PDA

View Full Version : Software Updates: Real and Macromedia


arn
May 29, 2002, 03:59 PM
ThinkSecret (http://www.thinksecret.com/features/realonemacosx.html) reports that RealNetworks is starting private beta testing of the Real One player for Mac OS X.

goov' notes that Macromedia Studio MX (http://macromedia.digitalriver.com/dr/sat3/ec_MAIN.Entry?CID=56461&SID=16788&SP=10007&DSP=0&CUR=840&PGRP=0&CACHE_ID=56461) is now available.

King Cobra
May 29, 2002, 04:34 PM
I think that Real Player for OS X is a smart move, since OS 9 is dead for developers and since I would not want to switch to classic to view interactive material.

I think that Real Player compatibility under Quicktime would be the best move. If it takes a while for this to happen, that is fine for me. But I would really like to see Quicktime become the overall video-viewing application. I mean, why do we need all these browsers in the first place? IMO Windoze Media is !!!! and a half, and Real Player doesn't seem to have the quality of Quicktime Streaming. However, for some doggon reason we have to have multiple video browsers, when IMO Quicktime seems to provide much more superior quality.

Again, I would like to see some integration of Real and Windoze into Quicktime. That way, we wouldn't have to struggle with so many applications. Besides, even WMP has problems with some codec under OS X and I can't even hear files, but that's off topic.
__________________

Fear the King.

Macmaniac
May 29, 2002, 04:47 PM
Well it took them a LONG time to start testing. Well at least they have begun their testing. I am dissapointed in their speed to update to OS X, it has been out for awhile. Well better late than never.

big
May 29, 2002, 07:39 PM
I've always beckoned that quicktime take over real player...I've noticed 6 months ago, hardly no one in the PC world knew what quicktime was, now I see it on a lot of their Windows machines, that could be good?

buffsldr
May 29, 2002, 11:06 PM
are any of macromedia's apps optimized for altivec?

SilvorX
May 29, 2002, 11:10 PM
i used quicktime for well over 2 years (on n off) n i had quicktime 2.0 when i first got my net in early 2000

iGav
May 30, 2002, 07:12 AM
Originally posted by big
I've always beckoned that quicktime take over real player...I've noticed 6 months ago, hardly no one in the PC world knew what quicktime was, now I see it on a lot of their Windows machines, that could be good?

You're certainly right........ the installed user base of Quicktime is huge, if we consider that it ships on every mac, plus there are the downloads form Apples site that are linked from websites that require Quicktime for media playback over the web and then pretty much every enhanced CD-ROM that is cross-platform contains and requires Quicktime....... so there is definitely some serious media penetration from Quicktime in all area's and platforms, coupled to the fact that Quicktime offers by far and away the best streaming quality in comparison to Real and Media player, all though in fairness Media player is also pretty good.......

Real however, I'm just not convinced.............

drastik
May 30, 2002, 09:22 AM
Real is allright, but I erally just want it because of its penetration. I buy a lot of records on the web, and samples from some of the best sites only come in Real.

Does anyone know about Producer? Is it wholly a part of RealOne now, or is it under someother name?

cryptochrome
May 30, 2002, 07:05 PM
I wish people would stop thinking of media as either/or. If I go to a website, and they offer content in Real Media, and only real media, and I want that content, then damnit I NEED real player. I could care less about the software behind it, I just want the content. The same has gone for DivX, Microsoft Word files, various p2p applications, and so forth. All this arguing about whose tech is better completely misses the point. The only ones that should be worrying about that are the people who author the content.

Wry Cooter
May 31, 2002, 11:25 PM
Originally posted by buffsldr
are any of macromedia's apps optimized for altivec?

I dunno, but I really wish the Macromedia rumor were separated from the Real rumor in the discussion. We generally Trust macromedia with working Flash players for OS X, and generally distrust Real in coming out with a timely Real Media plug in for OS X.

Apparently none of us are taking the discussion in the direction so desired by the moderators cobbling these two stories together. And my guess behind that cobbling would be MPEG4 being part of both...

Because so many people are using Macs to create Flash content, we aren't looking on Macromedia as a possible competitor, as an enemy in the media player wars, but as Flash starts also being a conduit for streaming motion video rather than a mere vector animation playback application, there is likely to be some concern among the paranoid, that quicktime share of the streaming market will be even less.

Even RealOne seems much more proprietary on the client side than any earlier iteration of plug in or player.. on one hand, it will be good to be able to see the streamed content pouring from those presently in the pocket of Real, within OS X without having to pull up Classic, but have you kept in mind the specs behind RealOne? Its almost a pay per play model like the earlier DIVX DVD spec pushed by Circuit City (not the Divx codec).

Why can't everybody just get along?

j763
Jun 1, 2002, 10:13 AM
yep, real sucks... really... but there's a lot of content out there that's RealPlayer only, so it'll be good to be able to use the content. if you ever see a site with streaming media that is not QT, email them (webmaster@domain.com) and tell them what you think of WMP and Real.