Ask Slashdot: What Quicktime Format for X-Platform? 198
Harry Zink
asks: "Since there is no Linux solution for playing
Apple's QuickTime 4 movies, I'm trying to offer to some of
my clients (which do movie sites) versions of their
trailers in a QuickTime format that *can* be viewed by
Linux users (and, in fact, it should be listed as 'for
Linux) - key query here being: What is the best QuickTime
format and compressor for that purpose? What viewers exist
on the Linux platform to view QuickTime, and what codecs do
they support?" Let's change "Linux" to "cross-platform",
here. There are several OSes that are also in the same boat
as Linux when it comes to QuickTime support. It's sad
how, up to QT4, QuickTime was known as the cross-platform
multimedia format, but now it's gone the same route
as AVI. Can QT compete? Should Apple rethink it's position
and open up QT4? I certainly would like such a move.
There is already a quicktime for linux project! (Score:1)
format reader for linux.
http://www.freeyellow.com/members4/heroine/quic
These pages are also related.
http://www.ggi-project.org/mailinglist/apr99/18
http://ca.us.mirrors.freshmeat.net/news/1999/04
On another note... (Score:2)
http://xanim.va.pubnix.com/home.html
---
XAnim 2.80.0 is now ready for consumption. In addition to several new video codecs, the new revision also supports dynamically loadable video decompression libraries. This means you no
longer need to recompile xanim each time a new video codec is released or upgraded. There are currently dll's for: Creative CYUV, Radius Cinepak, Intel Indeo 3.2, Intel Indeo 4.1, Intel Indeo
5.0, CCITT H.261 and CCITT H.263.
There is a new Star Wars trailer that has been recently released and it uses the currently unsupported Sorenson Video codec. I have contacted Sorenson about licensing their codec. They
responded that Apple won't allow them to license it to others. You may want to nicely send a single email message to Sorenson and Apple asking about unix and/or xanim support for the
Sorenson video codec.
For the record, I would gladly add support for Sorenson if allowed to. Same goes for all other currently unsupported video/audio codecs.
Also I'd like to thank all of those who sent me coins from around the world for my collection. I appreciate the time and effort you took to send those. It helps keep me going. Thanks again.
---
Heh, main reason I posted this is that I can't watch some of the movies at: http://members.aol.com/moseisleym/sw-main.html
I've found (Score:2)
mtv (Score:1)
Too bad there are a lot of mpeg files that don't play correctly on xanim..
Re:QT$ and platforms defined (Score:1)
Percentage-wise, Linux is more common as a server than a desktop (which is apparently the reasoning behind releasing the QT server for Linux instead of a client).
Re:Use H.263: It's open, it's as good as Sorenson. (Score:2)
However, I'll also admit that for certain software, it's worth paying. For example, I bought Civilization: Call to Power, and I plan on buying Myth 2. There's nothing wrong with paying for software, but I refuse - refuse - to become tied irrevocably to proprietary software.
That being said, I can't see how Sorenson are making a lot of money off of the hordes of people who aren't buying Quicktime 4 for Windows and MacOS. I know that on 100% of the computers I've ever seen with Quicktime 4 installed, it gives you that annoying, evil little "Please buy me" message.
Also, as someone previously pointed out, Apple is, uh, a lot bigger than Real Networks, and Real manages to get a Linux client for RealPlayer out, including their ever-so-proprietary codecs.
I don't particularly know why Apple and Sorenson can't seem to port their client to Linux, and I don't know why Apple won't let the xvideo guy use even a proprietary codec for us. It's a case of a wannabe monopolist, probably.
MPEG is good (Score:1)
Why sorenson doesn't release their codec (Score:1)
I suppose they think that if they released the specs to their codec, us evil free software folk would write an encoder and they wouldn't sell anymore $100 lemonade. (and they'd be right)
Splitting hairs (Score:1)
Secondly, while the codec was developed by Sorenson, Apple apparently has an exclusive license, and it is *Apple*, not Sorenson, that is keeping it away from Linux/Unix users (see the xanim page). So, it is *Apple* that is, quite rightly, getting flamed.
--
Pot, Kettle, Black? (Score:5)
As for audio and video, there isn't a whole lot of community knowledge about this. Actually, with mp3's, there's getting to be more people programming encoders and decoders for that, which is promising. But there has already been much time and money spent by corporations with deep pockets and many software patents in this field, and that makes things difficult.
So, I agree that there hasn't been a whole lot of free software audio/video innovation, per se, but we already have three major formats, with many versions and codecs, and some of them are open. But please don't say that because of this, free software isn't innovative, because that's simply wrong. It has to reimplement proprietary 'standards', but that should not be confused with always copying other people's implementations. Rather, it is providing open support for someone else's brain-dead protocols and formats, when they didn't have the courtesy to do it themselves. Got that?
Re:Compare them to RealAudio ... (Score:1)
Re:Apple is open now - how about in 6 months? (Score:1)
Yea, and they left a lot of 68k assembly in MacOS too (for a long time - did they ever finally get all the 68k assembly out of it?). I'm all for backward compatibility, but having to emulate parts of the OS is ridiculous.
Re:Be serious (Score:1)
There are, just too damn expensive (Score:1)
Cinepak / XAnim or JPEG Photo / XMovie (Score:2)
Re:Splitting hairs (Score:1)
Re:Quicktime is *not* a closed format! (Score:1)
And as I've said elsewhere, no one put a gun to Sorenson's head and made them sign that contract. They chose to go down that road because they worked out it would maximise their profit - which is any company's prime reason for existence.
Re:Um... this is not hard. (Score:1)
Re:Profits, not market cap (Score:1)
Re:Compare them to RealAudio ... (Score:1)
Re:Quicktime is *not* a closed format! (Score:1)
Re:mtv (Score:1)
Re:I've found (Score:1)
Somebody writes a good mpeg player and asks $10 if you want to use the better interface, pay the man. Christ. You act like he's asking for an annual tithe or something.
Re:Apple is open now - how about in 6 months? (Score:1)
When Apple saw that it couldn't convince vendors to port their apps to this, they decided to update the MacOS API, creating Carbon. Nobody is ever going to write software for the NeXT API except for the few software companies that did so before Apple bought NeXT. Witness MacOS X Server - don't see much software written for it, just Unix ports.
In any case, MacOS still doesn't have memory protection, pre-emptive multitasking, or normal virtual memory. Hopefully the current version doesn't run anything in 68k emulation by now.
So instead of hoping Apple will give you the features you need, and paying for upgrades that break your software [macfixit.com], just install LinuxPPC.
--
http://www.wholepop.com/ [wholepop.com]
Whole Pop Magazine Online - Pop Culture
Run MacOS apps inside LinuxPPC (Score:1)
Sheepshaver [sheepshaver.com] will let you run MacOS in a window, like Apple's defunct Blue Box. And when MacOS crashes, as you know it will, you can keep on working.
--
http://www.wholepop.com/ [wholepop.com]
Whole Pop Magazine Online - Pop Culture
Apple is open now - how about in 6 months? (Score:2)
For the past 6 years, maybe more, Apple has been promising pre-emptive multitasking and protected memory "just two years from now". Hasn't happened yet.
If Apple can actually stick to their current path, they'll be a much better company. But I doubt that'll happen.
--
http://www.wholepop.com/ [wholepop.com]
Whole Pop Magazine Online - Pop Culture
And what exactly have MS innovated? (Score:1)
It's not too surprising that the OS field is a little slow here. What excuse does MS have? Sorry... They've just released a better MP3.
Design Algorithms!! (Score:3)
Unfortunatly this seems to be right in a good deal of cases. What we really should be trying to do is construct an open video compresion codec that has similar quality to sorenson...as we should to with mp3 and all sorts of other formats.
Free software succeded with bzip2 bringing free and superior conresion to linux surely we have people bright enough to do the same thing with video and audio.
Use AVI! (Score:1)
I guess this is the point where Microsoft announce benchmarks showing that their player is faster on a quad Xeon system with 4Gb of RAM :-)
Re:Run MacOS apps inside LinuxPPC (Score:1)
First you say Rhapsody was killed, which is clearly untrue (`uname` in Mac OS X even returns "Rhapsody"
You obviously don't know much about the current Mac OS: yes, MANY things still run in 68K emulation, as everyone knows, though it is getting less with each new OS release. Of course, much of what is left in 68K is left in 68K because there is little or no advantage to being PPC. You also seem to be hinting that there is something wrong with using Carbon APIs instead of Cocoa APIs, which doesn't make any sense from a technological viewpoint.
Then, you say the Blue Box is defunct, which is just plain wrong. It is in Mac OS X Server and is a key part of the Mac OS X strategy, since most software won't be updated to Carbon when Mac OS X comes out (despite the first public release of the Carbon SDK hitting FTP servers a couple of weeks ago).
Anyway, like SheepShaver, when the Blue Box crashes, you can keep working. You just need to restart the Blue Box.
You don't have any idea what you are talking about, and you'd be better off just keeping quiet.
Re:Apple is open now - how about in 6 months? (Score:1)
# deal heavily with 68k code. Fortunately, I don't
# think the speed hit is terribly great anymore.
It isn't. It was, of course. But for the most part, the 68K code that remains is about as harmful to Mac OS' speed and reliability as a monolithic kernel is harmful to Linux' portability.
Re:They Don't Understand (Score:1)
# that if you make something for Linux it has to be GPL'ed. I tried to
# explain that it didn't, but she didn't believe me. That is why she won't
# let her people do it
Balderdash. Product managers don't make decisions about what products will be created and for what platforms, especially with something as important as QuickTime. People like Steve Jobs do that.
Re:THEN REGISTER THE SOFTWARE!!!!!!! (Score:1)
Re:Apple is open now - how about in 6 months? (Score:1)
Item 3 never existed. Be was looked at (along with Sun's Solaris and NeXT), but it was never a "strategy", just one of many options.
Items 4 and 5 are not accurate. The Rhapsody strategy is alive and well. It had Carbon (the "modernized" Mac OS API) added to it. Nothing was removed. It is not a "new strategy." It does not, nor has it ever "run on top of BSD." Both NeXTSTEP and Rhapsody have always had a BSD compatibility layer. Ther kernal has always been Mach.
Re:Apple is open now - how about in 6 months? (Score:1)
We'll see. In the short term, Mac developers will just port to Carbon. But in the long term, I suspect they'll switch to either Cocoa (Yellow Box) or the BSD layer. But it doesn't really matter, since all the APIs leverage Mach at the lowest level, the Quartz imaging model, and "middleware" APIs like the CF classes. Even using "just" Carbon will be pretty nice.
"So instead of hoping Apple will give you the features you need, and paying for upgrades that break your software, just install LinuxPPC."
Upgrades that "break" software, imagine! Welcome to the world of computers. Mac OS is pretty amazing in this respect, actually. As of Mac OS 8.1, the oldest piece of software I own (the game Lode Runner) still ran. I haven't tried it since then. I have no complaints about Apple's treatment of backward compatability. Hell, they switched CPUs without breaking my software.
Also, I have LinuxPPC installed, but do most of my work in Mac OS.
Re:Apple is open now - how about in 6 months? (Score:1)
Well worth it, IMO, when the alternative was to just scrap all 68K apps. It's gone now, BTW.
Re:Apple is open now - how about in 6 months? (Score:1)
I meant gone in Mac OS X (Server now, Client later)
Re:I've found (Score:1)
Unless you're a college student, a recipient of a genius grant, a star on the lecture circuit, or otherwise set as far as money goes, "open source" may not be the proper route for you.
Don't give me "make money through support", either. What hacker wants to spend all their free time with mind-numbing technical support, re-explaining the basics to people who don't want to do a little learning on their own?
Make it open source, but still charge a fee? Unless you at least prohibit binary releases (which no `free software' zealot is going to go for), someone else is going to be giving it away, so who'll buy it from you? (Unless you want to do support--see above.)
If you want to make a living writing software--and only writing software--you have to SELL it. And you can't open the code, else some other unscrupulous person will SELL IT CHEAPER, or give it away so nobody buys it from you!
When were programmers assumed to become saints who must freely give away their work and live in poverty? When were we deprived of the right to make a living doing what we love to do?
Just pay the $10 if you like it, or write your own damn software.
--
Quicktime is *not* a closed format! (Score:1)
As a Quicktme author, I can quite easily generate QT content that can be view from Linux...I just can use any old codec.
-K
Re:Apple Responds to QT Plea (Score:1)
Re:I've found (Score:1)
Shareware in my experience tends to be done either quickly or by people that have little talent at what they code. If these people had real talent, how come they haven't been hired to write software professionally?
I really don't want a 16 year old kid or somebody who has remedial coding skills to be writing closed source software, since we really don't know what or how he makes it work. Finally, much of the shareware software I have seen is quite buggy (such as ircle--it doesn't crash often on a good day).
Portablity:
Another, disadvantage to closed source software--if the author doesn't port it, you have no chance to get it on your archutechure. So if you are running something like Solaris or Linux/Alpha or Linux/PPC and you want to run it, you are out of luck.
Improving Coding Skills:
If you are going to showcase your coding skills to the world, it forces you to write good code, since everybody in the world will see it. It also makes you more competive to everybody else--you end up making better code.
Expensive:
Paying shareware fees can freaking add up quickly. $10 + $25 + more and more adds up to big bucks, trust me.
Linux Serial Numbers Guides:
If Linux gets flooded by bad shareware titles, how long to we get something like "Penguin Cracks" or "Linux Serial Numbers". Hell, I am sure their is them already, but I would think the guides are pretty small. And soon we will have warez sites. Lame.
Payback to Author:
It's a fact that less then 5% of downloads of shareware actually get payed for. People just run shareware unregistered or crack it (trust me, anybody with two months experience on a computer can crack a registration system on several shareware programs).
What does Shareware Make in Money:
Lets say a program super-shareware-draw pro is $10 for the program (a reasonable fee for the program). 1,000 people download if from either download.com or your homepage at kagi.com. Just for example, 1 out of 20 people register it (a reasonable number). Finally, about 4/10 of the people discard the program after downloading (that's also reasonable).
Do this on a caclualator:
10 * ((1000 *
If you get $200, you can consider your program to be a success. Of course, $200 to write a great application isn't really worth it in most cases -- you won't make $200 up front. It might take several months to get that full $200 in, your money will trickle in every one and a while at $10 a check.
Maybe shareware pays off for some, but going the gpl route would be in general a more rewarding route--if you get 1,000 downloads you know that like over 600 people are using your great piece of software to improve their lives. Also, if you write a good populuar piece of software, and people love it and enjoy it, that person who uses it could be future boss or something.
Shareware or GPL?
Depends on your situation. You want something you can make a little money off while you code, do it. However it most the time makes more sense to get a better paying job, such as working in a college libary or something.
Re:Run MacOS apps inside LinuxPPC (Score:1)
Personally, I have seen it boot both LinuxPPC (watching LinuxPPC using BootX boot on top of LinuxPPC is cool), MkLinux (it's sometimes helpful for testing stuff), and Mac OS 8.6. It emulates a 604e PowerPC on most machines, and it runs at close to native speeds (maybe 3 or 4% slower, but that it). Video speed is decent, if you use the MOL video driver. Ethernet works with some cards.
Things it still needs--serial port support, support for more Macs without using rom-images, real SCSI support and other.
And yes it is GPL'd, and you can use the source or download it for free. And it is avalible now. SheepShaver will be out this summer.
It's at http://ibrium.se/linux/
Re:Opening up quick time. (Score:1)
You see, we really don't need the full quicktime program, just a binary codec. We have Xamin which seems to support Cinepack movies to a limited degree of success.
Apple Cinepack is still under a binary license, and I don't see the problem with them licensing them to us.
Actually, they told us they would port the full quicktime to Linux *if* we payed them several thousand dollars. Eventually, if they think they can benfit from Quicktime on Linux x86, they will do it.
Re:Let me tell yall... (Score:1)
--
Re:Compare them to RealAudio ... (Score:1)
Re:On another note... (Score:1)
Re:Apple is open now - how about in 6 months? (Score:1)
Re:I've found (Score:1)
FYI: File system of MPEG-4 is based on Quicktime. (Score:1)
This is from the Overview of the Mpeg-4 standard [cselt.stet.it] document:
6.1.3 MPEG-4 File Format
The MP4 file format is designed to contain the media information of an MPEG-4 presentation in a flexible, extensible format that facilitates interchange, management, editing, and presentation of the media. This presentation may be 'local' to the system containing the presentation, or may be via a network or other stream delivery mechanism (a TransMux). The file format is designed to be independent of any particular TransMux while enabling efficient support for TransMuxes in general. The design is based on the QuickTime® format from Apple Computer Inc.
Use H.263: It's open, it's as good as Sorenson. (Score:1)
supports it, and the format is open. See UBC's SPMG [ece.ubc.ca] site.
Also, the problem with Sorenson Video is with
Apple's restrictions. Sorenson would gladly make
a xanim library if Apple would let them.
Apple Responds to QT Plea (Score:3)
What I gleaned from this is that, with Sorenson, they are essentially trying to out-Microsoft Microsoft. They are a generation behind in realizing that Microsoft itself is doomed at the hands of open formats.
Subject: Re: Open QT Plea
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 11:17:39 -0700
From: Steve Bannerman
To: Practice Corporation
The conclusion we have drawn is that what you really want is for Sorenson to work with other multimedia architectures besides QT. This is a sitcky issue. As you know, we have an exclusive arrangement with Sorenson for QT. This arrangement is based more on Marketing and business issues than it is on technological ones.
I am broaching the subject with executive mgmt, but this is going to require a shift in our corporate philosophy that has significant ramifications in outher areas. We need to fully understand all these issues before we leap into action. In other words, we will not have a resolution to this issue overnight...
steve
Why not QT 3? (Score:1)
to use QT 4.
QT 4 is still buggy on Windows.
And what make the QT 4 not playable on Linux
system is due to the Sorenson Video codec.
The codec is not opened.
Well, the codec is quite excellent, so Apple may
think it is useful not to open it.
If you use cinepak codec, you can play QT movies
on Linux machines.
Re: I must disagree (Score:1)
This argument is no different than the ones corporations used to give for Open Source Software. "If it's free/cheap, how can it be any good?" Many, if not most shareware authors are professional programmers. My software site has about a dozen free programs, and half a dozen more as shareware. I have been a professional programmer for several years, and I am employed in that line of work.
I really don't want a 16 year old kid or somebody who has remedial coding skills to be writing closed source software, since we really don't know what or how he makes it work. Finally, much of the shareware software I have seen is quite buggy (such as ircle--it doesn't crash often on a good day).
I can say the same thing for some of the commercial software that I've encountered. Some of the brightest coders you'll find are under 21. These are the Linus Torvalds of the future. Just because there are some crappy VB-based hacks out there doesn't mean that all shareware sucks.
If you are going to showcase your coding skills to the world, it forces you to write good code, since everybody in the world will see it. It also makes you more competive to everybody else--you end up making better code.
The purpose of shareware generally is not to show off one's coding skills, but to make some extra side money. I write programs that are useful to me, and if they turn out to be useful to other people, I consider embellishing them and selling them for $5 to $15 via Kagi. The extra cash is not significant, but it is worth doing considering I have already written the programs anyway.
Paying shareware fees can freaking add up quickly. $10 + $25 + more and more adds up to big bucks, trust me.
Sure it can be, but for your money you'll get a lot more shareware than you will commercial software. You can't really compare shareware to open source. One is a source of income, the other is not. I have a full-time job; I don't write software complicated enough to need much support beyond the documentation, and I don't have any interest doing full-time support anyway.
It's a fact that less then 5% of downloads of shareware actually get payed for. People just run shareware unregistered or crack it (trust me, anybody with two months experience on a computer can crack a registration system on several shareware programs).
And your point is? Is it that shareware is not viable? There are tens of thousands of shareware authors, the very existance of which disproves your point. I personally can attest that it's a worthwhile venture if your software is unique and fills a need. As to piracy, sure, software can be cracked. But who's going to waste time cracking my serial number algorithm on a $5 image converter?
Another example: thanks to the internet, I was rcently able to download the full release of Quake II for the Macintosh. However, it was a good port, so I went to CompUSA and bought a copy. I didn't have to, since I already had downloaded it, but I did it to support the company (LogicWare) for creating a good product on the Mac platform. Other people feel as I do, that you should support a good company that supports your OS of choice (be it Linux, Mac, *BSD, or whatever).
Re:Be serious (Score:1)
If I understand this correctly, this is worse than even the Microsoft Word format. With Word, it's legal to reverse engineer it and attempt to read it, although it's difficult to underestimate the difficulty of such efforts. The Sorenson/Apple codec is protected by a patent, so we can't legally reverse engineer it.
It sounds to me like the developer of xanim would be happy to put the reverse-engineering effort in if it were legal to do so. Since it isn't, he's reduced to begging for access to the spec.
I certainly wouldn't put down xanim's developers for this.
D
----
QuickTime For Linux? (Score:1)
Re:Design Algorithms!! (Score:1)
There are many free decompressors and compressors for the MP3 format now because the standard is known and relatively easy to implement compared to how hard it is to invent a new alogarithm for compression.
Producing new alogarithms takes some very highly qualified people a lot of time to produce. The free software group doesn't have any (or enough) of these people to come close to what a company with lots of money to throw at a problem can produce. But the companies who invent new codecs spend their money in the hope that something useful is eventually produced so it's not suprising than when something is, it is patented.
Unfortunatly the best approach is probably just trying to convince companies that if they allow free players to be produced their codec will become more standard and that will equate to more money for them in patent revenues for encoders.
Re:I support them (Score:1)
Why should Apple be forced to give up the Sorenson codec when it paid for it? Why don't you whine about any of the other formats that QuickTime supports and Apple has no control of? A better course of action would be to develop a good codec and persuade Apple to incorpoarate it into QuickTime so it can be used on the "mainstram" OSes.
Lastly, if I was management at Apple I would not port QuickTime to Linux either. Why? The Linux community always seems to bite the hand that feeds them, esp. from commercial companies and even more so from Apple.
remy
http://www.mklinux.org
mpeg is the way to go for Unices... (Score:1)
Currently, to watch a quicktime animation on Linux, one first has to download the entire file. Then it can be viewed with xanim only if it happens to be compressed with a codec that's available for xanim. And even then, it never looks as smooth as an mtvp's mpg playback -- maybe xanim cuts frames both from mpgs and from quicktime or xanim's supported codecs are showing their age?
I wish companies would start making their codecs more freely available. How would it hurt Sorenson's market share if folk were able to expand, on their own, the number of platforms on which certain quicktime files could be viewed?
push for quicktime symptomatic (Score:2)
Unfortunately, the situation for standard high quality video formats isn't all that great. But MPEG1 may be an OK choice. MPEG2 is more encumbered (but mainly added support for interlacing), and MPEG4 is both a technical mess and very much caught up in patent issues.
So, I'd use MPEG1. MPEG2 may be acceptable given that there are open source players, but it's patent situation is iffy. If I had to choose a proprietary format that's owned by an independent company that doesn't have a hardware or software axe to grind.
But, perhaps, even more importantly: are you sure you even want to put videos on your site?
Re:push for quicktime symptomatic (Score:2)
Good copywriting, background info, and some high quality stills are probably much better advertising.
And if you want to stand out, do something fun like a set of movie-related backgrounds, desktop themes, a game applet, or a screen saver.
Re:Apple is open now - how about in 6 months? (Score:1)
MacOS was designed as a powerful GUI OS on an 8MHz 68000. As a result, the entire OS was very closely tied to the chip. Breaking the architecture away from the chip and eliminating the emulation would be just as hard as starting a new OS from scratch. Guess what Apple's doing.
Re:Apple is open now - how about in 6 months? (Score:1)
Since the beginning of the decade, Apple operating system strategy consisted of:
For the past 6 years, maybe more, Apple has been promising pre-emptive multitasking and protected memory "just two years from now". Hasn't happened yet.
Check out MacOS X Server sometime. Granted, it's not your mother's OS, and its MacOS compatibility layer needs help, but it's a grand, genuine preemptively multitaskin', protected memoryin' OS. From Apple. Of course, A/UX had that seven (or so?) years ago, but of course, neither counts because they're "servers." So is Linux to a lot of people.
I'm done ranting now. Return to your homes. Nothing to see here.
Re:Let me tell yall... (Score:1)
Re:Use MPEG & MP3 ! (Score:1)
Re:mtv (Score:1)
-matt
A few answers to Questions... (Score:1)
RealNetworks on Linux.
Ok.. Real can port their RealPlayer to Linux. Big deal. Real player is ONE application. It is not difficult to port such a small app like RealPlayer to Linux. One person could do it easily.
What is QT?
QuickTime is NOT an application. It is an entire Media Architecture in itself. QT handles Video, Audio, Animations, Text, Panoramas. In version 5 It will include Speech and 3D.
This means that with QT, you can have a Panorama with a television in it with a live moving picture on it. Try doing that with RealPlayer.
Quicktime is also available to ANY application that supports it. For example... you can put a live streaming video inside a WORD document.
With new wired sprites... you can create an entire Application in a QuickTime movie.
Quicktime on Linux.
Apple has already ported QT to BSD for the up-comming MacOS X. So after that is released... you might get a surprise.
Re:I wouldn't worry... (Score:1)
Apple isn't going anywhere. The fact that all models of Macs are selling like wildfire would seem to indicate this...
Re:Be serious (Score:1)
Re:MPEG is the way to go. (Score:1)
Re:Open up Quicktime? Yes. (Score:1)
As far as the MP3 format goes, I though people use it because it is the best compression algorithm available for music rather than it is an open technology. I have also been under the impression that the Fraunhofer Institute has not always been as free with the MP3 format as it could be.
Anyway, after that rather long rant, I *do* believe that apple should develop Quicktime for linux, and unix operating systems, I just believe that many of the arguments raised were not based on reality, just ideology. In essence, I believe in your cause, just not your reasons.
Re:Open up Quicktime? Yes. (Score:1)
1) very few people have heard of vqf (I, personally, only heard of it about 8 months ago)
2) MP3 has had a huge head-start, and there are many more songs, and many more players for MP3 than for VQF (this is partially because of VQF being closed) also, MP3 doesn't sound that unCD qualityesque.
3)MP3 sounds better than vqf. (similar issue to why apple marketed the ppc750 as the G3 rather than its real name
That said and done, I recently argued with a friend that the reason why MP3 will beat VQF is that MP3 is (relatively) open. I had actually forgotten about VQF at the time that I wrote the previous comment.
File Format is available (Score:1)
Quicktime API [apple.com]
Under the Data Formats section in the left column there is a link to the documentation. Now whether you need a licence to port is another thing.
Open-source codecs (Score:1)
So anyone volounteering to start such a project?
Codecs (Score:1)
Re:Let me tell yall... (Score:1)
Which codec? Cinepak (Score:1)
mtor
MPEG 4 - Check it out! (Score:1)
As for being innovative, I would be careful to distinguish between invention, incremental improvement and radically new. Universities are more likely to focus on the radically new, especially exotic languages which tests out specific ideas that eventually get incorporated into mainstream (orthogonal persistance is one example coming through the current pipeline). Application developers focus on the inventions that make like simpler, creating the killer apps of the day (VisiCalc for spreadsheets), followed by later imitators and refinements. It generally takes something about 10 years in moving major technologies from university to mainstream (assuming that anyone is interested
Considering that most people can't live on air for 10 years, Linux hackers usually end up with (hopefully) decent jobs and play around in their spare time. The amazing factor is that the relatively recent arrival of the web which allows many slices of people's spare time to accumulate into solid products, especially when they have the time luxury to reengineer a clean architecture.
Commercial vendors on the other hand have to keep in mind certain things like pleasing the stock-holders whose gracious generosity has lent them some trifling few billion to accelerate development and hype their products. Time is not a luxury and corporate secrecy (due to requirements for patenting) is an absolute. This leads to a rather closed worldview in which old techniques applied to a different setting is interpreted as "innovation". In my book truely innovative companies are those that have creately completely new sectors of the computer industry (Adobe for desktop publishing, SGI for OpenGL, AutoDesk for CAD) that wouldn't have existed otherwise.
The big problem that the Linux crowd has to address is to separate proprietary from open from expensive. Some code by it's very nature is expensive to develop (safety/fault tolerant stuff because of extensive testing). Other stuff like compilers are needed in the intermediate stages before creating the sale goods to consumers and business. Despite what people think, there is no free beer (unless you're prepared to go out and plant the crops and brew it yourself).
LL
Re:Open up Quicktime? Yes. (Score:2)
Re:Quicktime is *not* a closed format! (Score:1)
Re:Be serious (Score:1)
Linux used to be a predominantly development-oriented community, but the numbers of pedagogues have grown so quickly that they've dwarfed the real developmers in terms of numbers.
It's hard to blame them. The Net gives them a voice, Linux gives them a cause, and Microsoft gives them a Skeletor/Darth Vader/Whatever to hate. The rest is just socialization.
MJP
Re:I've found (Score:1)
I certainly agree that any programmer should be free to choose his own license (commercial, shareware, or open source), and if the end users don't like it, they should use something else rather than complaining.
However, I have to disagree with your statement that open source is only appropriate for college students, grant recipients, and lecturers. I would say that it is often the most appropriate licence for anyone who writes software for fun rather than livelyhood.
I, for instance, make a sufficient living as a professional programmer, but when I write stuff for fun on my own time, just finishing the program and having its functionality available to me is its own reward. I don't need the hastles of managing shareware, and besides, I know my software can benefit more people when it's free (in both senses of the word). I'm sure I'm not alone in this.
--Div.
But my grandest creation, as history will tell,
Re:Why sorenson doesn't release their codec (Score:1)
My understanding is that Sorenson's agreement with Apple is such that they cannot distribute the codec in any way other than their "professional" product.
That story sounds a little odd to me, as one would think Sorenson could license and distribute their software in any way they please, but it's possible Apple asked them for exclusive rights.
Re:MPEG compressing software? (Score:3)
Look on Freshmeat today. Somebody just posted something called "MPEG Tools 1.0" which is a collection of various tools from around the internet for encoding MPEG-1 files (with all the cool stuff like stereo sound,
"Software is like sex- the best is for free"
Re:Quicktime is *not* a closed format! (Score:1)
I've always thought that QuickTime was of the better computer movie formats. Given a choice between a QuickTime or AVI, I'd always pick the QuickTime. Now with those open file format QuickTime files containing information I can't decode, I go for the MPEGs now. AVIs still suck.
I hope that Apple and all the other codec people will lighten up and say we can all use their codecs for making movie players. They can still charge out the ass for the authoring software.
Oh well.
-David
Re:I've found (Score:1)
What about that quicktime library? Is it making any progress, and is it useable for such a project?
Re:I wouldn't worry... (Score:1)
I support them (Score:1)
Why is that an unreasonable request?
Creating audio / video codecs extremely difficult (Score:1)
Re:On another note... (Score:1)
MS usb hardware runs without an MS driver, The mac generic drivers for USB mice would do alot (many are already using MS usb stuff), but MS bought up a small shareware packet that had drivers for all sorts of USB mice to complement the mice.
That's the usual way they get good technologie up there in redmond.
Re:I've found (Score:1)
I personally think anyone who feeds, clothes, or houses, or provides computers or connectivity RMS should be hunted down by a posse of real, paid developers.
Re:There are, just too damn expensive (Score:1)
The general idea towards making money from Linux software is to give away a [possibly feature limited, but still useful] version of your software, but to make money elsewhere - either via support, or via selling a more full-featured version of the software. Broadcast 2000 certainly seems to be something that you could use this approach with.
MPEG1 is OK for some uses... (Score:1)
However comparing MPEG to AVI or QT is an apples-to-oranges comparison. AVI and QT are fileformats and frameworks, whereas MPEG is a fileformat and a CODEC. AVI and QT can be used with the uncompressed RGB/DIB and YUV CODECs, as well as the public domain H.263 implementations, and any other CODEC you care to implement and register a FOURCC for.
Not all CODECs (such as any of the MPEG versions) are cuitsable for all purposes. Different usages require different quality, bitrate, compress-time and decompress-time characteristics. There's no such thing as a one-size-fits-all CODEC.
It's the CODECs, silly! (Score:2)
http://www.fou.telenor.no/brukere/DVC/h263_soft
The other option is MPEG1, which is really currently the best choice for multi-platform compressed video.
How to get the Sorenson CODEC for Linux (Score:1)
When you've proofread your email, you can then send it to: leadership@apple.com
You may not believe it, but when a lot of people write to that email address, Apple responds appropriately. Just don't expect Apple to get QT working on Linux before January; I hear they're pretty busy these days...
Jon
Opening up quick time. (Score:1)
The QuickTime file format is more like a meta file format that can include a whole bunch of codecs even sprites and filters.
So apple has the choice of opening up the format or the Quicktime "driver" (not sure driver is the right word here) each desision would have diferent implications in the short run.
Opening up the file format would be complicated as it would require all the licenced codecs to be opened up also. Sorenson, Cinepac etc... now these are not owned by Apple.
Now Apple might be able to open up the "driver" This would allow a maximum number of platforms to read their format which would encourage multimedia developers to continue developing on the mac translating into better mac sales. Now I am not even sure Apple can open this part up to the public as it might also contain non Apple code.
So for us user it would make all the sense in the world to open the QT format and "driver" but sadly it might not be in the cards. However this does not prevent Apple from porting Quicktime to Linux and co. They will be forced to do it anyway for MacOS X and the jump from there to BSD and Linux should not be that enourmous. And helping Linux hurts Windows a lot more then it hurts Apple.
Re:Let me tell yall... (Score:1)
Apple and the Linux Community (Score:2)
Yet, not an Apple-related thread goes by without Linuxers ranting about the company. First the complaints were about Apple being a closed, proprietary company. Then they released Darwin, and many complained that it was not going far enough. Then they made a usable system out of it, and there were complaints that it's inferior to Linux. They open-sourced the QuickTime Streaming Server, something they could have made money from, and now many are complaining that they don't make a Linux client. It does not seem to matter to anyone that the server has already been ported to Linux (and integrated into Apple's source tree), effectively creating competition that Apple did not need to have. All some people care about is what they don't have.
As someone who follows Apple very closely, I believe that QuickTime is the most important technology the company has. It is vital to the company's continued resurgence that QuickTime do better than RealPlayer and Windows Media Player. The company makes tools for creating content and devices for viewing and interacting with it. Therefore as Linux becomes more viable on the desktop, it is essential that they support it. It does not take an insider connection to infer that they will do so for that reason (although it helps... ;-)).
Before they can do this however, they need to give themselves a head start (they ARE a company, after all). Right now they must give QuickTime for MacOS X 100% parity with the traditional MacOS and Win32 versions. Not to mention any other new features they might be working on...
So just for once, I ask you all to give Apple a chance to prove itself. They are not the evil company you think they are. I won't get into why they were a "closed" company in the first place (has a lot to do with history and the way companies used to be organized), but the fact is that they're trying to be open now. So don't discourage them, ok?
Re:Use AVI! (Score:1)
...yeah, faster at displaying a single black AVI frame
Well, state of video APIs under linux is terrible. (Score:2)
I've yet to find a well-documented video API under linux... makes developing certain (cool ) applications very very difficult! I've just been doing "raw" videos... Not very good for displaying due to I/O restrictions, and not very good for your HD, but gimme something better and I'll use it!
That being said, Sorenson compression seems to be the "cleanest" format out there (counting formats that do any decent compression), and I'm deeply saddened that its "protected" under US patent law.
The author of xanim had something about talking to apple about (not)letting him implement it a while back, but no go... apple won't let go.
Open Source MPEG Player for Download -- Now (Score:3)
Scott Draeker
President
Loki Entertainment Software