Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

Quicktime and AOL 9.0 Integration

crenz

macrumors 6502a
Jul 3, 2003
617
16
Shanghai, China
Faulty statistics...

Ninety-five percent of the users downloading QuickTime installation software from Apple's Web site are PC users, said Casanova, so the company's media architecture is already very well represented on the Windows platform.

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.
 
Comment

dxp4acu

macrumors regular
Jul 25, 2002
180
0
Texas
The more embedded places, the better. Seems like when anyone starts to sour from MS, they tend to get a little closer to Apple....

Keep it up!
 
Comment

Mr. Anderson

Moderator emeritus
Nov 1, 2001
22,558
0
VA
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
 
Comment

mistersquid

macrumors newbie
Apr 9, 2003
21
0
Athens, OH
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)
 
Comment

cooter

macrumors newbie
Jul 22, 2002
5
0
in the world of dreams
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
 
Comment

iPC

macrumors 6502
Jul 22, 2003
384
0
East Windsor, CT
Re: Faulty statistics...

Originally posted by crenz
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.
crenz..........

wow. faulty stats and wishful thinking??? he wasn't talking about # of installs total, just download stats from apple.com :rolleyes:

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)
 
Comment

Ensoniq

macrumors regular
Jul 16, 2002
131
1
Bronx, NY
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...)
 
Comment

alset

macrumors 65816
Nov 9, 2002
1,262
0
East Bay, CA
What ever happened to the rumor about M$ and AOL doing the same thing with WMP? I must have missed something.

Dan
 
Comment

MasonMcD

macrumors newbie
Jun 3, 2003
20
0
Seattle, WA
Re: Apple should dump proprietary codecs.

Originally posted by mistersquid
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./B]


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"
 
Comment

ig-88

macrumors newbie
Jun 11, 2003
10
0
I suppose that this might serve as an AAC player for the AOL environment. Could this in any way be linked to previous rumors about Apple/AOL/iTunes for Window/Music Store relationship?
 
Comment

mdntcallr

macrumors 65816
Aug 1, 2000
1,471
179
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.
 
Comment

alset

macrumors 65816
Nov 9, 2002
1,262
0
East Bay, CA
Originally posted by mdntcallr
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
 
Comment

mistersquid

macrumors newbie
Apr 9, 2003
21
0
Athens, OH
Re: Re: Apple should dump proprietary codecs.Qq

Originally posted by MasonMcD
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.


.........................

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
 
Comment

jaedreth

macrumors 6502
Jul 11, 2003
295
0
In Iraq now
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
 
Comment

Makosuke

macrumors 603
Aug 15, 2001
6,312
575
The Cool Part of CA, USA
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.
 
Comment

MisterMe

macrumors G4
Jul 17, 2002
10,709
63
USA
Originally posted by Makosuke
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.

....

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.
 
Comment

solvs

macrumors 603
Jun 25, 2002
5,684
1
LaLaLand, CA
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.
 
Comment

zalix

macrumors newbie
Aug 2, 2003
1
0
Originally posted by Ensoniq
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...)
There are plans to streamline both the Windows and Mac clients, and have them have feature pairity. This is planned for the 10.0 realease about 1 year from now.
 
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.