Slashdot Mirror
Apple Opening QuickTime Code
Wonko42 writes "Apple has apparently decided to make QuickTime open-source in order to beat the competition. The article is on News.com. " I sure hope so. Of course, the article leaves several questions unanswered: what kind of license? APSL? What about
codecs? Since it's only the server, I assume nothing will happen in regards to opening codecs. I hope I'm wrong, but fear I'm not. Thoughts?
Well, I sure hope this makes an impact on things.. One more thing that *nix can support is more one stone to throw at large 'closed' companies :)
That won't happen until Apple figures what the hell they are. Same disease that inhibits Microsoft: trying to be everything to everyone, and stuck thinking inside their box ("Let's only support our own OS and hardware.") You are absolutely right, that the standard should work on multiple platforms, and to do otherwise is suicide for Apple. Too bad the content providers usually are only aware of the Windows/Mac world, or they would use video types we alternative OS people could watch.
I had 50 users at work who all wanted to play
the star wars trailer. Not one of the sgi's could
handle it. we all huddled around a dusty NT in
the corner where we could play it.
so sad sometimes.
The phrase "their codecs", implies that the codec is owned by Apple. In most cases, including this case, the codecs are owned by another company like QDesign, Qualcomm or Sorenson. Apple can't open source that isn't theirs.
Now, the codecs... Why would you want those?
go here scroll down to the bottom of the page and follow the link
http://marina.fortunecity.com/salmon/190/index.
but ehrr....someone already started a streaming server for Linux.
http://www.icecast.org/
why do you think that it is absolutely necessary that "Open Source w/o a major organization behind it results in projects that only the Open Source people care about."?
I tought people will write whatever program dub nescessary or interesting, hence MP3 roar.
if the community dub it is interesting and necessary to have an MPEG server, than someone will start writing it. (and for some reason i got the feeling quicktime standart will not be the reigning standart)
Just a comment on the subject:
Cheaters always win. Nice guys finish last. Honesty is the worst policy. Money does buy you happiness.
Tried your site, neato. Noticed that the metronome worked but the other QT lessons didn't load. Nice site. I will pass it on to friend and foe alike.
Why cant all these looser companies release the source to the players, let them keep the encoders hidden and pricey!!! OPENSOURCE The players DUDEZ
God, why is the world full of morons
Seriously, they could remove much of the custom code calls and make more of it generic C with a 'GDI' layer to call the subsystems video/audio shit.
Apple has ported Quicktime to UNIX, ive seen the SGI IRIX version runing, WHAT THE HELL has happened to that work?
Apple dont give a rats arse about the hardcore people, they just care about end user consumer joe bloggs because thats 99% of their profits.
Why cant sorensen and Qdesign release the source to the players, that would not hurt them, I mean they could still keep the encoders secret, but OPENSOURCE the damn DECODERS. TIght arse bastards.
It's spelt "you", twink. :-)
We'll be happy when we can play and make QuickTime movies on Linux. What else do you have to offer?
Admittedly no. I'd have to get both Netscape and QuickTime installed and running on Wine. Sounds like an interesting experiment but I don't hold much hope for it.
O'REILLY
If Linux has, say, 4% market share, then Apple can gain 4% just by porting to Linux over their competitors who DONT.
That sounds like some easy marketshare gains to me. IMHO apple is stupid to ignore this market.
New York Sushi is an oxymoron.
You haven't eaten Sushi till you've had west coast sushi.
Ok... before anything I want to make it clear... they are just releasing the server part that sends the quicktime files streaming... ok... now there is no way to actually build a client from this information... well, no human way at least... :u)
:u)
You would probably need the codecs anyway (Compressor/Decompressor modules) to do anything good with it anyway... These are licensed by apple from other companies... Ok while apple keeps a tight lock up on some of them (read Sorenson) it woulb be difficult... unless they make a special arrangement, which is never impossible but inprobable.
Now! Why would they be releasing the code of that server? Just to ensure that people who will release their own quicktime srteaming software will have a minimum level of quality and also to be able to support different server platforms... Why would someone want to port it? Well... even if they are new to the streaming business they really imposed themselves on multimedia so you can expect quality streaming products from them and also that those streaming files will be very easy to create since all software supporting quicktime will support it... Oh! And by the way.. I think QT4 includes Macromedia flash... So it is a one technology fits all and that is very desirable these days... considering the explosion of different pluggins and software you would need...
Ok... so it is sad that they don't release the client code and/or the codecs but it is a good start... Linux server would make cheap streaming servers considering alternatives...
ood day to you all..
Brian, don't get your pants all in a Knotts. Your idiotic comments start to annoy me.
Wow licensing issues do generate lots of insightful and clueful comments. I'm stoned.
My wife who is not a geek, made this observation. Could Apple be looking for a few good programmers, and this open source "thingie"is a good way to find them?
Why do you assert UNIX is just a server platform? I use UNIX workstations all the time, nearly exclusively. And yes, I've worked outside of the University. Face it, in many places with smart, influential people, the desktop platform of choice IS UNIX.
I agree.
Lighten up on Apple. at least they aren't spreading FUD about Linux, like uncle Billy, CEO and lord God of Micro$oft has been doing.
"Okay, then tell that to Tim O'Reilly, who is CURRENTLY making millions off of free software."
That other people wrote.
Vampire.
> you don't have to "run a program" to make it happen..
Then what's a codec? Executeable main(), entry point in a dll, what's the difference?
The codec is the least interesting part about QuickTime! Read samples. Decompress samples. Yawn.
The file format is the second-least interesting part about QuickTime. It's a no-brainer to parse a QuickTime movie. (Complete documentation her e and her e if you're curious.) Read an atom. Read another atom. Yawn!
THIS is what makes QuickTime so amazing. (Although I personally prefer this version.) Apple ain't gonna release the source for that, no way, no how, not this year, not next.
It's comparable to the RMS/Linux kernel in complexity. Kernels are easy to get volunteers to work on -- everybody needs one. But an open source QuickTime replacement that's just as powerful? Not gonna happen. It would take dozens of programmer-years to duplicate it, possibly hundreds. There's a reason that everyone else's media formats blow so bad -- Apple has created a barrier to entry the size of the Himalayas.
Hahahaha. I was thinking of posting a response with the same idea, but yours was much funnier than what I had in mind.
So the programmers who create the free software are providing an excellent natural resource for the vampires.
Been there. The best part is that I can make money from other people's efforts and not pay them anything for it! Being a vampire is cool!
I give up. You just seem unable or unwilling to understand.
Are you an Apple employee or something?
Now, that's an ad hominem argument. And I just don't get those.
What I'm talking about here is the propensity of slashdotters to point to vampires as a reason that free software is an economically viable alternative. Wake up people! You aren't getting any of that money -- the vampires are! They're making money from your efforts, and they're not compensating you for it.
What are you getting out of this equation? Better code? But that's what the free beer drinkers get, too. (Free beer drinker: "I like Linux because I don't have to pay for it and it's cooler than winblows.")
O'Reilly and Red Hat and all the rest of the poster children for "making money from free software" are vampires.
Now, I don't have anything against vampires, personally; in any ecosystem you need predators. But the prey always know it, and avoid being taken advantage of (eaten). Except in this particular "free speech not free beer" ecosystem -- when are people going to wake up and realize that they helped Tim O'Reilly make all that money, and didn't even get a royalty check for their efforts?
I quote from the article "Microsoft has been busy lining up prominent Web sites to use its NetShow streaming technology, offering them technical support and marketing money."
Microsoft is showing up late to the party; but as a Monopoly, they had no incentive to show up on time anyway. Let someone else do the hard word, then come in later and buy the market! The Microsoft PR machine can then say that "Microsoft is a BIG INNOVATOR".
Apple has always gotten beaten up by Microsoft, their release of QuickTime code is a desperate attempt to salvage some value from Quicktime.
My recommendations: 1) pray for the DOJ to stop the bastards in Redmond. 2) Stick with Real Audio. 3) boycott Microsoft.
Won't that become a problem as software becomes easier to use and understand? Little or no technical support needed.
I think most of the comments are of the form "Who cares? It's useless to us without the codecs." Expressing indifference is not the same as whining.
I know all you post production guys are going to wanna kill me after I say this but oh well. I think we should just forget about QT. It's a cool standard but, there is better. MPEG 2 is a good example, or MJPEG (well kinda). But MPEG 2 is an awsome standard and the hardware to encode is starting to get cheaper. Decoding is no problem for anyone with a MPEG 2 decoder card (like a hollywood or a creative dxr2 or dxr3). Also on the upside of things, even if you don't have or want an extra card. Most of the 400mhz processors out have no problem decoding MPEG 2 by them selfs, and the TNT2 and Rage 128 (and G400??) have MPEG 2 decoding built in. I'm sure that this trend will continue in video cards. Plus MPEG 2 can be multiplexed with a range of audio options.
MPEG Layer 2, raw PCM, Dolby Digital 5.1 and 2.0, DTS just to name a few. I hate to sould like I'm thumbing the MPEG 2 bible at you guys, but I'm really impressed with it's coolness. Hopefully that give you an idea why I think QT should rot in hell.
if apple is going to release server software for linux it may make things difficult for some people to not have the source.
this way at least they don't cause problems. people who need to make minor modifications to the server for it to work can, and plus they don't have to release packages for every conceivable package manager and hardware configuration.
of course, apple's PR will probably treat it like an attempt to embrace "open source", but it's still more convenient for apple for the server to be OSS.
I am not talking about companies who distribute" software which they have leeched off the people that wrote it.
What you mean like Apple and BSD ?
What you mean like Apple and Apache?
Check out http://heroine.tampa.fl.us/quicktime and see what has already been written.
AVI?
You've got to be kidding right? AVI sucks hard!
When Windows people see QT or Mpeg stuff versus AVI they almost pass out. AVI bites!
What is goomba talkin about? avi blows *.mov away easily? yeah freakin right! You have no idea what you are talkin about, obviously. I have quicktime on my NT box and it blows everything away easily! with exception to winamp, quicktime is far superior to any kind of player. I can't wait till quicktime 4 comes out. Who cares what kind of open source licence apple decides to use, it's still open source and you can actually have the code.
and as for AVI, that's well on it's way to being gone. Then there's this claim that QT runs badly on anything other then the mac. I've always been of the opinion that it runs nicer on NT. I guess the grass really does look greener on the other side.
Of course, to compare QT to one single CODEC is a bit difficult at any rate sine QT is composed of dozens of CODECS a great deal of which were written by other companies. The SORENSON CODEC (the one used to distribute the Star Wars trailer) is a good example. Now that CODEC has serious problems on my Mac. My Mac isn't fast enough! It's a PPC 603 75Mhz and it's not fast enough! Damn hyper compression.
Pinky
"I left my Login cookie in my other browser."
I think that's a set of API calls. It's not like they re-wrote QT in JAVA or anything.
BTW: It's not just a matter of porting- It's also a matter of keeping them up to date and having sim releases. My guess is Apple will realease Unix versions of QT when it gets QT working on MacOS X which is a Unix based system.
Pinky
"I left my cookie in my other browser."
This is no great shakes, those who are on the QT4 developer program already have some Java source code for a simple streaming server which Apple provided as an example to get people started. Cisco have already used this to provide QT4 support in their IP/TV stuff.
The real big issue is not what platform the server can be hosted on (i.e. if it's only Mac then they're doomed anyway) but when are they ever going to port the player to other platforms.
There was a lot of traffic in the dev list about supporting other platforms but Apple's answer was it's up to e.g. Sun to provide Solaris support.
My view is support Real they seem to be the only one interested in supporting Linux, get them to port G2 it's pretty good on a PC, and then try to persuade them to incorporate some QT like features.
Apple has an exclusive license agreement with Sorensen which prevents others (Microsoft in particular) from using the codec. They paid big $$$ for this. Apple is in no way "evil" or "greedy", they just tried to differentiate their product and add some value. Write something better if you don't like that.
Not to mention the fact MPEG is basically useless for any sort of editing, because it must be decoded and re-encoded even to splice 2 pieces together-- the resulting quality decreases with every edit.
Apologies if someone has already mentioned this, but I couldn't be arsed reading all those comments.
In my experience, the only codec used in QT that a) isn't PD OR b) been reversed engineered is Intel Indeo.
In the long run, people won't make money by selling distributions, they will move into support.
Ummm...I really hate to break this, but this is *not* a user-friendly market model, though people tend to push "support" as a valid means of surviving because they want everything GPL'd. Think about it. If the money comes from support, do you think we'll be seeing lots of intuitive programs coming out, or deliberately-designed hard-to-use, counterintuitive programs? Why waste effort on plain English error messages (cutting into profits) when you could use "#15125", with no error code listing (outside of the company, of course). The big money in the industry (and the bulk of the jobs, if most money comes from here) would move from programming to tech support. I suppose that's a really great thing if you do tech support, but most programmers and users out there wouldn't be too happy.
This was (and is) a big deal in the Mac world...the reason a lot of IS managers wouldn't allow Macs to replace Windows boxes at various institutions is the much higher level of support Windows users require on average. They'd be destroying their own jobs, so they went with the less intuitive, higher TCO devices. Do you *really* want this mentality as the driving force behind the software market?
Yeah. Right. Linux is just making massive inroads into the MacOS user base. Go out and compare the number of LinuxPPC/MkLinux (the Linuxes Mac users are most likely to move to) to MacOS users. Just aren't that many, are there?
All of about 100 people (okay, exaggeration, but my point remains valid) went from the Mac to Linux directly. Almost every single Linux convert that started on the Mac uses the Mac, decides that he needs something that the Mac doesn't have (protected memory, pre-emptive multitasking, whatever), and goes to Windows. He spends a bunch of time getting really mad at Windows, missing the customisability and whatnot that he *used* to have, and finally gets fed up and converts to Linux (or sets up a dual-boot Win/Linux system). Anything Apple does to align itself with Linux is because M$ doesn't look like a very good friend to have right now, and it wants to spread its bets around...maybe grab a few Windows users before Linux does, or have an alternative server platform for MacOS X in case MacOS X Server (mostly NeXT) flops. Besides, the Mac is all about UI consistency, standards, a few really cool technologies, and a less business-oriented atmosphere than M$. Maybe MacOS 11 will be a front end to Linux, like Gnome is trying to be. I sorta like the idea....you lose some killer Mac-specific stuff, like resources and some integration (Apple's integration is generally lighter and more beneficial than M$'s bundle-everything-in-sight-in-one approach), but gain Linux's speed and stability. Besides, with all due respect to the Gnome people, I'd rather have a solid group running things.
They don't seem to be treating it as a major threat to *me*. I would treat it like Judgement Day if I were running Apple (be better if they'd just port it and solve the problem, but whatever). From your point of view, it *is* "just a guy trying to make it possible for UNIX users to watch the latest QuickTime movies". You're a user. From their point of view, it's the possibility of QT (their biggest technology and largest inroads into M$'s world) clone source being spilled into the wide world. M$ would like nothing better. I'm not even going to dignify "Sometimes I think Apple is worse than Microsoft" with an argument. There's *no* comparison. Well, maybe if Apple had the business market, lost its culture, gained 90% market share, rewrote its software to add bloat, "integrated" it all together, started taking developer's markets (Apple isn't as nice to developers as M$ is, but then again Apple is careful not to steal their markets once they're established), bought out every cool tech company it could find and stagnated for a couple of years. Then it might be at least on the scale for comparison to M$.
Admittedly, they don't have the Icon Garden or the Advanced Research Group any more. The first path on a long road to Microsoft-wannabe-corporate hell, IMHO, but their choice. And there's a *long* road left ahead.
This rocks!
Old trailer: 480x216 pixels, 22 kHz stereo.
New trailer: 640x288 pixels, 44 kHz stereo
File size: unchanged!
Requires QuickTime 4.0.
Download both at apple.com/quicktime.
OOH OOH I GOT FOURTH POST .. hey wait a minute.. fouth. um never mind
:) look at www.appleinsider.com, they have some interesting information, and God knows whether or how much of it is true.
this article is confusing. the little description there above the first paragraph says apple "is" going to open source it; the first paragraph says they are "expected to".
so are they or aren't they? does news.com have any actual news, or are they just reprinting rumors?
anyway i expect that now they're going to have to write a *NIX quicktime client, or else they're going to look pretty silly releasing a *NIX server. Although it will be confusing, seeing as there's already a *NIX library called "qt".
don't expect any codecs open-sourced; not all of the codecs are owned directly by apple anyway. Also quicktime 4 is doing a very strange codec system that kinda works by plugins; the actual quicktime software itself is gonna be very small and largely nonfunctional, but QT will download the extra components and pieces of itself automatically as it needs them. Or something. That's the way i read it anwyay.. oh and QT4 will have an mp3 player.
Actually, QuickTime is an incredibly rich API for handling time-based data of any sort. If all you want to do is feed a bunch of samples through a codec, then something like AVI or mp3 is fine.
But QuickTime's power really comes out when you realize that you can composite movies and 3D images coming from files all over your hard drive, and algorithmic effects, tweening, scaling, etc, on the fly. The amazing thing is that this capability ends up in a self-contained "mov" file -- you don't have to "run a program" to make it happen... and once you've added the 15 or so lines of code to your application that lets it play a QuickTime file, it can play any QuickTime "movie," whether it's a VR panorama, an audio stream or a sprite-based animation (or, I bet, the new streaming stuff when it comes out).
(To say nothing of its interactive capabilities... QuickTime is closer to being a full-blown OS than you might realize.)
Anyone who thinks Apple's going to open source the QuickTime toolbox anytime soon should switch to a better brand of crack. The reason everyone's excited about QuickTime doing streaming is that those same people use QuickTime to make the content they want to stream.
Apple can release the source for the player, but not the codecs. It doesn't have the legal rights to do so.
That said, it's still a good thing. An open plug in architecture for playing any sort of video/audio format, whether the codec be proprietary or Open Source qualifies in my book as a "Good Thing(TM)"
And if nothing else it will give the ~ahem~ leaders of the Open Source movement more opportunities to squable in public. I love that part...sorta like a bad daytime soap.
Some people seem to be not taking into account the fact that Apple doesn't OWN most of the Codecs that are in Quicktime (namely Sorenson, Qdesign Music, etc...) they LICENCE them. I mean, ya, I think they made a few of them, like the video one, but that's a peice of crap and very old, so who'd want it? Anyways, it's quite likely that even if Apple wanted to, they couldn't just give out the codecs to the public domain because they do not own them.
Now, the codecs... Why would you want those?
Call me crazy, but some of us like to have players that, well, actually play movies and stuff.
QuickTime != codecs.
QuickTime is a very deep API for manipulating time-based data. You can easily write a player that parses movie "atoms" and decompresses them using GPL'd codecs. But that only gets you as far as the AVI format. Big freakin' deal.
What you really want is the library of code that manipulates those atoms in meaningful ways. People here seem to think that the only interesting thing to do with a movie file is play back streams of samples. QuickTime lets you composite that stuff on the fly, from multiple sources. That's on the playback side.
On the content creation side, QuickTime lets you write a non-linear movie editor without pulling your hair out....
There seems to be a lot of confusion here as to what QuickTime really is. It's not a "format" and it's not a "codec".
.mov file format like any other more primitive format (like AVI) -- just ignore the atoms you don't know how to handle, and stick to codecs like MPEG-1 or MJPEG.
It's an entire library of code for managing time-based data. There's a file format, sure, and codecs, too, if you're doing video or audio data. But the magic happens when that file format gets processed by that library of code.
The QuickTime file format is wel l defined. It's a pretty nice format, actually, which I suppose is why the MPEG-4 people have decided to use it.
In its simplest form, a "movie" (file) can consist of a track, which points to a media, which points to a media handler (often a codec). That's basically what an MPEG or AVI file looks like -- a stream of samples which have a defined media handler.
But a QuickTime movie can have multiple tracks of information, of any type. These tracks have "media handlers" associated with them -- which is where the codecs come in. The weird stuff happens when you have media handlers that allow you to translate other media handlers, media references that point to other media references, filters, sprites, interactive behavior, etc.
You can't separate the "content delivery" portion of QuickTime from the "content creation" part, because the content creation part happens during content delivery. Think about that for a second -- this is an amazingly powerful concept. It's an object-oriented system for processing time-based data.
A movie could contain two tracks, one which points to a stream of MJPEG samples, while the other points to a convolution filter. This filter is applied in real time during playback -- the original MJPEG data doesn't get changed.
QuickTime movies also don't have to contain their media data. You can easily make a movie which composits -- on the fly -- several different movies, some on CD-ROM, some streaming over a network, some pulled from your local hard drive. Most people here would consider this to be content creation, and assume that you would be compositing it to a single stream of video samples that would then be played back, but QuickTime does it at "runtime".
Now, since the QuickTime file format is well-documented, and is completely independent of any particular codec, you could easily write a simplified QuickTime generation/playback layer for any operating system you like. You could treat the
As to Apple open-sourcing the QuickTime code, take a look at the QuickTime API, and ask yourself how much engineering effort went into making it. The amount and quality of code in QuickTime makes Mozilla look like a weekend project. I'd say it approaches the complexity of the Linux kernel, and I believe the only reason the Linux kernel has so many developers working on it is because they need it. I doubt that there are as many programmers out there who would contribute to a GNU/QuickTime effort.
The only place that a viable competitor to QuickTime is going to come from is the commercial (read: proprietary) arena; i.e., Microsoft. Don't look to Real as a competitor -- their format is designed for streaming over networks, and only for streaming over networks. It doesn't have the dynamic, client-side, on-the-fly creation capabilities that QuickTime has, and I don't think Real has a real motivation to add those. Microsoft does, but they're lagging, and most content creators prefer QuickTime.
Now, as to Apple porting QuickTime to GNU/Linux or *BSD, that I can see. But not yet. They'll do it when there's a decent UI standard for both content creators and consumers, and Linux has a ways to go yet. The best way to get QuickTime for your favorite free operating system is to work on [insert UI system of choice here], and make it suitable for the end-user. Which will naturally increase desktop acceptance to the point where Apple would be foolish not to offer QuickTime for the platform, in much the same way that they had to offer QuickTime for Windows.
Disclaimer disclaimer: I don't work for Apple. I just like some of their technology. I also like some of Real's, very much. I don't think I can find anything good to say about Microsoft's, except that at least they keep trying.
You're right that Windows and Macintosh comprise 90% of the market in the desktop arena, possibly even more than that. I wouldn't advise Apple to make their own port of the QuickTime clients, but what's the problem in licensing their codecs under an NDA to make binary modules for XAnim? That would give them some serious brownie points, at little or no cost to them.
We wouldn't have licenced it under the licences we have done if we didn't want them to be able to do that!
Moron!
Go to GNU and
do some reading.
Don't come back until you fully understand everything there.
In the long run, people won't make money by selling distributions, they will move into support.
We don't care about royalty checks, thats the whole point! Proprietary software is immoral.
Don't you think?
Besides, people will always want customization and new features.
I must be the only person with a copy of xanim that plays quicktime movies. Quicktime gets used because it's good. If it's slow on Losedows it's because MS did something to screw it up. And as far as OS goes, in my book there _is_ no alternative to the free unices.
Quicktime is:
And the best people can do is 'Duh, AVI is faster on Windows 95, Quicktime sux!'?
Sheeeeeeesh. Can we say apples and oranges people? In fairness, what we're actually talking about here is a _creation_ format- though Sorenson performs amazingly well, I for one would be happy using Quicktime to _produce_ multimedia content and then for your general movie-type stuff, 'rendering' it all down to a plain data stream like MPEG. I've seen some very pretty MPEG
But then I can- I'm dualbooting a Mac, deal with it. I like that much better than dualbooting a Windows machine and giving money to the Butcher of Redmond, rather than the apprentice butcher of cupertino which (as you _know_) may never fully gain the power to destroy which Redmond has.
You can do nonlinear video editing all you like on AVI, for what it's worth. How much do you have to pay? With Quicktime (at least on the Mac) you get to do video editing at no _cost_ with MoviePlayer (granted, you're not supposed to, but guess what? The old MoviePlayer from before QT3 _still_ _works_ with QT3, and lets you do all the editing and file saving with the new codecs.)
There are freeware MP3 encoders. Where's _your_ freeware nonlinear video editor? How's it for editing files by reference and working from existing HD data without generating huge amounts of new work files? I'm sorry- yes, I'd like to have a good converter for changing elaborate QT movies into MPEG, but a lot of people seem to have no idea what Quicktime is.
As for AVI, basically you're talking %90 elaborate codecs explicitly made by Intel to be insurmountably difficult to translate to other processor architectures. I see that nobody _minds_ the lack of current Indeo codecs on PPC, Sparc, Alpha, MIPS yada yada... seems like if it runs on Windows on Intel, it must be okay, eh guys?
While you're ranting about how bad Apple sucks, mind getting after Intel to translate their codecs to an architecture approximately as popular as all of Linux? Geeeeez... Oh well. The most recent video I did was a rendered explosion in POV-Ray. 400x300 at millions of colors, ten seconds at 30fps, and in Sorenson it's 1.4 megs with _no_ artifacting at all.
I'm always going to be concerned about compatibility, and I'll be paying attention to all discussions of multimedia formats, but for my own stuff I can't see not using Quicktime. I _am_ on the optimal platform and processor architecture (having 32 registers and 32 FP registers rather than, uh, 4, does make a difference).
I'm happy for anything Apple does to further Quicktime, and not for a minute do I believe it will fully meet the interests of the FSF for instance. But _anything_ which suppresses the tendency of (currently) Microsoft to exterminate all other choice, is good. Quicktime is good because you've got the option- deal with it. Having options is good. Having all the options on Linux would be better (+linuxPPC) but failing that, it's at least good to _have_ options out there. It's healthier.
And like I said, Quicktime royally kicks butt and takes names _in_ its area of focus, primarily content creation.
1) I think Linux is more mature than you think. I've heard from several sources the userbase is larger than Mac OS, but you and me both can decide how seriously we want to take it.
3) I welcome them, if they are sincere.
4) Beats me. I'm sure some are. I'm sure some don't care about the price of success and are willing to give up freedom.
Of course I want Linux to grow. And I am not CmdrTaco. And I am not the biggest GPL freak there is, either. Yes, I have written lots of GPL code. But of course there are uses for other licenses. And I don't care if people port proprietary software. I just hope people are concious of what they are doing when they use it.
OK, maybe "fear" wasn't the best word, but it's accurate. When I said I fear, I meant it would be a shame that they probably won't.
Sometimes I think Apple is worse than Microsoft.
I'll be happy when mass-market proprietary software dies off...
But Windows and Linux make up 92% of the market.
Tell that to Bob Young.
Well, anyhow, hopefully Apple will go out of business in the next few years, and then we won't have to worry about QuickTime being ported to other platforms. :-)
Hell, if they really want to focus their QuickTime efforts, maybe they should just drop support for Macintosh. The Mac isn't a significant platform these days...at least not really much more significant than Linux.
Apple is so freaking arrogant. Argh.
If they want open source people to work on their software, they have to provide an incentive. They've not done that so far.
Like Apache, right?
It's not a theory; people are making *lots* of money *right now* from free software.
Take a trip to GNU, and read up on some of the information over there about how you make money with free software.
There's nothing anti-capitalistic about free software; in fact, you might say that proprietary software (at least vis-a-vis operating systems) is anti-capitalistic, since it discourages direct competition.
FREE SPEECH, NOT FREE BEER.
That's what free software is about. You can sell free software; many people do, and make money doing so. More will in the future. You can also make money selling services to free software users.
People do need to eat, and free software provides more of them with an opportunity to do so, instead of a select few, as is the case with proprietary software.
Software is not a durable good, and should not be sold as if it were.
Are you an Apple employee or something?
More importantly, there are many good people out there. They really deserve the credit for what's been done, and I believe they are going to be the one's that continue to be the soul of the movement. Apple is just a money-grubbing corporation. All publicly-held corporations are, so Apple isn't unique or anything. It's only actual people (sans press releases, sans business plans) that do good things because they are good. I'll give my thanks to them.
I'm afraid Mac fans have mistaken PR about "thinking different" for real creativity, friendly interfaces for a friendly company.
its called the preview button...u click it before submit :P
"There is no spoon" - Neo, The Matrix
The reason they dont support anyother platforms is the shear dificulty of porting Quicktime... its not a player... its service, its bigger than you think.
Inorder to get quicktime onto windows apple ported a huge percentage of the MacOS Toolbox (system level apis) to windows, most of what makes the mac the mac is in quicktime for windows, thats how big quicktime is... its a huge effort to port.
sure, it would be great if they could do it but right now its not part of their plan... maby, if all the open source stuff goes well for them, they will open quicktime(client)... but due to the size and the level of integration, dont expect it tomorrow...
in addition if sorenson doesnt open their code, thats not apples fault... they can only do so much... if you want sorenson video, talk to sorenson
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
The reason they dont support anyother platforms is the shear dificulty of porting Quicktime... its not a player... its service, its bigger than you think.
Inorder to get quicktime onto windows apple ported a huge percentage of the MacOS Toolbox (system level apis) to windows, most of what makes the mac the mac is in quicktime for windows, thats how big quicktime is... its a huge effort to port.
sure, it would be great if they could do it but right now its not part of their plan... maby, if all the open source stuff goes well for them, they will open quicktime(client)... but due to the size and the level of integration, dont expect it tomorrow...
in addition if sorenson doesnt open their code, thats not apples fault... they can only do so much... if you want sorenson video, talk to sorenson
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
This assumes of course it's the quicktime API they're open sourcing. If it's just an open source server that requires a Win32 Quicktime library to run, then forget what I said and keep praying. Justin's heading made it look like the API was being open sourced when really this story is just carbon copy of the open sourced streaming server that came out in March.
It was pretty obvious that they were looking for some significant drive from the Linux community before committing their Quicktime source code. When I released Quicktime for Linux, it was more of an attempt to show Apple that we really needed a Quicktime library on Linux and it worked.
When hundreds of hits from Apple came during March, it became pretty obvious that Quicktime was very close to being opened sourced. That's why my work was never intended to be a complete port of the Quicktime API and never intended to support all the codecs and features of Apple's Quicktime.
Now let's hope Apple's code is thread safe and allows you to import bitmaps into your own code.
From what I gather you feel that "friendly people" do good, but "Friendly people within companies" don't make for a "friendly company".
I think that's baloney. Apple in past was not a friendly company, but they have changed. This much is obvious beyond the PR - listening to engineers that work there, you can tell what that company is about: radical innovation with great marketing. [with innovation being in the "business" sense of the word, not that "bright idea" sense of the word].
All for-profit companies CAN do is to make our lives a little better through their innovations, while remaining socially responcible in adding to the economy - which slowly increases our standard of living. This isn't about "money grubbing", though your disillusionment with capitalism probably makes it appear so.
Apple does this better than any other PC company (now).
-Stu
Okay, well here's a curve ball: I don't believe a corporation's purpose is to turn a profit.
I'm not alone on this, either. Peter Drucker's the one who got me thinking along these lines - he paints a very solid argument.
Essentially, profit is a necessary requirement for a corporation's survival and for its contribution to our society's economic performance - but it's not the reason for its existence.
The reason for its existence is to "make strength productive" - i.e. get a bunch of people together, build on their strengths, and make them more productive together than they would be individually. From that premise can the authority of management be drawn.
Being "productive" in this sence means that the organization focuses on one goal: creating a customer. That is, finding a need, or creating (innovating) a need/want, and fulfilling that need.
That's my view of it, in short.
-Stu
I believe it is a lot more arrogant if Apple expects the free software community to port the Qt servers to Unix, without also giving them a chance to _view_ it there as well.
The QuickTime-compatible library at http://heroine.tampa.fl.us/quicktime/ just gives you access to the file format and the ability to do some simple encoding and decoding. I'm aware of no efforts to replicate the actual QuickTime API on Linux.
The interaction between the programming model and the extremely flexible file format is where a lot of QuickTime's power comes from.
Also, the author should really stop using "QuickTime" in the name of his library. It's trademarked by Apple, after all...
I have held this opinion for a few years, and with all the hype recently about what "Open Source" really means, it has only deepened my beliefs. If it's not GNU/GPL or BSD, then it's just "other" and can not be clasified as a well known licence type.
IMHO, "other" will never be able to be classified as "open" because if it was, they would just pick GNU/GPL or BSD. They are somewhat closed, no matter what they are, and must be judged indivually. Each of the "other" licences has it's own set of querks, and drawbacks. They can be good or bad (for example ASPL, JAVA, and Mozilla), but if they want full community support, from the GNU or BSD community, they should have used one of these two existing, well defined standard licences.
Why not support them? It can just give them that much more marketshare. I use linux exclusively, and it works as a great desktop environment for me. Gnome + Window Maker is all you need :)
Tigger's like to read
Don't count on Sorenson being opened up anytime soon. Quicktime is an Apple cash cow and undoubtedly very important to the company in the near future. You can read all the Golden Convergence articles at Mac Week. Some of you may find it interesting...
Funny how people only want code to the cool things out there ;-)
"We don't want the Windows source code."
"Hey Apple, open up Quicktime."
-- Are you an EFF member yet?
Apple doesn't actually own the CODECs. They license them from third parties such as Sorenson. Apple licensing out technology they don't own isn't a good idea.
A lot of the posts here are about the lack of free CODECs. It's a problem, but not insurmountable. There has to be a bunch of digital signal processing geeks on Slashdot, they just don't know each other exist. Create an LGPL'd CODEC and library that doesn't infringe on any patents. It won't be easy, but it is doable.
Start off by looking at ways of compressing down information in a single frame (discrete cosine transforms, wavelets, multiresolution etc) then move onto looking into motion estimation, correlation etc.
This battle could be won. Content publication tools don't support any format by default, other than a few build in ones. A few years ago PhotoShop didn't even support JPEG. Plug-ins were written which extended PhotoShop to support JPEG. JPEG caught on in a big way partly because lots of geek-underground content providers started using it. This isn't an exact parallel to the situation with a CODEC designed by geeks since JPEG was designed by a commitee, many 'geeks' were on it to be sure, but they were sponsored by the corporations they worked for. JPEG isn't open, but anybody can access the specification w/o owing royalties, or at least a segment of the specification.
The point is that you can guarantee the failure of the CODEC. Just refuse to port to non-open platforms. Thats why I said to use the LGPL so that the library could be linked into plug ins for PhotoShop, QuickTime, Premiere and other proprietary pieces of software, as well as Open Source software like the Gimp. Actually, the Gimp and PhotoShop are bad examples, but I don't know of an Open Source non-linear editing package.
Just generating a CODEC and plug-ins for every package on the face of the earth won't ensure its acceptance of course. Nothing will, but you can greatly increase it. It's up to the geek community to provide the initial content, and it has to be cool enough that more mainstream people will want to see it. A lot of hilarious spoofs on mainstream movies have been posted on Slashdot. If as new ones are created they were posted with this GPL/LGPL CODEC mainstream people would download the CODEC to view it in their favourite software package. This spreads the knowledge of the CODEC as well as increases the acceptance. It also spreads GPL/LGPL software to a whole lot more people, many who would never have heard of it otherwise. Some of these people will poke around with encoding video with the CODEC and so the knowledge and acceptance of the CODEC can spread like a virus.
There are a lot of CODECs out there now and nobody can seem to agree on which one to use. For that reason they're all vulnerable to a competitor. If that competitor came from the Open Source community it would be a boon for it in terms of credibility and mainstream acceptance.
One problem with that is that, even if you succeed in creating a passable free CODEC, the battle is in getting content providers to use it.
Firstly, the content publication tools that content providers use (mostly from Adobe and Macromedia, running on MacOS or NT) would have to support it. The software publishers have investments in other CODECs and no real interest in providing a GPLed CODEC, especially since the bulk of the desktop market is Windows; if there's a sizable Linux desktop market, we're more likely to see players for the existing formats.
Secondly, the actual media providers have to decide to use this CODEC; and big corporations tend to trust products of other corporations, with intellectual-property investments and contracts, more than the output of the free-software rabble. (Media companies, in particular, tend to be paranoid about open digital formats.)
If a GPLed CODEC comes about, one could expect it to find a niche among geek-underground content providers (claymation Star Wars spoofs, &c.), with GPLed Linux authoring software and players; though breaking into the world of corporate media is another story.
First of all, Linux's user base is somewhere around 2 to 3 times the size of Macintosh's user base (it has around 28% of the market last i heard, but this is just servers i think), reguardless though, he wasnt talking about the fear the Apple was doing this. I'm quite sure he was afraid they werent releasing the source to the codecs.
Sarcasm aside, this is a good point that many of these companies seem to miss. Opening the code is only the first step. A project must also attract developers. I think we are close to reaching an attention economy of open source projects.
Oops, that sounded a little too much like JonKatz -- I'd better explain. (Just kidding, Jon!) Developers willing and able to contribute to these open source projects compose the pool of resources in this economy. That pool is decidedly finite. As the number of projects increases, they will be competing for the finite time of those developers.
Cheers,
-Nygard
"Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped." --Elbert Hubbard (1856-1915)
Nice guys win before the race has even started.
-------
Warning: Slashdot may contain traces of nuts.
I just wanted to point out that the Mac and Linux communities aren't mutually exclusive. My two computers are both Macs, one older and one a B&W G3 ordered three day after the Expo. No need to tell me about Mac users, I know. Believe me, I've sent my share of letters to old Berst over at ZD.
BTW have you seen the latest on C2? It rocks, but marketing is still marketing, not a revolutionary contribution to Open Source.
Loader: Mac user, programmer, general practitioner, late EvangeLista, distributed.net participant, chief cook and bottle washer etc. etc. etc.Many people seem to be under the impression that the spate of new "kinda sorta" open licenses are going to undermine the movement as a whole. That's not necessarily so. I believe that the Free Software concept will continue to flourish. These corporate type projects aren't going to undermine anything. When the tide of open source licenses has abated, the original movement will still be there because of loyalty.
These things aren't going to undermine Open Source, because opening source code is not the complete answer. There has to be a sense of community and of actually building something, not just being a glorified bug eradicator for some stingy corporation that can't fix its own problems. That's why these new licenses are just a marketing ploy, and that's why the true Open Source community will still be intact when the hype wears off. In the end the joke will be on the big boys, not us Linux guys. They'll be stuck with their source out and the novelty worn off and then we'll all sit back and laugh. Laugh at them for not looking ahead past the marketing and seeing the true meaning of the movement. Long live Linus!
Loader of Code and of Bricks>When Apple finally decides to release the full
>source(encoding and all), then they will have a
>warmer reception by the open source community.
Bah. Apple could release their entire product line, contribute half their profits to a slew of Linux and open-source related foundations, provide coders to Mozilla, and publically declare war on Microsoft in the name of open source.
People here would still bitch. "Same old Apple", they'd say. "We don't need their help!".
Ingrateful, methinks.
- Darchmare
- Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
- Jeff
No, I dont want to kill you; I just don't think you understand the situation.
First, QuickTime is merely an encapsulation file format. It's possible, insofar as I know,
to put MPEG streams _in_ a QT file, just like you'd put MJPEG streams in there.
Secondly, and more importantly from the post-production viewpoint: MPEG is, by design, an assymetrical
compression format -- it takes _much_ more horsepower to compress it than it does to decompress it.
For it's design purpose, distribution, this is a feature. But it's decidedly a bug for production environments. Realtime MPEG encoders are currently around $25K.
Cheers,
The only thing that would interest me is the codecs... The more people that have their hands on the codecs (ie linux users, beos users, etc), the better the chance it has at becoming a defacto standard... The only thing making the servers open-source would accomplish is getting some free development for Apple (from the executive's view).
Granted, icecast could be extended to support video as well, but right now it doesn't.
I've been dying to use Piano on The Net ever since I completely scrapped Windows with no chance of reinstalling it (first harddrive full).
Does any one have a CLUE how I can decode all these f*ckin QuickTime midi files so that I can play them under Linux? I have the AWE-midi plugin.
Here is a test page: http://www.artdsm.com/piano/18.html. And here are the rest of the QuickTime files: http://www.artdsm.com/piano/quicktime/.
Any advice, pointers, etc short of installing Windows or MacOS appreciated.
-N.
I'm not affiliated with the site though I agree with you that it's pretty good.
The Qt lessons you say didn't load, probably is because I pointed you directly at the binary files and they need HTML plugin code to work properly with your browser. Just browse the pages of the site directly and you should find that they all work.
There will never be a "free hardware" movement. It costs too much to make it. "Free software" works because you can put LOTS and LOTS of code on a CD, and all you need to build it is a compiler.
Hardware is much different. To build it, you need access to a multi-billion dollar fab. In fact, several companies are releasing specs for thier hardware (see Sun Sparc and MIPS). If you wanted you could get the all of the information you needed to build thier hardward, but you would need millions of dollars to do it!
The following are truths as I see them:
This tells me that a significant portion of this audience, including Mr. Malda/Taco himself, wants Linux to stay small if it doesn't expand in exactly the way they want it to - under an unaltered GNU software license.
What we're seeing is the Linux philosophy winning. This software (QuickTime Server, Darwin, etc) ain't no-strings free, but you get the source! You can port it to your platform! You can put a Penguin in the Apple menu! Quit whining!
Fear is the wrong response to this news. I personally am going to go rejoice over a plate of fine New York sushi right now. I suggest you do the same.
> Now, the codecs... Why would you want those?
Call me crazy, but some of us like to have players that, well, actually play movies and stuff.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
> you don't have to "run a program" to make it happen..
Then what's a codec? Executeable main(), entry point in a dll, what's the difference?
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
Will they finally open up their codecs that their keeping secret to the public or at least to the xanim guy?
I think I recall there being some story about apple not giving the xanim guy permission to get their latest cool quicktime 3 codec. And of course the latest star wars trailer was in that format.
If they want the format to succeed, they should at least try to make it playable on more architectures...
hmmm...
> The fact is that QuickTime has
> succeeded, and I really doubt that support for
> additional platforms would help it in any way
> whatsoever at this point.
um... if quicktime has succeeded, then why is the article about how Apple is opening the source in order to beat other formats?
Certainly, quicktime has been successful. But I would think that if Apple wants to beat the competing formats out there, releasing the specs on the format itself would be a good first start in gaining more support...
The audio is screwy because it's supposed to be.
This is not a real trailer, it's a fan-made one based on footage from the 60-minutes segment with George Lucas recently.
As noted above, one has to wonder exactly what license Apple's leaning toward. I noticed that the article says "open source" as opposed to "Open Source," implying (to me, at least) that they're not going to strictly follow the Open Source Definition--though the media's never been sensitive to such nuances before.
All the discussion about whether or not the codecs will be released may end up being moot if Apple decides to ignore Bruce Perens' definition in favor of, say, Al Gore's definition. An overly restrictive license could discourage application development on traditionally "open" platforms, such as Linux...
Though one might argue that any source is better than no source at all. :)
-W-
-W-
Is it all journey, or is there landfall?
--Ellison & van Vogt, 'The Human Operators'
If I recall the hubbub around the time the SW:TPM trailers were comming out, the codec developers were going to give the xanim a binary only module licence - but apple exercised their right in the contract between them and the codec developer to block it.
--
James Michael Keller
"Linux is not our destination, it is simply the open road to tommorow"
anyway i expect that now they're going to have to write a *NIX quicktime client, or else they're going to look pretty silly releasing a *NIX server.
2 points. First, they are not necessarily going to release a *nix client, except for the fact that MOSXS is based on *nix. This will, however allow others to write servers on other platforms.
Second, having a *nix server in no way necessitates a *nix client. *nix makes for great servers in general, and being able to stream Quicktime on them would be very useful, but the individuals who would want to view these movies are still overwhelmingly in the Mac OS and PC camps. *nix servers can stream to Macs and PC's. Not that a Linux client is a bad thing, but there is nothing "silly" about not writing one.
anyway i expect that now they're going to have to write a *NIX quicktime client, or else they're going to look pretty silly releasing a *NIX server.
2 points. First, they are not necessarily going to release a *nix client, except for the fact that MOSXS is based on *nix. This will, however allow others to write servers on other platforms.
Second, having a *nix server in no way necessitates a *nix client. *nix makes for great servers in general, and being able to stream Quicktime on them would be very useful, but the individuals who would want to view these movies are still overwhelmingly in the Mac OS and PC camps. *nix servers can stream to Macs and PC's. Not that a Linux client is a bad thing, but there is nothing "silly" about not writing one.
I'll be happy when mass-market proprietary software dies off...
Don't hold your breath.
- Slarty
Hi... I'm Larry... the shivering chipmunk... brrrrr!... I'm cold... I need a sweater...
It's not as simple as you pretend. This codec issue isn't just about free as in free beer. It's about open vs. proprietary.
With most significant movie clip content now being released exclusively as Sorenson-codec Quicktime files, the only people who have access to this material are Windows and Mac users. To add insult to injury, the sites which carry these files never even provide a warning that the files may be unplayable on some systems. As a Linux user I was rightfully incensed when after downloading the 24MB second trailer of Star Wars Episode 1, I found that it was unplayable. Also Mark Podlipec's xanim web page states that Apple won't let Sorenson license the codec for xanim. So the exclusive licencing deal between Apple and Sorenson means that there is no prospect of a suitable player materialising in the foreseeable future either unless Apple releases a fully supported QuickTime for Linux. To date, they've shown no interest in doing so.
As bandwidth improves, streaming video content will become more and more significant in it's impact on the evolution of the Internet. One unfortunate side effect of the free market you seem to revere so much is that the Microsoft/Apple coalition's stranglehold on the dominant streaming video codec effectively prevents any other system such as Linux from competing in the multimedia and home/leisure markets. This is monopoly, and if left unrectified will necessitate US government intervention yet again. Of course by the time that happens it could all be too late - other OS's will no longer have any share of this market.
The massively powerful and flexible medium that the Internet is today has only taken shape because it has always run on open protocols. If we don't want to see all non-mainstream systems forced into obsolescence we must resist strenuously any attempt to commoditize those protocols.
I have asked Diane Gartner at the IACT to set up a petition in order to raise awareness of this matter, and she's agreed to pursue the matter when time permits. In the meantime I ask all of you who are interested to demand an explanation from Apple and Sorenson, and to pressure all content providers (such as Lucasfilm for instance) to provide all video clips in a format which is accessible to everybody.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
I agree wholeheartedly with you that open and proprietary models of software development can and must coexist. But then I never disputed it in the first place. The rest of your reply was (IMO) uninformed drivel. Astonishingly, though you write with apparent confidence, almost everything you said is factually incorrect and, moreover, displays your complete ignorance of the wider issues involved. In fact I wondered if perhaps you don't read too well because you variously ignored and misinterpreted what I really said.
Right, that's the end of the flame. Now as to the reasons why.
I was angry about the Star Wars trailer because I didn't find out I couldn't play it until after I'd downloaded all 25 Megabytes. In the UK we pay for each minute spent online. Not to mention loss of bandwidth for other purposes while I was downloading it. Do you get it now? What would it have cost the publisher to put up a small warning about compatibility?
It's irrelevant whether we are talking about incompatibility with Linux, Windows or last year's whizbang mobile phone. If a given platform is widely used and the users of that platform might have some expectation - from past experience - of being able to play the movie then the publisher has a moral responsibility to avoid misleading those users into wasting their bandwidth.
Also your implication that it's OK for minorities to be badly treated in the service of the majority is - apart from any dubious ethical foundation - just plain irrelevant. How would the majority have been inconvenienced by publishing a warning about the file format? They would not. But your attitude suggests that even this small gesture would be too much to endure in the service of a commercially unimportant minority. That worries me. If you plan to treat minorities systematically in this fashion then it indeed does become a question of human rights.
With regard to technology dominance, there's no doubt the Sorenson codec is a wonderful piece of work. But it took five years of R&D and probably millions of dollars to develop. Where does that leave us?
Well it certainly doesn't leave Linux users in the same position as Quicktime 2.0 users, as you mischievously imply. Quicktime 2.0 users can just upgrade for free. Linux users don't even have a commercial alternative that will run on their platform because Apple and Microsoft control that technology. You seem to have failed to grasp this essential point.
And if it took Sorenson so long to develop this codec it's not as if the open source community can just up and replace it just like that. If it takes even two years to do it, OK so it's not then a 'perpetual monopoly' but still a lot of damage could be done to all other platforms' market position as a result. And that is just plain unacceptable, even under US Law. Don't forget that is exactly why Microsoft is on trial right now.
If Apple and Microsoft are allowed to keep this technology to themselves then they will eventually own most of the internet. But the internet is too important to allow any single company or cartel to dominate its evolution or control access to all its content. The reason for the growth of the internet is precisely because the protocols it uses are all open standards. Without that level playing field it would never have spread so far because the cost of entry would have been too high for most suppliers and consumers. Internet protocols must remain free or we will lose the internet.
I remind you of Vinid Vallipolil's remark in the Halloween memos about the commoditisation of protocols. This is exactly what Microsoft would like to do in order to wrest control back from the people. Don't forget Bill Gates already tried to supplant the internet with MSN. There's nothing to say he won't try it again if he thinks he can get away with it.
In closing, you implied that open source developers unwittingly support a Wintel duopoly by coding predominantly for Intel. It seems as if you are just trying to make controversy. In fact, Linux and GNU software runs on a wider range of CPU architectures than any other software I can think of. And I can't at the moment think of any modern CPU architecture for which GNU/Linux software isn't either already available or under development.
In any case I really don't see any evidence that open source supporters or even Microsoft supporters in general have a problem with Intel's market position. Those who dislike Intel's products are free to use AMD for example without even sacrificing binary compatibility.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Apple doesn't actually own the CODECs. They license them from third parties such as Sorenson. Apple licensing out technology they don't own isn't a good idea.
Well, according to Mark Podlipec's Xanim page, "I have contacted Sorenson about licensing their codec. They responded that Apple won't allow them to license it to others." - to me, that says Apple has something to do with whether or not it gets licenced out, ne?
And to those of you who're going to gripe that Windows/Mac own 90% of the Desktop market, and then claim that Linux/Unix is a server only OS, so we shouldn't be allowed to have access to the codec mentioned above because we're insignificant and don't really exist in a market-share perspective, (yes, both of you, I've already read your posts.) those of us who use Unix systems on our desktops (we really do exist, it's not a halucination, really!) would like to be able to see new movie files too, without having to use some other system, just because a bunch of other people use that system. (If 90% of 'the people' (whoever they are) were hitting themselves in the head with baseball bats, would you insist we do that to?) What would be so horrible about them releasing their specs under an NDA to Mr. Podlipec so he can write a driver? It would get them more good publicity, and they would be able (finally) to claim one thing MS can't claim about their new AVI format (yes, they too have changed to a new, incompatible codec again recently)- that it runs on 100% of the desktop market, instead of just 90%.
Besides, we may only be 10%, but we're a really noisy and annoying 10%, and we also tend to be the 10% that the 90% looks to for tech support. Gosh, think that puts us in a bit of a power position when it comes to recommendations and such? If Apple really wants their format to fly, they should be trying to get everyone they can to like it, including the 10% who make lots of loud noise and sometimes influence the decisions of the 90% in big ways. That's what marketing is all about - you pick the most effective strategy for pushing your product to the masses, and part of effective is reducing resistance.
The codecs are all owned by 3rd parties. You people are never happy.
RateVegas.com - Vegas Reviews
Of course just the streaming code. Apple is trying to get people who stream media to use quicktime. They also want to be able to make some money. They have a free player, and you can use it. They have a pro player that people pay $29.95 for that gives tons of features. That is less than most shareware.
By opening up the server, it will allow all of you people to make money streaming QuickTime media to other people. All they need is a player that can read the RTSP(Real Time Streaming Protocol) data. The server is open-source, so it won't be that hard to make a player. Once you use RSTP, you can use any codec you want to stream. Sorensen is not the best protocol for streaming since it requires tons of processor power. Therefore, I expect many people to use RTSP to stream cinepak or even mpeg2.
QTSS is not about revolutionary codecs, it's about a revolutionary protocol. For as much as you folks like to rip on news.com, you take a lot of their stuff at face value. If you really want to know more about QTSS, sign up for some of the Apple Mailing lists on the subject.
regards,
remy
http://www.mklinux.org
regards,
remy
http://www.mklinux.org
By opening up the server, it will allow all of you people to make money streaming QuickTime media to other people. All they need is a player that can read the RTSP(Real Time Streaming Protocol) data. The server is open-source, so it won't be that hard to make a player. Once you use RSTP, you can use any codec you want to stream. Sorensen is not the best protocol for streaming since it requires tons of processor power. Therefore, I expect many people to use RTSP to stream cinepak or even mpeg2.
QTSS is not about revolutionary codecs, it's about a revolutionary protocol. For as much as you folks like to rip on news.com, you take a lot of their stuff at face value. If you really want to know more about QTSS, sign up for some of the Apple Mailing lists on the subject.
regards,
remy
http://www.mklinux.org
From what I understand, QuickTime (the player part) is very tied in with the Mac OS API (proven by the fact that a large part of the toolbox was ported to Windows for that version of QT3.0). So if Apple releases this portion of QT (even without the codecs) it could be a significant chunk of code.
-- mihai
Don't look to Real as a competitor -- their format is designed for streaming over networks, and only for streaming over networks. It doesn't have the dynamic, client-side, on-the-fly creation capabilities that QuickTime has, and I don't think Real has a real motivation to add those.
Have you looked at the SMIL stuff in G2? Stuff like built-in transitions, multiple simultaneous media types and feeds, all sorts of stuff like that. Quicktime's definately cooler when it comes to that stuff, but Real is definately going down this line.
e;
Apple is investing millions of dollars in public relations, and they should certainly be open to public criticism. And public debate and criticism of their licensing terms is important so that everybody can make an informed decision of what they are signing up for if they decide to go with Apple's "open source" software. Apple's intent, future, and their licensing terms are all important considerations there.
On the issue itself, I'm somewhat pessimistic. After Cesar Chavez, Einstein, and the Dalai Lama, the ever-out-for-something-hip Apple marketing department has latched onto Open Source. It seems to me they simply pick any icon of creativity and stamp the Apple logo onto it. Their actual investment in those issues that people care passionately about appears minimal.
In fact, for Apple to assume the "open source" banner while pushing media formats that limit access to a small handful of proprietary formats simply offends me. I almost prefer Microsoft; at least they don't pretend.
I don't think that's something in QuickTime's favor. Apart from gee-whiz awe, what good is all that complexity? And a framework that allows zillions of proprietary, platform dependent codecs to be plugged into it does not seem like something that is particularly desirable from an open source perspective.
There are good reasons why people "confuse" QuickTime with the codecs: when all is said and done, what the end user sees is that in order to look at QuickTime content, they need a Mac or possibly a Windows PC. Whether the reasons for that are technical, economical, social, or just random doesn't really matter.
To me, one of the best things about the open source movement is that, by necessity, it keeps things simple. The fact that QuickTime is big, complex, very general, and overly powerful isn't an advantage to me.
: If they want the format to succeed, they
: should at least try to make it playable on
: more architectures...
Sometimes the arrogance of the people here astounds me. QuickTime 3 works on Windows and Macintosh, which together make up at least 90% of the market in this area, probably more. Linux/UNIX/etc. are SERVER OSes right now, and, to be blunt, their numbers on the client side for a technology like QuickTime are completely insignificant. The fact is that QuickTime has succeeded, and I really doubt that support for additional platforms would help it in any way whatsoever at this point.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
: um... if quicktime has succeeded, then why
: is the article about how Apple is opening
: the source in order to beat other formats?
:
: Certainly, quicktime has been successful.
: But I would think that if Apple wants to
: beat the competing formats out there,
: releasing the specs on the format itself
: would be a good first start in gaining more
: support...
Companies are never satisfied. Look at Microsoft for an excellent example. Few would argue that Windows is extremly successful, but they're always trying to get the leg up on their competition anyway. Attempts to further the cause of a product do not indicate a lack of success, they indicate a lack of satisfaction which is something an organization like Apple will never have anyway.
Even if QuickTime is not successful, the argument still stands that it does run on 90+% of the consumer-owned computers out there (I'd say that the plus is significant, of the client, desktop, consumer market, Windows and Macintosh have things pretty much bottled up at this point in time) and I don't see how supporting OSes that are almost completely server-oriented would help the situation.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
What few people seem to realise is that QuickTime is not just a "Player", it is a Media Layer. Ever heard of the QuickTime Media Layer (QTML).
The beauty of QuickTime is it doesn't actually do anything that the user interacts with. It only provides Media services to basically any application that support is. That why when QT is released, you will be able to do things like embed a streaming video of a television, in a Panorama of a room (With directional sound) and play it all from a MS Word document, or any other app that supports quicktime.
You can't just go and say "Oh, lets go a write QuickTime for (Insert OS)" Something as complex as QuickTime is not as easy as creating as your favourite text editor.
The codec are the least difficult part of Quicktime, cause all you have to do to add another codec is literally just plug it in. It is the framework that is a hard part.
Yes I know you *nix guys have a hard time getting the stuff you want. Yes I know it is a pain. I am a Mac user myself and I can tell you I know what a pain it is to try a get companies to recognise your platform. You guys are picking up a LOT os speed these days, and the quickest way to blow it, is to go bitching about companies that dont port stuff to *nix. Been there, done that.
The best way to go is to encourage Apple to port QT to Linux, not flame them for not porting it. That is the quickest way to get doors closed on you.
At the end of the day, Apple is a business which has to make the shareholders happy. Commercial companies MUST exist for the "Free" software market to grow, because people have to eat and 9 times out of 10, the guy that wrote or contributed to your favourite app, also works at a comercial comapany to put food on the table. Free software doesn't put food on the table. Free software does not grow trees. (But Apples do!)
Rememeber, support Apple if you want Quicktime. Otherwise that Apple will turn sour real fast.
Ummm, excuse me....
If you had invested over 200 million dollars in a software product and tens of thousands on man-hours, don't you think you would want to protect that product from competition.
"Get with the program buddy."
Who's Bob Young?
If he has anything to do with RedHat et all.... I am not talking about companies who "Distribute" software which they have leeched off the people that wrote it.
You wait till RedHat goes public and the founders make millions. I think a few "Free Software" people will be slightly pissed off at that. Seeing as RedHat makes Bucks and they get nothing for their years of hard work in coding.
One thing has been proven. Capitalism works. Maybe not as well as it should, but if you keep adding zeros to a cheque, you can get whatever you want.
I am not too sure about BSD, but I know that you are supposed to pay for Apache if you use it in a commercial environment. I am also sure Apple payed its due to the Apache group for the rights to plaster the Apache logo over everything, and to include Apache as part of a standard distrobution.
In the long run, people won't make money by selling distributions, they will move into support.
BINGO!
So the software, when taken from a Total-Cost-Of-Ownership point of view is not FREE because to make it do what it is supposed to do, you have to pay for support.
Yes, I know that there will always be people out there that dont need support. Lucky Them. But for the most of us, running Linux will always require support due to its ever changing nature.
We don't care about royalty checks, thats the whole point! Proprietary software is immoral.
Exactly how is proprietory software immoral, and who made that judgement. Does this mean that say... a JumboJet is immoral because it uses proprietory software AND hardware to make it work?
What about cars for that matter. Does that fact that they are proprietory or at least contain proprietory parts make them immoral as well?
You just cannot bring morality into it because no one can be the judge as to what is moral and what is immoral.
I would also like to point out that Linus Torvalds himself works for a COMMERCIAL PROPRIETORTY company. Why? You ask? Because he has bills to pay and a living to make.
In case you ask, he used to work for Transmeta. (Probably one of the most secret companies I know of.) It is now rumored that he has gone to work for Elbros. They are creating the new E2k chip, and you can bet your bottom dollar that is it will be one VERY proprietory chip.
Isn't it funny that the OpenSource/FreeSoftware movement has never branched out to hardware. Why dont you go and bang on Intels new Blue Door and get them to release the P3 and the Xeon under the GPL. One can guess pretty accurately as to the answer you would get from Intel.
Would you change your tune if Apple ported QuickTime to... hmmm lets see....
Linux??????
I don't care to make any format more popular, I'm more concerned with being able to view a certain file with my computer. Ever use Quicktime3 on a Windows box? It's so damned slow it's disgusting. Do I want a slow movie viewer slowing up my linux box? No. If they give out the codecs in a SDK I would be fine with that, at least then we could incorporate them into our own programs. If you REALLY want to make a format universal then make it viewable to absolutely everyone. Look at JPEG and MPEG, it's rare to find a modern graphical system that doesnt have some viewer for them. Being readable to almost every system and the release of the encoding scheme made them a standard AND more popular.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
> Linux's user base is somewhere around 2 to 3
> times the size of Macintosh's user base
You are higher than a fucking kite. I'd like to see a source for this nonsensical and utterly wrong statistic.
Eric Scheirer
Editor, ISO 14496-3 (MPEG-4 Audio standard)
Tell that to Mr. Free Software himself, Richard Stallman, who throws a hissy fit whenever someone doesn't honor his attempt to change the name of Linux to GNU/Linux.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Last time I checked the MPEG standard, you had to buy 3+ books each $50+. No pdf docs.
I want specs that I can get for free just for the sake of it, not specs that cost me too much money so that I have to think before I buy it if I need it. The answer is usually no, so I have one less spec. And if I buy one, I cannot scan it and put it online - the specs itself are not 'free' (as in freedom), even if their content is.
Sorry for the rant, but I got pissed a while before when I saw a spec that cost $500 (the homerf one), and since then all paid specs make me nervous.
Just my $0.02.
If you have the decoders, you know what the decoders would expect, and then you could simply create your own encoder to create a new stream the the decoders would understand.
In this case, it's possible that you come up with an encoder that's even BETTER than the closed source ones.
Of course, it's possible to get an encoded file and its output (well, lots of encoded files and lots of outputs) and _guess_ the file format. You are not doing anything wrong - you're not reverse-engineering their code, you are just comparing the inputs and outputs and analysing them. You could get it right. Or totally wrong. Anyway, you got the decoder.
Apple making the QuickTime framework Open Source is a good thing. Unfortunately most of the good codecs (such as Sorensen) are distributed under license -- so Apple can't just make them available.
What I'd really like to see is the creators of these codecs open up their sources so that people could write free decompressors, while selling the actual compressors to "video professionals" -- the people who can and are willing to pay.
Matt Slot / Bitwise Operator / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Thats funny? it sounds normal to me, who wants to code something that sucks? yeh, that would be a lot of fun.
"Computers will never truly be free until the last windows user is strangled with the entrails of the last mac user."
I thought the new upcoming MPEG standard
was going to be based on QT, in which case
at least some codecs would open up.
And the best people can do is 'Duh, AVI is faster on Windows 95, Quicktime sux!'? Sheeeeeeesh. Can we say apples and oranges people? ;)
More like apples and lemons
-- johnmc.
Guys, a beta of Quicktime 3.0 is available for Mac and Windows java machines. How hard would this be to port to a Linux java machine?
This article is confusing. the little description there above the first paragraph says apple "is" going to open source it; the first paragraph says they are "expected to".
so are they or aren't they? does news.com have any actual news, or are they just reprinting rumors?
I would interpret the statements as Apple will release the source, but the date this will occur is expected to be this week.
The article even says as much:
Apple Computer this week is expected to...
So expect the source this week!
AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
that Apple will open source the player and server apps, but keep the development tools proprietary. And they are perfectly entitled to do that considering all the work that they've put into it.
Really looking forward to play Quicktime movies under Linux......
We had a QuickTime evangelist come to our company some months ago. He mentioned this deal with opening the source to the server. The implication was that you would be able to write your own version for free, but he made no mention of the requirements for distribution.
I also asked about any plans Apple may have for releasing QT for Linux, and there the answer was a resounding no. Even though he liked the idea of the penguin (QT) running on the penguin (Linux), he said that at least for '99 there were no plans whatsoever for porting, and he couldn't tell any further into the future. He did imply that this might happen if the market for it came into being, but how they judge that, is anybody's guess. I wouldn't hold my breath, if I were you. And don't expect them to open up the source, either - QT is their second most important/valuable software asset (after the OS).
What I don't understand is why you had to post this same blurb at least 8 times.
--Corey
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
don't anyone correct my usage of "right." I meant write. (Where is the "edit" button?)
The article seems to imply that they will give out the server code. So we can right our own streaming servers, but not players or codecs.
Unfortunately most of the good codecs (such as Sorensen) are distributed under license -- so Apple can't just make them available.
My understanding was that Sorenson was restricted by their QT distribution contract with Apple from porting their codec to additional platforms. Maybe I have it wrong, but if that's the case, then it isn't exactly as though Apple is beholden to Sorenson's whim on the matter, and it would fit in with Apple's general gameplan of miserable support for their quasi-standards on non-Apple platforms.
And the best people can do is 'Duh, AVI is faster on Windows 95, Quicktime sux!'? Sheeeeeeesh. Can we say apples and oranges people?
There is a huge body of QuickTime content. People just wish it were either playable, in the case of *nixes, or playable without such a degree of decrepitude, in the case of Windows.
I see that nobody _minds_ the lack of current Indeo codecs on PPC, Sparc, Alpha, MIPS yada yada...
There's very little Indeo content out there, and what there is of it, there's usually QT as well, since often that's what the Indeo content is generated from.
but for my own stuff I can't see not using Quicktime.
Wouldn't it be nice if more people could see the content you're creating? Since it's a platform of choice for you as a content creator, shouldn't the availability of end-user tools be of near and dear importance to you?
I'm sorry, but I'm incredibly tired of this content-weenie stance that Apple can do no wrong. You may like the tools and technology you have to produce the pretty things you do, but if the consumers of your art have limited or no access to userland tools, all your efforts are in vain.
And the best people can do is 'Duh, AVI is faster on Windows 95, Quicktime sux!'? Sheeeeeeesh. Can we say apples and oranges people?
There is a huge body of QuickTime content. People just wish it were either playable, in the case of *nixes, or playable without such a degree of decrepitude, in the case of Windows.
I see that nobody _minds_ the lack of current Indeo codecs on PPC, Sparc, Alpha, MIPS yada yada...
There's very little Indeo content out there, and what there is of it, there's usually QT as well, since often that's what the Indeo content is generated from.
but for my own stuff I can't see not using Quicktime.
Wouldn't it be nice if more people could see the content you're creating? Since it's a platform of choice for you as a content creator, shouldn't the availability of end-user tools be of near and dear importance to you?
I'm sorry, but I'm incredibly tired of this content-weenie stance that Apple can do no wrong. You may like the tools and technology you have to produce the pretty things you do, but if the consumers of your art have limited or no access to userland tools, all your efforts are in vain.
And the best people can do is 'Duh, AVI is faster on Windows 95, Quicktime sux!'? Sheeeeeeesh. Can we say apples and oranges people?
There is a huge body of QuickTime content. People just wish it were either playable, in the case of *nixes, or playable without such a degree of decrepitude, in the case of Windows.
I see that nobody _minds_ the lack of current Indeo codecs on PPC, Sparc, Alpha, MIPS yada yada...
There's very little Indeo content out there, and what there is of it, there's usually QT as well, since often that's what the Indeo content is generated from.
but for my own stuff I can't see not using Quicktime.
Wouldn't it be nice if more people could see the content you're creating? Since it's a platform of choice for you as a content creator, shouldn't the availability of end-user tools be of near and dear importance to you?
I'm sorry, but I'm incredibly tired of this content-weenie stance that Apple can do no wrong. You may like the tools and technology you have to produce the pretty things you do, but if the consumers of your art have limited or no access to userland tools, all your efforts are in vain.
And the best people can do is 'Duh, AVI is faster on Windows 95, Quicktime sux!'? Sheeeeeeesh. Can we say apples and oranges people?
There is a huge body of QuickTime content. People just wish it were either playable, in the case of *nixes, or playable without such a degree of decrepitude, in the case of Windows.
I see that nobody _minds_ the lack of current Indeo codecs on PPC, Sparc, Alpha, MIPS yada yada...
There's very little Indeo content out there, and what there is of it, there's usually QT as well, since often that's what the Indeo content is generated from.
but for my own stuff I can't see not using Quicktime.
Wouldn't it be nice if more people could see the content you're creating? Since it's a platform of choice for you as a content creator, shouldn't the availability of end-user tools be of near and dear importance to you?
I'm sorry, but I'm incredibly tired of this content-weenie stance that Apple can do no wrong. You may like the tools and technology you have to produce the pretty things you do, but if the consumers of your art have limited or no access to userland tools, all your efforts are in vain.
And the best people can do is 'Duh, AVI is faster on Windows 95, Quicktime sux!'? Sheeeeeeesh. Can we say apples and oranges people?
There is a huge body of QuickTime content. People just wish it were either playable, in the case of *nixes, or playable without such a degree of decrepitude, in the case of Windows.
I see that nobody _minds_ the lack of current Indeo codecs on PPC, Sparc, Alpha, MIPS yada yada...
There's very little Indeo content out there, and what there is of it, there's usually QT as well, since often that's what the Indeo content is generated from.
but for my own stuff I can't see not using Quicktime.
Wouldn't it be nice if more people could see the content you're creating? Since it's a platform of choice for you as a content creator, shouldn't the availability of end-user tools be of near and dear importance to you?
I'm sorry, but I'm incredibly tired of this content-weenie stance that Apple can do no wrong. You may like the tools and technology you have to produce the pretty things you do, but if the consumers of your art have limited or no access to userland tools, all your efforts are in vain.
And the best people can do is 'Duh, AVI is faster on Windows 95, Quicktime sux!'? Sheeeeeeesh. Can we say apples and oranges people?
There is a huge body of QuickTime content. People just wish it were either playable, in the case of *nixes, or playable without such a degree of decrepitude, in the case of Windows.
I see that nobody _minds_ the lack of current Indeo codecs on PPC, Sparc, Alpha, MIPS yada yada...
There's very little Indeo content out there, and what there is of it, there's usually QT as well, since often that's what the Indeo content is generated from.
but for my own stuff I can't see not using Quicktime.
Wouldn't it be nice if more people could see the content you're creating? Since it's a platform of choice for you as a content creator, shouldn't the availability of end-user tools be of near and dear importance to you?
I'm sorry, but I'm incredibly tired of this content-weenie stance that Apple can do no wrong. You may like the tools and technology you have to produce the pretty things you do, but if the consumers of your art have limited or no access to userland tools, all your efforts are in vain.
And the best people can do is 'Duh, AVI is faster on Windows 95, Quicktime sux!'? Sheeeeeeesh. Can we say apples and oranges people?
There is a huge body of QuickTime content. People just wish it were either playable, in the case of *nixes, or playable without such a degree of decrepitude, in the case of Windows.
I see that nobody _minds_ the lack of current Indeo codecs on PPC, Sparc, Alpha, MIPS yada yada...
There's very little Indeo content out there, and what there is of it, there's usually QT as well, since often that's what the Indeo content is generated from.
but for my own stuff I can't see not using Quicktime.
Wouldn't it be nice if more people could see the content you're creating? Since it's a platform of choice for you as a content creator, shouldn't the availability of end-user tools be of near and dear importance to you?
I'm sorry, but I'm incredibly tired of this content-weenie stance that Apple can do no wrong. You may like the tools and technology you have to produce the pretty things you do, but if the consumers of your art have limited or no access to userland tools, all your efforts are in vain.
And the best people can do is 'Duh, AVI is faster on Windows 95, Quicktime sux!'? Sheeeeeeesh. Can we say apples and oranges people?
There is a huge body of QuickTime content. People just wish it were either playable, in the case of *nixes, or playable without such a degree of decrepitude, in the case of Windows.
I see that nobody _minds_ the lack of current Indeo codecs on PPC, Sparc, Alpha, MIPS yada yada...
There's very little Indeo content out there, and what there is of it, there's usually QT as well, since often that's what the Indeo content is generated from.
but for my own stuff I can't see not using Quicktime.
Wouldn't it be nice if more people could see the content you're creating? Since it's a platform of choice for you as a content creator, shouldn't the availability of end-user tools be of near and dear importance to you?
I'm sorry, but I'm incredibly tired of this content-weenie stance that Apple can do no wrong. You may like the tools and technology you have to produce the pretty things you do, but if the consumers of your art have limited or no access to userland tools, all your efforts are in vain.
And the best people can do is 'Duh, AVI is faster on Windows 95, Quicktime sux!'? Sheeeeeeesh. Can we say apples and oranges people?
There is a huge body of QuickTime content. People just wish it were either playable, in the case of *nixes, or playable without such a degree of decrepitude, in the case of Windows.
I see that nobody _minds_ the lack of current Indeo codecs on PPC, Sparc, Alpha, MIPS yada yada...
There's very little Indeo content out there, and what there is of it, there's usually QT as well, since often that's what the Indeo content is generated from.
but for my own stuff I can't see not using Quicktime.
Wouldn't it be nice if more people could see the content you're creating? Since it's a platform of choice for you as a content creator, shouldn't the availability of end-user tools be of near and dear importance to you?
I'm sorry, but I'm incredibly tired of this content-weenie stance that Apple can do no wrong. You may like the tools and technology you have to produce the pretty things you do, but if the consumers of your art have limited or no access to userland tools, all your efforts are in vain.
Sorry, folks. Got a little trigger-happy there. My bad.
You are right in a way, if everyone release their code under their own semi-free lisense only the real enthusiasts will be left working and using GNU. The danger is that ordinary people and even GNU people will get used to non-free-but-open lisenses and in the end it might just destroy everything we like with open-source and free software. Then nobody cares about the philosophy then whats the point of GNU. Then you can use a fancy but restricted application I think most people will do that instead of coding their own GNU clone or hope for a GNU clone to be created.
Then people got their Streeming Quicktime servers will they even think it might be wrong to use it because it ain't free. NO they won't and we won't get a clone because although ASPL ain't free it is free enough. Thats the real danger of semi-free, the goal is not to give people freedom but to be free enough just to succed.
De lyckliga slavarna är frihetens bittraste fiender, legalisera!!!
Everyone bitches and moans about proprietary codecs (including me) .. but the people who put the work into writing those codecs have to eat too, and it seems they feel they have a right to make money from their efforts.
What I'm wondering is, since so many people are bitching about closed codecs, why don't we see any really good OPEN codecs? Surely one or two *decent* open codecs would be enough to put a slight dent in the closed-codec world? Where are the open codecs?
Until the opensource world produces some good alternatives, they shouldn't be complaining about the proprietary stuff.
Gosh .. it seems no matter *what* Rob posts on /., *someone* will come along and write "hey this is old news, I saw this down on --- ten years ago when I was a kid".
..." script for articles. For polls, he could have a "There should be checkboxes" auto-message-writing script. In the pre-heavy-moderation days this could have solved several other problems, like "first post" and "meept".
.. maybe it is old news (I don't think so though .. I remember there was a rumor a while back that Apple would do this, round about the time they released the new iMacs, or was it when they APSL'ed MacOS X, I can't remember .. but there wasn't any solid news about it.)
Some responses are getting predictable. I think Rob should write a Perl script that auto-responds to any new article that is posted, just to get some of the predictable responses over with.
He could have an "Old news
Any other ideas for auto-responses?
PS I'm not lashing at out at this particular post about QuickTime, just making a general comment
It's not just that content providers choose codec's because corporations tend to trust other corporations - its worse - content providers often "choose" codec's because the corporation pushing a certain format PAYS them to (Microsoft, for example, setting up deals with major content providers to use their format).
Because QuickTime as it is BLOWS much ass. Play it on any platform other than a Mac and it chunks away eating up processor and generally looks really bad. MPG and AVI both blow it away easily. Why people even both with QT while MPG and AVI are around is beyond me...
IMHO, Quicktime is already a defacto standard. Otherwise, why would so many people be clambering to be able to play it on their platform-o-choice? I can't think of a non-Microsoft-non-Real site that offers video exclusively in non-Quicktime delivery.
Almost everybody has xanim. The problem is that very new material distributed as QuickTime, e.g. the Star Wars trailer .mov files, is encoded using codecs (like Sorenson) for which no support exists within xanim because no information on the internals is given to the author of xanim, not even if he signs an NDA.
Otherwise, it's nice to see... :)
apple exercised their right in the contract between
them and the codec developer to block it.
Same old Apple, the only computer company more ethically twisted than Microsoft.
If you had invested over 200 million dollars in a software product
I would have no beef with this if were they calling Quicktime anything other than a cross-platform standard. Fake standards chap my ass.
It's vaguely akin to PPP; all it does is say "these are blocks of data that are in FOO format". This is nothing terribly complicated or undocumented.
To rehashe an old phrase, "It's the codecs, stupid!"
This is old news. Apple said that they were going to do this a while ago. They are only opening up the server code and not any video codecs so don't get too excited. My guess is that opening up codecs would mean the end of quicktime for apple, so don't expect that any time soon.
--------------------------------------
in a world without bounderies or fences, who needs Gates anyway?
What about wine? Have you tried that?
-Jelly Musher, King of the Wompas
Of course, what I'd *really* like right now is for Apple to fscking update MkLinux; DR3 is nearly a year old now.
Of course, they probably need the MkLinux guys to port Mac OS X and Darwin to a newer version of Mach.
Why is it that they couldn't do that sooner? MkLinux was on Mach 3 almost two years ago!
How many times can I say "Of course..." in one post?
amper trips over his tongue.
:)
The stupid parser removed my MUD prompt, so I'm sure that last joke didn't make much sense...
(44hp 78mv 82ma) amper sighs heavily.
-m
Gee, that *must* be why MPEG picked QuickTime as the basis for their next generation standard.
QuickTime must really suck bad.
Oh yes, it blows so much ass that MPEG decided to use it as the basis for MPEG-4.
Why would MPEG do that if the MPEG-1, MPEG-2, or AVI formats were superior?
I doubt anyone would argue that MPEG caved into pressure from Apple; certainly Microsoft has much more marketing muscle than lil' ol' Apple.
By all means, criticize, where the criticism is warranted; however, people should not criticize Apple for not releasing software that they want and Apple controls.
Apple has the right to determine the disposition of its software, just as you have the right to determine the disposition of yours.
Personally, I believe Apple has made some serious mistakes with the APSL. To ensure the widest acceptance of Darwin or any other project within the targeted acceptance group, Apple should free those projects from any possiblity of single-party control, whether its own or that of licensors.
I fail to see how Apple could be significantly hurt by releasing the source code to certain of their technologies, but I can certainly see how people would not want to invest time and energy in a project that might be ultimately doomed to failure. Still, the decision is Apple's, not ours. Our decision is to accept or not accept this addition to the store of public knowledge.
Do not confuse your passion for open software with a mandate for everyone else to follow the same path.
What I fail to see is how the release of QuickTime code is entirely useless without corresponding codec code. Anyone is welcome to write a codec that will work with QuickTime and release that code under any source license they choose. How can we deny Apple, Sorenson, or anyone else that right without being hypocritical?
Ah, but it is that simple, and I'm not talking about free beer, you are. I'm talking about commerce. The open and proprietary software models are complementary and both necessary for the advancement of the entire industry.
Companies like Apple are not in business to write free software (yet). Apple does not have a business model that would be viable in the free software market, and it will be a long time, if ever, before they do.
Why do you claim to be rightfully incensed at LucasFilm's right to release the Star Wars trailers exclusively as Sorenson-encoded QuickTime? From where does this right to be incensed arise?
Should we require a law that all content providers warn all potential viewers that their content may be playable only on certain systems? How would you feel if you were required to warn all potential downloaders of your software that it may not run on Windows? After all, is it not more reasonable to suggest that the needs of the majority might take precedence over the needs of the minority? This is *not* a question of basic human rights.
Free markets are not to be revered, they are to be tolerated only as far as they go. When the human race develops an acceptable substitute, rest assured, I will be quick to adjust. The power of the free market, as well as free software is this: if you don't like the dominance of a particular technology, create a new one. If it is superior, it will eventually win through.
What bothers me about your post in the implication that the Apple/Sorenson deal is somehow unfair. Misguided, perhaps, but unfair, certainly not. Did you honestly expect every QuickTime file in the world to be playable through xanim? Sorenson files don't even play in QuickTime releases before 3.0!
Perpetual monopolies are nearly impossible to achieve in a world where free development tools like GNU/Linux and gcc exist.
Witness the decreasing relevance of the Wintel duopoly. Perhaps this could be accelerated if free software developers were more willing to support alternative platforms rather than continuing this unhealthy reliance on cheap Intel-based hardware.
At lot of the talk here has been dedicated to criticism of, among other things, the closed nature of QuickTime encoder/decoders, and the general dissatisfaction with pseudo-open source licensing practices.
Putting aside the fact that Apple Computer does not own the rights to many of the codecs used with QuickTime, and therefore, cannot release the source code to them without consent of the rightholder, if you don't like the things Apple Computer (or any other company or individual, for that matter) has created or done, create or do your own thing.
Distribute it any way you like, under any license you so desire, for any fee you would like to charge, under any restriction you see fit.
Stop this pointless complaining about the RIGHTS of others to do as they see fit, PLEASE.
Corporations do not exist to provide software free of charge or restriction. They exist to provide their consituents (by which I mean not only shareholders, but employees and related third-parties) with a livelihood.
How many Open Source(tm) programs would have been written without some form of monetary support? I would venture to claim *zero*.
Does not Linus Torvalds eat while writing the Linux kernel, or RMS while writing GNU software? How do they obtain their food? Does it magically appear, like manna from heaven?
I think not.
The unfortunate fact of capitalism is that money makes the world go 'round. We all have to eat, obtain shelter, etc., and the most successful, by many measures, form of value exchange the human race has come up with is capitalism; therefore, in our world, we must exchange something of value (i.e., money) for other things of value (i.e., software and food).
For every thing created by human hands, somewhere it was paid for, if not in money, then by the labor of its human creator, who also must eat.
Why do many people seem to believe that a corporation has no right, or find it morally repugnant, for a corporation to attempt to profit in any way from the fruits of its labor or research, and yet find it perfectly acceptable for a member of the "Open Source Community(tm) (sic!)" to derive a profit (and there are many definitions of the word "profit") from his or her efforts?
For people who live in the binary world, this is a ludicrous situation.
Don't bother responding with arguments concerning Apple's supposed subversion of the so-called Open Source(tm) or free software movements, these things are, by definition, incapable of being subverted. So long as one person continues to write free or Open Source(tm) software, there will continue to be a free or Open Source(tm) software movement.
One could sooner subvert the value of zero.
We were all blessed with free will at birth; if you don't like Apple's terms, or anyone else's, don't accept them. If you don't want to fix Apple's bugs without recompense that you feel is acceptable, do not do so.
Write your own software, set your own terms.
I get it.
I am also a proponent of all forms of software, whether open, closed, or free. I also believe, as a creator, in the validity of intellectual property protection.
Intellectual property protection laws, *used properly*, are meant to encourage creativity and competition, not to undermine them. Without the ability to ensure an exclusive economic benefit for themselves, creators of all types would quickly find themselves less and less able to secure a livelihood through the use of their talents.
The argument you make seems to be that the pursuit of happiness at the expense of others is immoral. I disagree. I believe that competition is much more important to the betterment of humanity than is charity.
Please elucidate upon these points:
What do you define as a durable good? Why is software not included in your definition?
What, exactly, is your point in claiming that software should not be sold as a durable good?
Where is your basis for claiming that free software provides an economic benefit for more prople than other forms of software?
I think I made my point rather clear in my original post: If you don't like a particular piece of software's license terms, use another package, or go write your own software, and distribute it as you please.
Just please spare us the complaints if the rest of the world doesn't follow the same path. This isn't a life or death issue.
OSI will have a public statement within the week. If you want to participate in the license review, subscribe to license-discuss by sending mail to license-discuss-subscribe@opensource.org.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
When the tide of open source licenses has abated, the original movement will still be there because of loyalty.
- ------------
These things aren't going to undermine Open Source, because opening source code is not the complete answer. There has to be a sense of community and of actually building something, not just being a glorified bug eradicator for some stingy corporation that can't fix its own problems. That's why these new licenses are just a marketing ploy, and that's why the true Open Source community will still be intact when the hype wears off.
Well, you obviously don't realize that the Mac community is probably stronger and more vehement than the Linux Community. Just because it's not _your_ community, doesn't mean that Open Source won't work for Macintosh fans. Besides, when someone in the Linux world decides that they want to build their own streaming server, you can bet they'll go check out Apple's code.
Be thankful for what Apple's giving out. The truth is that Open Source w/o a major organization behind it results in projects that only the Open Source people care about. Apple's going to write Quicktime Server and try to drive it to the market regardless of whether or not anybody out there can see the source code or not.
Imagine this... The Linux community ports the Quicktime Streaming Server to all of those boxes that ISP's are using to serve sites with freeware like Apache, etc. Then, for a few hundred dead presidents, they can have the latest and greatest Streaming OS running off their equipment... Hell, Slashdot could have hosted the Star Wars trailer themselves then... and no aborted downloads at 20 Megs.
------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
In the wonderful world of cats, Mr. Fus
Should Apple open source the entire QuickTime project? I don't know. Is this act a good thing? I don't know that either. But what I DO know is that a lot of people are not understanding the purpose of QT.
The technology by Real or Microsoft will not replace QT.. they are not really competitors. QT was initially developed as a method by which to handle complex types of data, including text, sprites, MIDI, sound, video, etc..., all in different and extensible formats.
Things like AVI and MPEG and the Real streaming technology are all FORMATS. QT is NOT a format. It is an architecture by which one can handle multiple formats with ease. On its own, QT is nothing but a shell. A very sophisitcated and robust shell yes, but just a shell.
In a video production environment, one must have a single method of handling various media types and integrating them. QuickTime is this method.
There is a fundamental difference between these other technologies and QT. The QT architecture allows someone to open any type of media and handle it in a consistent method, while providing a common interface to all applications that use this architecture.
This is why QuickTime is the defacto, nearly 100% standard in high-end video production studios around the world. Things like the Avid system, Media 100, Premier, After Effects, etc.. they're all based on the QuickTime architecture. Without this common denominator, video production would be impossible.
So yes, in response to others, AVI or MPEG may be great to view movies in, and RealNetworks has a great streaming technology. But this is not what QT is designed to do, and never will be.
Hope this clears some of the confusion....
--globalnap.net, product of pure caffeine--
Should Apple open source the entire QuickTime project? I don't know. Is this act a good thing? I don't know that either. But what I DO know is that a lot of people are not understanding the purpose of QT.
The technology by Real or Microsoft will not replace QT.. they are not really competitors. QT was initially developed as a method by which to handle complex types of data, including text, sprites, MIDI, sound, video, etc..., all in different and extensible formats.
Things like AVI and MPEG and the Real streaming technology are all FORMATS. QT is NOT a format. It is an architecture by which one can handle multiple formats with ease. On its own, QT is nothing but a shell. A very sophisitcated and robust shell yes, but just a shell.
In a video production environment, one must have a single method of handling various media types and integrating them. QuickTime is this method.
There is a fundamental difference between these other technologies and QT. The QT architecture allows someone to open any type of media and handle it in a consistent method, while providing a common interface to all applications that use this architecture.
This is why QuickTime is the defacto, nearly 100% standard in high-end video production studios around the world. Things like the Avid system, Media 100, Premier, After Effects, etc.. they're all based on the QuickTime architecture. Without this common denominator, video production would be impossible.
So yes, in response to others, AVI or MPEG may be great to view movies in, and RealNetworks has a great streaming technology. But this is not what QT is designed to do, and never will be.
Hope this clears some of the confusion....
--globalnap.net, product of pure caffeine--
Should Apple open source the entire QuickTime project? I don't know. Is this act a good thing? I don't know that either. But what I DO know is that a lot of people are not understanding the purpose of QT. The technology by Real or Microsoft will not replace QT.. they are not really competitors. QT was initially developed as a method by which to handle complex types of data, including text, sprites, MIDI, sound, video, etc..., all in different and extensible formats. Things like AVI and MPEG and the Real streaming technology are all FORMATS. QT is NOT a format. It is an architecture by which one can handle multiple formats with ease. On its own, QT is nothing but a shell. A very sophisitcated and robust shell yes, but just a shell. In a video production environment, one must have a single method of handling various media types and integrating them. QuickTime is this method. There is a fundamental difference between these other technologies and QT. The QT architecture allows someone to open any type of media and handle it in a consistent method, while providing a common interface to all applications that use this architecture. This is why QuickTime is the defacto, nearly 100% standard in high-end video production studios around the world. Things like the Avid system, Media 100, Premier, After Effects, etc.. they're all based on the QuickTime architecture. Without this common denominator, video production would be impossible. So yes, in response to others, AVI or MPEG may be great to view movies in, and RealNetworks has a great streaming technology. But this is not what QT is designed to do, and never will be. Hope this clears some of the confusion....
--globalnap.net, product of pure caffeine--
Should Apple open source the entire QuickTime project? I don't know. Is this act a good thing? I don't know that either. But what I DO know is that a lot of people are not understanding the purpose of QT.
The technology by Real or Microsoft will not replace QT.. they are not really competitors. QT was initially developed as a method by which to handle complex types of data, including text, sprites, MIDI, sound, video, etc..., all in different and extensible formats.
Things like AVI and MPEG and the Real streaming technology are all FORMATS. QT is NOT a format. It is an architecture by which one can handle multiple formats with ease. On its own, QT is nothing but a shell. A very sophisitcated and robust shell yes, but just a shell.
In a video production environment, one must have a single method of handling various media types and integrating them. QuickTime is this method.
There is a fundamental difference between these other technologies and QT. The QT architecture allows someone to open any type of media and handle it in a consistent method, while providing a common interface to all applications that use this architecture.
This is why QuickTime is the defacto, nearly 100% standard in high-end video production studios around the world. Things like the Avid system, Media 100, Premier, After Effects, etc.. they're all based on the QuickTime architecture. Without this common denominator, video production would be impossible.
So yes, in response to others, AVI or MPEG may be great to view movies in, and RealNetworks has a great streaming technology. But this is not what QT is designed to do, and never will be.
Hope this clears some of the confusion....
--globalnap.net, product of pure caffeine--
Should Apple open source the entire QuickTime project? I don't know. Is this act a good thing? I don't know that either. But what I DO know is that a lot of people are not understanding the purpose of QT.
The technology by Real or Microsoft will not replace QT.. they are not really competitors. QT was initially developed as a method by which to handle complex types of data, including text, sprites, MIDI, sound, video, etc..., all in different and extensible formats.
Things like AVI and MPEG and the Real streaming technology are all FORMATS. QT is NOT a format. It is an architecture by which one can handle multiple formats with ease. On its own, QT is nothing but a shell. A very sophisitcated and robust shell yes, but just a shell.
In a video production environment, one must have a single method of handling various media types and integrating them. QuickTime is this method.
There is a fundamental difference between these other technologies and QT. The QT architecture allows someone to open any type of media and handle it in a consistent method, while providing a common interface to all applications that use this architecture.
This is why QuickTime is the defacto, nearly 100% standard in high-end video production studios around the world. Things like the Avid system, Media 100, Premier, After Effects, etc.. they're all based on the QuickTime architecture. Without this common denominator, video production would be impossible.
So yes, in response to others, AVI or MPEG may be great to view movies in, and RealNetworks has a great streaming technology. But this is not what QT is designed to do, and never will be.
Hope this clears some of the confusion....
--globalnap.net, product of pure caffeine--
Should Apple open source the entire QuickTime project? I don't know. Is this act a good thing? I don't know that either. But what I DO know is that a lot of people are not understanding the purpose of QT.
The technology by Real or Microsoft will not replace QT.. they are not really competitors. QT was initially developed as a method by which to handle complex types of data, including text, sprites, MIDI, sound, video, etc..., all in different and extensible formats.
Things like AVI and MPEG and the Real streaming technology are all FORMATS. QT is NOT a format. It is an architecture by which one can handle multiple formats with ease. On its own, QT is nothing but a shell. A very sophisitcated and robust shell yes, but just a shell.
In a video production environment, one must have a single method of handling various media types and integrating them. QuickTime is this method.
There is a fundamental difference between these other technologies and QT. The QT architecture allows someone to open any type of media and handle it in a consistent method, while providing a common interface to all applications that use this architecture.
This is why QuickTime is the defacto, nearly 100% standard in high-end video production studios around the world. Things like the Avid system, Media 100, Premier, After Effects, etc.. they're all based on the QuickTime architecture. Without this common denominator, video production would be impossible.
So yes, in response to others, AVI or MPEG may be great to view movies in, and RealNetworks has a great streaming technology. But this is not what QT is designed to do, and never will be.
Hope this clears some of the confusion....
--globalnap.net, product of pure caffeine--
Should Apple open source the entire QuickTime project? I don't know. Is this act a good thing? I don't know that either. But what I DO know is that a lot of people are not understanding the purpose of QT.
The technology by Real or Microsoft will not replace QT.. they are not really competitors. QT was initially developed as a method by which to handle complex types of data, including text, sprites, MIDI, sound, video, etc..., all in different and extensible formats.
Things like AVI and MPEG and the Real streaming technology are all FORMATS. QT is NOT a format. It is an architecture by which one can handle multiple formats with ease. On its own, QT is nothing but a shell. A very sophisitcated and robust shell yes, but just a shell.
In a video production environment, one must have a single method of handling various media types and integrating them. QuickTime is this method.
There is a fundamental difference between these other technologies and QT. The QT architecture allows someone to open any type of media and handle it in a consistent method, while providing a common interface to all applications that use this architecture.
This is why QuickTime is the defacto, nearly 100% standard in high-end video production studios around the world. Things like the Avid system, Media 100, Premier, After Effects, etc.. they're all based on the QuickTime architecture. Without this common denominator, video production would be impossible.
So yes, in response to others, AVI or MPEG may be great to view movies in, and RealNetworks has a great streaming technology. But this is not what QT is designed to do, and never will be.
Hope this clears some of the confusion....
--globalnap.net, product of pure caffeine--
Big deal!
All this comes across as just Apple trying to get a hipper public image, as the penguin looks set to take some dedicated mac users.
When Apple finally decides to release the full source(encoding and all), then they will have a warmer reception by the open source community.
Encoding source is one thing, but server codecs?
Come on Apple! Get with the program!
(P.S.Please excuse the awful pun)
Just because Apple opened up the codecs for QuickTime doesn't mean that QuickTime will end. There is still the Communicator by Netscape... Linux by Linus... and BSD by Berkley... People who write for Open-Source aren't savages who like to take other people's code and change the name on it to further their ego... They simply port the program to another OS, make changes to the code to run a little faster, or make it to support a newer format or even an older one..
As a basic "translated to" mechanism, quick time offers no real >end user< advantages over other playable formats other than the fact that it's not free which might appeal to you if you are a snob... The qt3 player is a royal pain in the arse that's so code bloated it may as well have been released by MicroSoft... All in all I can honestly say that releasing the source of the server but not the codecs sounds like something MicroSoft would do to show "support" for OSS. Anyway, I suppose Apple should make as many announcements as possible while they are still around.
I think you should be more educated on QT before you think it should rot in hell. Please name ANY other new media architecture that can come close to what quicktime can do. Quicktime can decode MPEG2 or AC-3 audio, given the codec to do it, and enough horsepower. ANYONE can write a codec if they want to. The codec could run entirely on the processor, or utilize hardware assist, if installed. MPEG2 is not better than Quicktime, its just a compression standard, which being an owner of dvd hardware and software, I agree with you that it rocks.
The next comment is not meant for the original writer of this thread, but for as smart as all you linux geeks think you are, I am astounded by the level of ignorance on slashdot when it comes to anything unrelated to rebuilding your kernal. In general, there are two kinds of posts and posters. Linux heads that pan anything NOT linux, and intelligent people actually have a valid point, and understand all platforms and what they are best used for.
bloose