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?
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.
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.
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?
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