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.
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.
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.
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.
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....
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.
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.
I think some people are seriously missing the point here. The Palm was created to be a simple, fast, and efficient personal digital ASSISTANT. If it were meant to be a toy, you'd find it in Toys 'R Us. If it were meant to be a computer that you could take pictures with, play MP3s with, etc..., you'd find it in a computer store. But this is NOT who the Palm was created for.
It was designed to be an ASSISTANT... a method for tracking a limited amount/type of information in an unobtrusive way. You shouldn't have to think about the amount of RAM your ASSISTANT has. You shouldn't have to wait for your ASSISTANT to boot up so you can enter an appointment.
While for some people, the Palm is seen as a new technology or toy to be experimented with, my Palm is a tool. It allows me to organize and simplify my life. There is a threshold... if your PDA becomes to bloated with features and software, it takes more time to do basic functions than the organization saves.
I hope neither the Palm of WinCE dies.. both have their target markets. If you'd like to buy something that can play MP3s, fine, buy a CE device. If you want something that does a few simple things extremely efficiently and is a true business tool, buy a Palm. I don't want MP3s... I want a fast and reliable organizer. That's it.
And to the person that said "nobody would buy the Palm V"... I'm sorry, but I'm a very happy Palm V user. I don't need to expand my Palm. I play games on my computer. My Palm is a tool. The weight saved, and the time saved with the excellent Li-Ion batteries truly makes this a useful product for me. 5 minutes on the cradle, and my goes for days....
It's just like the idea behind Open Source and alternative operating systems... one size does NOT fit all. It's about a choice. Palm Computing should not try to make a PDA for everyone. WinCE is great for some people, Palm OS is great for some people, and an old-fashioned day planner is great for some people. Just like on the desktop.... no single OS can do ALL applications well... every platform has its strengths and weaknesses.
Slashdot Mirror
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....
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....
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....
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....
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....
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....
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....
I think some people are seriously missing the point here. The Palm was created to be a simple, fast, and efficient personal digital ASSISTANT. If it were meant to be a toy, you'd find it in Toys 'R Us. If it were meant to be a computer that you could take pictures with, play MP3s with, etc..., you'd find it in a computer store. But this is NOT who the Palm was created for.
It was designed to be an ASSISTANT... a method for tracking a limited amount/type of information in an unobtrusive way. You shouldn't have to think about the amount of RAM your ASSISTANT has. You shouldn't have to wait for your ASSISTANT to boot up so you can enter an appointment.
While for some people, the Palm is seen as a new technology or toy to be experimented with, my Palm is a tool. It allows me to organize and simplify my life. There is a threshold... if your PDA becomes to bloated with features and software, it takes more time to do basic functions than the organization saves.
I hope neither the Palm of WinCE dies.. both have their target markets. If you'd like to buy something that can play MP3s, fine, buy a CE device. If you want something that does a few simple things extremely efficiently and is a true business tool, buy a Palm. I don't want MP3s... I want a fast and reliable organizer. That's it.
And to the person that said "nobody would buy the Palm V"... I'm sorry, but I'm a very happy Palm V user. I don't need to expand my Palm. I play games on my computer. My Palm is a tool. The weight saved, and the time saved with the excellent Li-Ion batteries truly makes this a useful product for me. 5 minutes on the cradle, and my goes for days....
It's just like the idea behind Open Source and alternative operating systems... one size does NOT fit all. It's about a choice. Palm Computing should not try to make a PDA for everyone. WinCE is great for some people, Palm OS is great for some people, and an old-fashioned day planner is great for some people. Just like on the desktop.... no single OS can do ALL applications well... every platform has its strengths and weaknesses.