Category: Apple Software
Link: Official comments from Apple that Quicktime is now integrated into AOL 9.0
Posted on MacBytes.com
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Quicktime and AOL 9.0 Integration
- Thread starter MacBytes
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Category: Apple Software
Link: Official comments from Apple that Quicktime is now integrated into AOL 9.0
Posted on MacBytes.com
Faulty statistics...
Now that's faulty statistics and wishful thinking. He neglects to mention that Macs with OS X come with QuickTime preinstalled (don't know about OS 9), so very seldom there is the need for a Mac user to download QT.
His figure doesn't say anything about the marketshare of QT on Windows... where I think the MS Media Player has a very dominant role.
Now that's faulty statistics and wishful thinking. He neglects to mention that Macs with OS X come with QuickTime preinstalled (don't know about OS 9), so very seldom there is the need for a Mac user to download QT.
His figure doesn't say anything about the marketshare of QT on Windows... where I think the MS Media Player has a very dominant role.
Well, a good indication of numbers would be when a new version is available. That and if they're not taking into account the macs built in auto updater.
D
D
Apple should dump proprietary codecs.
The real index of QuickTime's ascendance is when OEM distribute it with Microsoft Windows, which isn't likely to happen.
I understand there are some proprietary codecs in QuickTime, and in my opinion Apple should replace those codecs if it prevents them from opensourcing QT or (just as good) licensing QT for pennies per instance.
QuickTime is the superior format, but Windows Media Player has a lock on the market. It may be only a matter of time before the juggernaut overpowers its more agile cousin.
QuickTime needs to be ubiquitous and cheap. Sorenson prevents such a possibility. (Yes, in some ways, I am advocating that QuickTime be available on Linux. The competition from OSS software is unlikely to damage Apple's dominance among artists, though one never knows)
The real index of QuickTime's ascendance is when OEM distribute it with Microsoft Windows, which isn't likely to happen.
I understand there are some proprietary codecs in QuickTime, and in my opinion Apple should replace those codecs if it prevents them from opensourcing QT or (just as good) licensing QT for pennies per instance.
QuickTime is the superior format, but Windows Media Player has a lock on the market. It may be only a matter of time before the juggernaut overpowers its more agile cousin.
QuickTime needs to be ubiquitous and cheap. Sorenson prevents such a possibility. (Yes, in some ways, I am advocating that QuickTime be available on Linux. The competition from OSS software is unlikely to damage Apple's dominance among artists, though one never knows)
i chat for aol?
given that ichat is tied into AOL Im service directly, it has seemed to me that apple could /should offer ichat a/v code to AOL for adding to thier AOL IM product in order to sell iSights to PC users. this tighter integration of QT would seem a logical step to take if apple were to do that and makes me believe more and more they will
given that ichat is tied into AOL Im service directly, it has seemed to me that apple could /should offer ichat a/v code to AOL for adding to thier AOL IM product in order to sell iSights to PC users. this tighter integration of QT would seem a logical step to take if apple were to do that and makes me believe more and more they will
Re: Faulty statistics...
wow. faulty stats and wishful thinking??? he wasn't talking about # of installs total, just download stats from apple.com
I am also confused by comparing QT as being installed by default with OS X versus MP being installed by default with Windows. I wonder which has a bigger install base? (hint... rhymes with blows)
crenz..........
wow. faulty stats and wishful thinking??? he wasn't talking about # of installs total, just download stats from apple.com
I am also confused by comparing QT as being installed by default with OS X versus MP being installed by default with Windows. I wonder which has a bigger install base? (hint... rhymes with blows)
The irony about this is that on one hand, AOL claims to embrace Apple and the QuickTime technology, for use in AOL 9.0 for Broadband.
On the other hand, neither AOL 9.0 nor AOL Broadband are available for Macintosh. Nor is there currently any beta planned for the near future. (I'm on the Beta team...)
On the other hand, neither AOL 9.0 nor AOL Broadband are available for Macintosh. Nor is there currently any beta planned for the near future. (I'm on the Beta team...)
What ever happened to the rumor about M$ and AOL doing the same thing with WMP? I must have missed something.
Dan
Dan
Re: Apple should dump proprietary codecs.
QuickTime is just a wrapper. It supports, I think, well over 200 media file types and formats, though Vorbis is not one of them (Ogg being the wrapper for Vorbis, and a parallel to QuickTime).
Unless you want to work exclusively with Sorenson (and Apple may be on track with a replacement, as they got in a snit w/ Fraunhofer over the licensing of a similar codec to Real), you have tons of choices, plus lots of 3rd party goodies.
QuickTime is the tool of choice for content creators. MS just wants primarily the player market. Then it feels it can control demand for WMP content. MS is just starting on the consumer rather than creator side.
'Course, now that QuickTime is the backend for AOL 9, that will slow WMP adoption down a bit. Plus the flexibility of the DRM of WMP led directly to the flap about crappy restrictions on the BuyMusic.com downloads. What a mess.
Hopefully, creators and distributors are starting to really see what they are locked into when using WMP format.
I hope this is the beginning of some major inroads for Apple. I'm beginning to see the tide turning with developers, high end Unix apps, the pro media apps, now tech placements in high eyeball areas. Feels good again.
edit: misspelled "Fraunhofer"
QuickTime is just a wrapper. It supports, I think, well over 200 media file types and formats, though Vorbis is not one of them (Ogg being the wrapper for Vorbis, and a parallel to QuickTime).
Unless you want to work exclusively with Sorenson (and Apple may be on track with a replacement, as they got in a snit w/ Fraunhofer over the licensing of a similar codec to Real), you have tons of choices, plus lots of 3rd party goodies.
QuickTime is the tool of choice for content creators. MS just wants primarily the player market. Then it feels it can control demand for WMP content. MS is just starting on the consumer rather than creator side.
'Course, now that QuickTime is the backend for AOL 9, that will slow WMP adoption down a bit. Plus the flexibility of the DRM of WMP led directly to the flap about crappy restrictions on the BuyMusic.com downloads. What a mess.
Hopefully, creators and distributors are starting to really see what they are locked into when using WMP format.
I hope this is the beginning of some major inroads for Apple. I'm beginning to see the tide turning with developers, high end Unix apps, the pro media apps, now tech placements in high eyeball areas. Feels good again.
edit: misspelled "Fraunhofer"
I just want quicktime to have the size scalability that WMP and Real have. You can't make a video full screen when you want it to be.
QuickTime Pro - it doesn't hurt to throw Apple a couple bucks for something you use EVERY day.
Dan
Re: Re: Apple should dump proprietary codecs.Qq
I understand QuickTime is largely largely an API/media interface for various media types. My point, if you care to hear it, is that proprietary licenses wrapped up in QuickTime prevent Apple from licensing QuickTime to the open source community.
While it's all fine and good for content creators to be down with QuickTime, it would be even better if QuickTime could be licensed for free or near to free. Proprietary codecs in QuickTime don't allow for this.
Yes, it's good that AOL is integrating QuickTime with AOL 9.0. On the other hand and as everyone knows, AOL is hemorrhaging users, and it's uncertain whether AOL can shift its dial-up users to broadand, especially given AOL's pricing scheme which makes it more economical to jump from AOL to almost any other broadband ISP. Furthermore, people already using AOL tend not to upgrade. (All bets are off if AOL and Apple offer video over broadband using QuickTime, which would change the market some, at least until Microsoft rolled out its own version.)
I'm not trying to pick bones, just to emphasize that QuickTime is not as widely distributed as Windows Media Player and as Windows Media Player improves in quality (which it most assuredly is) it will make QuickTime a tiny redundant market. Apple can anticipate this inevitability by making QuickTime freely (more cheaply) available to OEMs and open source developers, and the first step toward doing this is eliminating proprietary codecs from QuickTime
I understand QuickTime is largely largely an API/media interface for various media types. My point, if you care to hear it, is that proprietary licenses wrapped up in QuickTime prevent Apple from licensing QuickTime to the open source community.
While it's all fine and good for content creators to be down with QuickTime, it would be even better if QuickTime could be licensed for free or near to free. Proprietary codecs in QuickTime don't allow for this.
Yes, it's good that AOL is integrating QuickTime with AOL 9.0. On the other hand and as everyone knows, AOL is hemorrhaging users, and it's uncertain whether AOL can shift its dial-up users to broadand, especially given AOL's pricing scheme which makes it more economical to jump from AOL to almost any other broadband ISP. Furthermore, people already using AOL tend not to upgrade. (All bets are off if AOL and Apple offer video over broadband using QuickTime, which would change the market some, at least until Microsoft rolled out its own version.)
I'm not trying to pick bones, just to emphasize that QuickTime is not as widely distributed as Windows Media Player and as Windows Media Player improves in quality (which it most assuredly is) it will make QuickTime a tiny redundant market. Apple can anticipate this inevitability by making QuickTime freely (more cheaply) available to OEMs and open source developers, and the first step toward doing this is eliminating proprietary codecs from QuickTime
mistersquid
Apple is not going to get rid of licensed third party codecs. Many of these codecs would not be available to Mac users if not via QuickTime. To me, opensourcing QuickTime itself is just not that high a priority. Perhaps I want to use Sorensen video compression, or QualComm TrueVoice. (Well, I'll most likely use MPEG 4 standards, but still...)
Apple needs to license *more* codecs that aren't very available to mac customers, so that more things just *work* out of the box.
Jaedreth
Apple is not going to get rid of licensed third party codecs. Many of these codecs would not be available to Mac users if not via QuickTime. To me, opensourcing QuickTime itself is just not that high a priority. Perhaps I want to use Sorensen video compression, or QualComm TrueVoice. (Well, I'll most likely use MPEG 4 standards, but still...)
Apple needs to license *more* codecs that aren't very available to mac customers, so that more things just *work* out of the box.
Jaedreth
My personal wish is just for QuickTime to not suck on Windows. To be fair, I've never used QuickTime on Windows, and in my day-to-day life, I could care less.
Unfortunately, when I'm trying to compress a large file for distribution, Windows users really don't want to see it in Quicktime. Maybe if it were a video clip/trailer/the like, it wouldn't be an issue, but if you're watching a full-length program, apparently it causes enough problems to make it far from the preferred media player.
Hence, I was forced to go the FFMPEG route and produce AVI files with XviD/MP3. Quality is fine, but of course I'd rather just go QT. Worse, apparently the popular Windows players don't support AAC audio well, making even a decent MP4 w/AAC audio undesirable.
Anyway, the bottom line is, unless there's either a QT-wrapper-compatible open format that alternative Win players support well, or a quality version of QT on Windows, it's hard to make it the choice for media distribution, even though I really want to.
Maybe I'm wrong about all this, but I heard enough QT complaints in my testing period to get very discouraged.
Unfortunately, when I'm trying to compress a large file for distribution, Windows users really don't want to see it in Quicktime. Maybe if it were a video clip/trailer/the like, it wouldn't be an issue, but if you're watching a full-length program, apparently it causes enough problems to make it far from the preferred media player.
Hence, I was forced to go the FFMPEG route and produce AVI files with XviD/MP3. Quality is fine, but of course I'd rather just go QT. Worse, apparently the popular Windows players don't support AAC audio well, making even a decent MP4 w/AAC audio undesirable.
Anyway, the bottom line is, unless there's either a QT-wrapper-compatible open format that alternative Win players support well, or a quality version of QT on Windows, it's hard to make it the choice for media distribution, even though I really want to.
Maybe I'm wrong about all this, but I heard enough QT complaints in my testing period to get very discouraged.
You're wrong about this. First off, you claim that QuickTime sucks on Windows, but you have never used QuickTime on Windows. That is most certainly not the way a professional does business. QuickTime Pro exports to any of the formats for which you have a codec installed. For example, if you export your project to DivX, AVI, MPEG4, or whatever, then your Windows-using friends would have no clue that you edited it using QuickTime.
QuickTime on Windows
Quicktime on Windows is very stable. Unless the OS isn't.
I used to support it.
Jaedreth
Quicktime on Windows is very stable. Unless the OS isn't.
I used to support it.
Jaedreth
Stable yes, but slower on some older Windows machines. Of course, so are WMP 7 and 9, which are much less stable. That's why I use WMP 6.4 and WinAmp 2.9 on my older PC. I only use QT Pro when I have to. It is pretty good at converting files.
QT seems to be pretty quick on Macs, even some older ones.
Both are better than Real. Ugh.
QT seems to be pretty quick on Macs, even some older ones.
Both are better than Real. Ugh.
check out my new signature for my feelings on the whole notion of apple having to fit in with the dominant players.