iPad to my head for the phone call.

Re:I missed something

[Dalzhim]

The approval process is for making the application available on the AppStore, not for installing it on a machine. Yet if you want anyone to have the application on their machine, either they need to have a valid developer license and be able to compile the source themselves, or you have to get it on the AppStore, which in the end needs apple's approval.

Re:I missed something

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe I missed something buy why is there an approval process for stuff you're installing on an Ipad, I thought it was just a tablet PC?

Yeah, you missed the part where it's not.

I will say it using the Ballmer style

[Anonymous Coward]

Streaming, streaming, streaming, streaming, streaming. I wish this VLC based app can stream from iMacs and SMB PCs as well as iTunes libraries and supporting .srt and .sub from streamed sources.

Re:I will say it using the Ballmer style

[programmerar]

Streaming, streaming, streaming, streaming, streaming. I wish this VLC based app can stream from iMacs and SMB PCs as well as iTunes libraries and supporting .srt and .sub from streamed sources.

Plex can do this. An excellent application i use on OSX. The media server can be any computer, and the it streams the entire media library to computers and iOs devices.

Check it out: Plex

summary and article incorrect: iPod != iPad

[SethJohnson]

In my day, we differentiated between the iPad and the iPod. Apparently in this article, the author considers them one and the same.

Seth

Re:summary and article incorrect: iPod != iPad

[uncanny]

what's the difference between and ipod touch and an ipad other than size and a little performance maybe?

Re:summary and article incorrect: iPod != iPad

[Anonymous Coward]

Purpose.

Re:summary and article incorrect: iPod != iPad

[DdJ]

For a start: user interface guidelines (which really can make the difference between app approval and rejection), and also OS infrastructure and frameworks (the iPad can support popups/overlays that the iPhone and iPod Touch can't -- Apple added those API calls to the iPad only, because the iPad display is large enough for that sort of thing to make sense).

For another: the iPad can actually act as a USB host (though you need a physical adapter to do it, the circuitry is in there), letting you use stuff like USB keyboards (and a USB bar code scanner -- I've used one myself), and no other iOS device has the necessary hardware at this time.

It's popular to say "it's just a big iPod Touch", and there are elements of truth to that, but it's not really completely accurate.

Re:summary and article incorrect: iPod != iPad

[Anonymous Coward]

Difference there is not. Both are computers. Apple machinates to not allow you to run any program you like on the machine you own, and people indolently approve of this.

Also must mention the words ni and peng.

Thankyou.

Re:summary and article incorrect: iPod != iPad

[Anonymous Coward]

The user interface guidelines are artificial restrictions put in place by apple because the iphone and ipod touch screens are smaller. The API calls missing from those devices are also because of screen size, both of which still make sense when saying it's a big ipod touch. The only non size-related difference as pointed out in your post then would be the USB host circuitry.

So effectively the ipad is an oversized ipod touch with USB host capability.*

*Adapter required

Re:summary and article incorrect: iPod != iPad

[Guspaz]

For one thing, they have segregated app stores, so an iPad app won't show up for download on your iPod unless it's a hybrid app.

Re:summary and article incorrect: iPod != iPad

[DdJ]

If all you're talking about is hardware, then mostly sure, except there are several other differences as well (such as the ability to drive an external display in true high def via a VGA connector -- I'm not going to list them all, but it's not just USB).

But, if all you're talking about is hardware, you're not being reasonable, because by that reasoning there's no difference between a Windows netbook and an Ubuntu netbook. I'd call that a silly and impractical stance to take. You might be right for a narrow set of extremely technical users who are just going to hack the bejezis out of their gadgets anyway, but you'd be flat out wrong for most people.

Re:summary and article incorrect: iPod != iPad

[sootman]

The iPad is just a big iPod touch--in the same way that a swimming pool is "just a big bathtub." People who say that tend to not realize that size alone makes totally different things possible. (Cue corny jokes in 3... 2... )

Woo!

[grub]

I will send my left nut to Steve Jobs if this gets approved.

Note to Apple: If a cooler appears on your loading dock and it has the shipping info missing please open it. If it contains dry ice and a zip-lock bag holding what appears to be a bloody walnut, please expedite it to Mr. Jobs.

Thank you.

Re:Woo!

[denis-The-menace]

LOL! You made day.

Re:Woo!

[seizurebattlerobot]

Yes, let's all thank Apple for being gracious enough to allow us to run an application of our choice on our hardware.

Once network neutrality is completely dead and website->customer ISP payments are common, Apple will probably use their position to operate another toll booth as the first hardware vendor to benefit from a non-neutral internet. Can we look forward to petitioning Apple to pretty, pretty please add our favorite website to their whitelist, as well?

This practice sickens me. Enjoy your pretty noose!

Re:Woo!

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple will probably use their position to operate another toll booth as the first hardware vendor to benefit from a non-neutral internet.

I think you're thinking of Google, as they're the mobile vendor currently pushing hardest on the legislature to end net neutrality.

Re:Woo!

[grumpyman]

yxplayer works fairly well - prepare your right nut!

Re:Woo!

[Anonymous Coward]

oblig. "you're not using it, so why not" joke

Re:Woo!

[grub]

yxplayer works fairly well - prepare your right nut!

Too late, I shipped my right nut to Apple in 1983 when they released the Apple IIe with lower case capability! .
In hindsight, that may have been a bit extreme.

Re:Woo!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not using them? Ever tried jerking off without them?!

Re:Woo!

[Anonymous Coward]

You a pronoun.

Re:Woo!

[misexistentialist]

A piece of your liver might be more appreciated.

Re:Woo!

[coolsnowmen]

AC should double check before insulting. If you consider he probably meant "You made [my] day", 'my' is an adjective. So like this south park quote: How would you like to suck my balls?

Re:Woo!

[Anonymous Coward]

too soon..

Re:Woo!

[Anonymous Coward]

A piece of your liver might be more appreciated.

Why? It's his pancreas that's messed up.

Re:Woo!

[elrous0]

He already owns the nuts of every pretentious art student and hipster wannabe on the planet. Why would he need yours?

Legality?

[Anonymous Coward]

What about uncertain legality issues of some of the codecs in the US?

It is for iPad... not iPod (nor iPhone).

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFOA:
http://applidium.com/en/news/vlc_media_player_available_for_the_ipad

Re:I missed something

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article it seems more like a giant Iphone though, but with out the talking.

That's the iPad in a nutshell.

Shouldn't you beable to install what ever you want on a tablet computer?

Yes you should, but Steve objects to it so it doesn't happen. Plenty of reasons for and against it, but as far as I'm aware you can only install apps through the marketplace. I'd much prefer an android style system, they control the marketplace and keep it a nice and safe environment, with the option (with plenty of warnings of the risks) to install things through other means. They get their walled garden, I get a gadget I'd actually pay for.

There never seems to be a happy medium. The ability to install what I want on android is awesome, but their marketplace could do with a bit more filtering and checking. The safe marketplace on iPhone is awesome, but sometimes I want to something better that they won't let through.

Why I think it will be rejected

[gilesjuk]

It will contain code from various GPL projects and the holes in these could be exploited to jailbreak the phone.

Of course I could be wrong. there are alternate web browsers on the iPhone now so the "duplication" of built in features isn't a valid argument.

Re:Why I think it will be rejected

[Anonymous Coward]

If they approve this, people might watch videos encoded with Theora or VP8. Can't have that. Everything must be H.264.

Re:Why I think it will be rejected

[EmperorPsiblade]

All apps are run in a sandbox. Unless there is some major privilege escalation exploit that also escapes the sandbox, this is extremely unlikely. I haven't heard of it ever happening in the large number of apps published so far.

Re:Why I think it will be rejected

[jgtg32a]

jailbreakme.com

Re:Why I think it will be rejected

[EmperorPsiblade]

AFAIK, Safari does not run in the sandbox, only user installed apps do. (Could be wrong on this, I know that since IOS 2.0 or so the vast majority of apps run as the mobile user instead of root)

Re:Why I think it will be rejected

[coolsnowmen]

It isn't a typical sandbox, the sandbox is the apple API. This is why going outside the API is forbidden, and this is why once you can install arbitrary programs (cyndia) you can do just about anything.

Re:Why I think it will be rejected

[ceoyoyo]

If that were true, the hackers would have a MUCH easier time of it.

You can only install Cydia when you've got root access to the phone. THAT's why you can do whatever you want.

There are a few things you can do from an app by using Apple's private frameworks. They're pretty minor, like using the proximity sensor and getting raw touch events. You can't just go and do anything you want, like a jailbroken app can do.

Re:Why I think it will be rejected

[coolsnowmen]

Can you give me an example of what is the jailbroken app doing that you can't do normally if apple let it get past the app store?

Re:Why I think it will be rejected

[ceoyoyo]

Sure. An easy one is filesystem access. Until you jailbreak your app is sandboxed and the system won't let it see the rest of the filesystem.

I might be wrong, but I don't think there's a non-jailbreak accessible private system call that gets you around the sandbox. You have to convince the system itself to run your app unsandboxed first.

situation similar to Wesnoth

[Anonymous Coward]

http://lwn.net/Articles/396535/

July 21, 2010

Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities

Re:I missed something

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent has either been hiding under a rock since the ipad was announced or is (more likely) well skilled in the art of trolling.

file management?

[jewishbaconzombies]

I guess I could backdoor VLC compatible video files via dropbox, but how do they recommend to get non-standard (for iPad / iPhone) video on there by default? 2 steps that involve tedious uploads doesn't sound great to me.

Potential rejection reason

[dazedNconfuzed]

A primary reason for using, unto requiring, hardware video playback is power consumption. Early in the iPad's release someone noted that the reason it could handle not just an 11-hour on time, but an 11-hour video playback time, was that video was routed thru a very efficient hardware video decoder. Without doing so, battery life would be stunted to way below the near-all-day on time.

This leads to the extrapolation to and beyond the "it's absolutely necessary" observation.

From the just-released submission guidelines:

13.2 Apps that rapidly drain the device's battery or generate excessive heat will be rejected

VLC is crap.

[bluefoxlucid]

I've managed to start using gstreamer-based Totem trying to play shit through VLC with bad luck (it crashes, or can't play video with sound if you attempt to seek), having had no luck with mplayer. Then I went back with Xine. Xine handles just about anything correctly, even if it's horribly corrupted; VLC doesn't handle anything with any sort of oddness correctly, and gstreamer seems halfway there.

Re:VLC is crap.

[oldmac31310]

Could it be that the version of VLC is not completely compatible with the version of the OS you are running? I think it is quite specific in that regard. The VLC people make older versions of the software available on their site for those of use that are not running the latest OS. Just a suggestion.

Re:VLC is crap.

[coolsnowmen]

linux user? use the mplayer front end "smplayer", best by far IMHO.

Re:VLC is crap.

[bluefoxlucid]

No, it's the version that ships with Ubuntu. The problem is its codecs are really shitty and don't handle odd error conditions well.

Re:VLC is crap.

[bluefoxlucid]

Front-ends won't fix shitty codecs.

Re:VLC is crap.

[oldmac31310]

I don't think you can blame the VLC people for the codecs.

Re:VLC is crap.

[bluefoxlucid]

The codecs are part of VLC. VLC comes with its own video processing code. It doesn't use gstreamer. I think it might have ffmpeg libraries shipped with it for some stuff? Or maybe that's optional. But it has lots and LOTS of its own codec code.

Totem uses gstreamer for codecs, just like Rhythmbox and other Gnome apps. Xine uses libxine for codecs. Mplayer has its own codecs. VLC has its own codecs. There are 4 different MPEG/WMV/H.264 decoder libraries installed on my computer, not 4 UIs that all use the same decoder libraries.

until then: Oplayer

[neurocutie]

I really hope that Apple gives a go for VLC for the iPad...
There is another option that *has* already been approved that is not a bad choice at all for playing movies, etc. Its Oplayer from olimsoft and is available now on iTunes. One of its problems apparently is that Apple has locked down the access to the hardware accelerating decoding present in the iPad, so Oplayer has to do it via software -- slower and therefore less smooth playback -- I hope VLC doesn't have this problem but I am guessing that Apple won't approve any 3rd app of that sort... (boo...)

The other issue that I'd personally want both Oplayer and VLC to be able to do is to stream from FTP or Samba servers. Right now Oplayer can stream from HTTP but can only d/l from FTP or Samba... not bad but it means waiting for the d/l to finish rather than just watching the vid as it comes across.

Opera Mini doesn't compete

[dazedNconfuzed]

"They allowed the Opera Mini browser, even though it directly competes with (and is ~5 times faster than) Apple's Safari"

No, it doesn't compete. It works in a fundamentally different manner, with a different user experience. Displaying a pre-rendered bitmap obtained from a cloud server is not the same as fetching web data and rendering the page on-device; as such, there is much it cannot do "live".

Re:Opera Mini doesn't compete

[onefriedrice]

The technical details surrounding how the apps are implemented are obviously irrelevant to the discussion of whether two apps compete. In this case, they are both browsers, so yeah, they compete even though one of the browsers is severely limited. There are several other browsers in the App Store, too, and they all "compete."

Re:Opera Mini doesn't compete

[commodore64_love]

>>>[Opera] displaying a pre-rendered bitmap

Which is not at all how it works. That would make the browser run slower, not faster, because a ~160x200 bitmap image is huge and would take forever to load. Instead: "A page is compressed, then delivered to the phone in a markup language called OBML (Opera Binary Markup Language).[30] This compression process makes transfer time about two to three times faster." - wikipedia

In other words Opera Mini is a lot like how Turbo mode operates in the full Opera browser - compressed text and images sent one at a time, not as one single giant bitmap.

And as for the final result? This video is pretty clear for why I'd rather use Opera than Safari. Opera also has nifty features like tab browsing and speed dialing (visual bookmarks) that make it more pleasing to use than Safari Mobile. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvyl7aI70ik#t=65s

You can load app-specific content on the iPad

[rsborg]

Unless they changed this with iphone os 4 (the three letter IOS will always apply to Cisco devices in my mind regardless of capitalization) there is no file system access on the iphone. If VLC can't access the library due to Apple restrictions you would have to get music/videos on the phone through VLC itself (since the sandboxing prevents it from accessing other apps data).

Wrong. Here's how I got books into Stanza on my iPad (which I prefer to iBooks for reading my pdfs). Sure it's sub-optimal, but if I can play my mkv and other non-apple content, I'll be happy as a clam.

iPod?

[digitig]

"The Open Source Video Lan Client has been tweaked to run on the iPod by software developer Applidium." Wow! I'll probably never have an iPad, but VLC will be really handy on my iPod.

More Bias Please

[whisper_jeff]

Could we please try to insert more anti-Apple bias in our article summaries please. I find Slashdot entirely too soft on Apple lately and would like to see it come to an end. We need to be harsher against them, dammit! Rather than "...have submitted an iPod version to the Apple software police" could we please instead use "...have submitted an iPod version to the Apple software Nazis." I mean, if we're going to broadcast an overwhelming bias against Apple in the article summaries (as opposed to just keeping them to the comments - I mean, who bothers to read the comments, after all), we might as well Godwin it at the same time, right?

sigh...

Re:More Bias Please

[Mongoose Disciple]

If Apple doesn't want people to talk about their software police, maybe they shouldn't have software police. :)

I mean, hell, not America, but I've heard there are countries where people actually feel like police are there to protect and help them. Just as Apple fans presumably feel about the policing of apps in the app store. "Police" doesn't inherently imply "police state".

Re:More Bias Please

[whisper_jeff]

Does anyone talk about the Google police? What's that? You didn't know that apps also have to pass Google approval for inclusion in their Android market? Funny how nobody talks about that _even though Google has not approved apps (plural)._ It's not like people are just posting anti-Apple comments and ignoring other companies doing the exact same thing, in the exact same market.

Yeah.

Re:More Bias Please

[Mongoose Disciple]

It's not the exact same thing because an Android device isn't locked down the way an iWhatever is. Your options with an Android device aren't limited solely to jailbreak or official app store.

People do bitch about Google spying on them, so it's not like the company gets a free pass.

Re:More Bias Please

[MemoryDragon]

You are right software nazis is the correct expression

Re:More Bias Please

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Agree 100%. The groupthink in Apple articles is getting way out of hand with what basically amount to anti Apple flames routinely modded up to +5 insightful and the attitude starts with this kind of bullshit in the summary. I can deal with the bad jokes but not the misinformation as with the digs here. Several xvid players are already in the iPad AppStore but hey let's not let the facts get in the way of a lame story.

Ogg for IPod to good to be true

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see this happening, it would be to much of a dream come true to be able to load up my extensive library of .ogg and flac files on my Ipod Touch.

VLC not crap

[oldmac31310]

The only kind of file I have a problem with are those infernal .mkv videos. VLC does a better job of playing video than Apple's DVD player and Quicktime player. Consequently I never use either of them. Apple should allow this but would they? They may as well cease developing their own video playing software.

Re:VLC not crap

[damnbunni]

It depends on the video. On my Mac, VLC uses vastly more CPU to play an H.264 file than Quicktime does.

And with Perian (http://perian.org/) installed, Quicktime plays mkv files without issue.

Re:VLC not crap

[KingAlanI]

If iTunes is any indication, Apple makes better versions of software on its own platform. oldmac31310's username doesn't necessarily imply his OS, IMHO.

Re:VLC not crap

[oldmac31310]

I'm stuck on an older mac due to financial reasons. I would like to be up to the minute but for the time being I have to make do with what I have. @damnbunni I have tried perian but maybe a 1.25ghz processor and Tiger are not up to the task for .mkv files even with the help of perian.

Strange though every other kind of file I have thrown at VLC plays fine with out stuttering even when playing via ethernet from another way old mac. Personally I think the .mkv codec is flawed in some way or just not mac friendly but I'm not techy enough to offer a reason.

I also do not think that Apple necessarily makes the best software for it's own OS. VLC is better than QT and DVD player. It plays (almost) everything without issue. The Apple players baulk at the most obvious stuff. This is still true on my STBX wife's recent MacBook. Whine, whine, why won't the file play? Install VLC. How do I do that? OK I'll do it for you. The internet isn't working properly. Safari is crap. Install Firefox or something else. OK. I'll do it for you. Same shit for a few years now in both respects but the answer is usually - go third party!.

iTunes is pretty bad on a mac too. No real alternative that I'm aware of. Songbird? More of the same I suspect but I could be wrong. iPhoto - most horrible software I have ever used. Well, no MS Word gets that prize. I don't think I actually use any of the Apple apps besides iTunes, grudgingly. Great OS, mediocre apps.

Surprised Apple hasn't made a lot of their software 'just work'. Still I wouldn't touch any iteration of windows with a bargepole. Been there, never again.

Wish them luck but doubt it'll make it through...

[Chyeld]

Wish them luck but I doubt it'll make it through the approval process, especially given how A-hole-ish Apple comes off on today's '10 commandments' notice. Gonna be pretty hard to ever navigate those waters without having an 'in' to help you out.

Re:I missed something

[froggymana]

Yes you should, but Steve objects to it so it doesn't happen. Plenty of reasons for and against it, but as far as I'm aware you can only install apps through the marketplace.

You can install pretty much any app you want on it if you jailbreak it.

screw the iPad

[Anonymous Coward]

When are we going to see VLC on Android?

Ummmm ... why?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a big fan of VLC on both Windows and Linux, but an iPod? VLC's strength is that it can play ANYTHING well, but iPods can only load and play .m4v format (.mp4, but it has to be named .m4v or iTunes won't find it), and the iPod already has a player for that. What's the advantage that wasn't there before?

Re:Ummmm ... why?

[stewbacca]

VLC's strength is that it can play ANYTHING well, but iPods can only load and play .m4v format

Don't you think maybe that's why VLC on an iPad would be a good thing? Surely you don't believe that there's no way to get a video format other than .m4v onto the iPad so that VLC can play it, or am I missing something?

Re:I missed something

[Miseph]

You sir are a God among men. Short Men, who aren't terribly bright... more like dwarves with learning disabilities. You are a God among Drawves With Learning Disabilities. Hmm... doesn't quite roll off the tongue that way, I think we should stick with the original, but imply the meaning of the second. Right then.

But seriously, that was a troll par excellence. Your bridge must be enormous, and located in the farthest, darkest, foulest depths of the wilderness simply to accommodate your awesome power.

Not existing functionality

[SuperKendall]

I was actually under the impression that u could not release a media player that is not based on the stock one at the appstore because it would be count as replacing standard functionality.

The existing player cannot play divx, therefore VLC would not be replacing existing functionality.

Apple is more concerned with wholesale replacement.

Any app has always been able to use Filesystem

[SuperKendall]

Unless they changed this with iphone os 4 (the three letter IOS will always apply to Cisco devices in my mind regardless of capitalization) there is no file system access on the iphone.

Starting with the very first iPhone OS, applications have been able to access the file system within an application sandbox. From that first version on there have been applications that collected and held onto and even helped view files for you - very often getting things on and off the phone via WebDAV.

Starting with iOS3.2 (iPad), you also have the option of having iTunes "see" into your writable application directory, so people can get files on or off the device that way too.

Re:Any app has always been able to use Filesystem

[AltairDusk]

I didn't word that very well. When I wrote it I was thinking of overall file system access (such as to shared directories multiple apps can use, etc). I guess a clearer way of saying it would be file system access outside that app's sandbox.

Re:I missed something

[cynyr]

but according to apple it isn't a "tablet computer" it's a iPad. note the lack of "mac" in the name and inclusion of "iP" in the name. "iP*" is locked down to high heaven. "Mac*" isn't, and is a real computer. I want the "MacPad" not the "iPad".

Which is fixed

[SuperKendall]

jailbreakme.com

Fixed already so that's kind of a dead point.

That exploit also relied on an exploit in Safari, so is not quite applicable to just any application.

No more QuickTime Alternative/Lite for Window too.

[antdude]

http://codecs.freeforums.org/post14945.html -- "... There are no links on the site anymore to stimulate the use and development of open-source alternatives, such as VLC and ffdshow, instead of the use of proprietary software."

I've had this for a while now...

[seandiggity]

...on a jailbroken iPhone :)

I was thinking of Flash instead...

[KingAlanI]

VLC can indeed play .flv files, and while that's not the only use of Flash, it's certianly a major one.
Getting ahold of the raw .flv files for what you wanna watch should be fairly straightforward

Qt and Apple's Dev Announcement

[Prien715]

Since Apple just opened their platform for 3rd party tools today and VLC is built on Qt, perhaps in the future it'll just be a simple recompile, much like how VLC works on all its current platforms.

Just an expensive toy.

[SuricouRaven]

If this were a real computer, there would be no need to go groveling to Apple for their permission. My netbook can run any software I want, including software I wrote myself and even the types of software that Apple would never allow - like emulators, which they ban because it would reduce the sales of all those game apps. The iPad may be a computer in the technological sense, but in the usage sense it's just an expensive toy. It lacks the general purpose ability.

Most useful media player?

[MaXimillion]

VLC, quite probably the most useful media player available right now

The only reasons to use VLC are playing back partial files, and playing media on a PC where you don't have the rights to install anything using codecs. For anything else, MPC-HC does the job much better.

Re:I missed something

[tehcyder]

Mocking or even questioning the assumed brilliance of an Apple product doesn't make a post a troll automatically.

Not just a player

[psydeshow]

Remeber, VLC isn't just a client, it's also a server. It's able to stream audio and video to other clients.

So if this really is a straight port, it potentially means that you could stream audio from your iPad, and audio+video from your iPhone, without using ITunes.

That's a BIG win if they let it happen and it actually works. (Two big ifs.)

Better than OSX version, hopefully

[stewbacca]

Hopefully it won't crash any time you scrub the play head like the OSX version does.

Waiting

[YetAnotherBob]

I am waiting for VLC on Android.

t-shirt,hoody,handbag,sunglasses,bikini,

[lokmm1452]

========= http://www.clothes6.us/ ====== Cheap Nike air Jordan shoes33$,Air Force 1 33$, Nike dunks SB shoe,Nike Shox shoe. Wholesale Cheap Nike shoes with discount jersey, High quality T-shirts,ED hardy t-shirts,ED Hardy hoodies,ED hardy shoes,ED hardy Jeans,Evisu shoes,GUCCI shoes,LV Handbag,Chanel Handbagwelcome to ==== http://www.clothes6.us/ ==== Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $33 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $33 Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30 Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $12 New era cap NY $9 Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $18 $9 ========= http://www.clothes6.us/ ====== cfhbgfh