When developers turn their back on a platform, that platform quickly disappears from the face of the earth and that company won't be making any money anymore. So by co-operating with developers, you're not fulfilling any "hippy dream", you're ensuring your survival. And giving away XCode free of charge just isn't enough. Apple could learn a lot from Microsoft here - Microsoft understands software developers and caters to them. They don't see them as an unwanted competition as Apple seemingly does.
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.
VideoLAN Considering Options for VLC as Mac Developers Disappear
- Thread starter lamadude
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
When developers turn their back on a platform, that platform quickly disappears from the face of the earth and that company won't be making any money anymore. So by co-operating with developers, you're not fulfilling any "hippy dream", you're ensuring your survival. And giving away XCode free of charge just isn't enough. Apple could learn a lot from Microsoft here - Microsoft understands software developers and caters to them. They don't see them as an unwanted competition as Apple seemingly does.
I hate the interface of VLC and wrote to them around 2 years ago and I got a response saying that they are working on it, but nothing has really changed.
I only use VLC to play MKVs, but if someone developed a better plugin for QuickTime to play MKV files then I would drop VLC in a heartbeat.
I only use VLC to play MKVs, but if someone developed a better plugin for QuickTime to play MKV files then I would drop VLC in a heartbeat.
I'd waget that the problems are due to VLC including DVD decryption tools, which would cause legal problems for Apple if they did get involved.
If VLC sucks, I am not sure how to describe QuickTime. Maybe pathetic?
VLC has allowed us to view content QT does not support, that list is very long. Additionally VLC is /was free, Apple shamelessly charges $30.
The only decent player for mac is MOVIST. Plays every codec properly, the subtitles are great (anti-aliased) and the GUI is the best. Here's a screenshot:
Detail: The icon is from VLC, but who cares
Wow... This is a seriously great media player. And unlike VLC, it actually has a mac-like interface! I don't know why I haven't heard of it before.
I used VLC primarily for its subtitle file support, but it looks like movist does that too
This isn't just a Mac issue, really ....
I mean, yes, it apparently is in VLC's case -- but overall, have you ever really looked around on a web site like SourceForge, where all the Linux development projects seem to "go to die"? It's depressing, really. I've so often found a great open-source project someone started as an alternative to a commercial product, only to see that it was last updated years ago, and is basically in "life support" mode with no active developers.
(As just one example, I found a French guy who started working, years ago, on a freeware alternative to the Symantec Ghost Enterprise product for Windows. It let you set up an imaging server and image, or push images out, to any PCs on your network. But nope -- the project seems to have stalled due to lack of interest in coding it any further.)
I think the truth is, a lot of this software is really difficult to write, and only gets done because a few people with a specific and deep skill-set in that area decide they want to work on it. In the case of VLC ,you need people with a LOT of specific knowledge on how various codecs work and on all the intricacies of various image formats and variations out there. You have to know just as much about the AUDIO side too, if you want things like Dolby Surround 5.1 decoding to work properly on movies, etc. etc. What's the chances that these same people have a wide enough base of knowledge to code for multiple platforms? They usually DON'T, so they get stuck and have to ask others to step in and help when they get to wanting to "make a Mac version" or something else. When there's no money involved, it's tough to get volunteers to step up and commit to something like this.
At least in the Linux world, you have some of the companies selling specific Linux distributions who have enough interest in seeing certain projects thrive that they kick some money in, to keep developers working on them. (RedHat does that often, for example.) On the Mac side of things, it's not like Apple is going to pay out money to help someone compete with them!
I mean, yes, it apparently is in VLC's case -- but overall, have you ever really looked around on a web site like SourceForge, where all the Linux development projects seem to "go to die"? It's depressing, really. I've so often found a great open-source project someone started as an alternative to a commercial product, only to see that it was last updated years ago, and is basically in "life support" mode with no active developers.
(As just one example, I found a French guy who started working, years ago, on a freeware alternative to the Symantec Ghost Enterprise product for Windows. It let you set up an imaging server and image, or push images out, to any PCs on your network. But nope -- the project seems to have stalled due to lack of interest in coding it any further.)
I think the truth is, a lot of this software is really difficult to write, and only gets done because a few people with a specific and deep skill-set in that area decide they want to work on it. In the case of VLC ,you need people with a LOT of specific knowledge on how various codecs work and on all the intricacies of various image formats and variations out there. You have to know just as much about the AUDIO side too, if you want things like Dolby Surround 5.1 decoding to work properly on movies, etc. etc. What's the chances that these same people have a wide enough base of knowledge to code for multiple platforms? They usually DON'T, so they get stuck and have to ask others to step in and help when they get to wanting to "make a Mac version" or something else. When there's no money involved, it's tough to get volunteers to step up and commit to something like this.
At least in the Linux world, you have some of the companies selling specific Linux distributions who have enough interest in seeing certain projects thrive that they kick some money in, to keep developers working on them. (RedHat does that often, for example.) On the Mac side of things, it's not like Apple is going to pay out money to help someone compete with them!
Well to be honest I'm pretty sure that apple is going to have a tough time ahead. Windows 7 has caught up to, and in some cases BEATS Snow Leopard. I'm currently finding myself using W7 much much more than Snow Leopard.
Maybe now that Apple has a foothold in the mobile phones sector and the music sector they might give up computers? Or maybe make a dual platform that works with Windows.
Maybe now that Apple has a foothold in the mobile phones sector and the music sector they might give up computers? Or maybe make a dual platform that works with Windows.
I don't agree there, vlc is excellent, it's just that the interface need a brush up, I am underwhelmed by quicktime X, of course it's a huge improvement and it beats anything commercial hands down, but there are some blatant omissions like playlist support, customizability and still the .wmv playback (for all our stashed porn) is choppy at best, vlc handles .wmv much better. (although since I 've installed flip4mac I am kinda confused at to if in snow leopard it takes up its role in quicktime x playback or not...I will have to look into that).
I think the open source community should figure out an open an easy scheme for the average person to be able to contribute...as much as I like open source I think the project leaves some things to be desired...sort of like an app store for open source where with a nominal say $25 per year or something you will get all open source software and spread around accordingly...but I doubt our beloved geeks will ever figure this out, makes little sense in their mindframes
Apple is probably stonewalling VLC because they do NOT want Blu-Ray discs playing on Macs.
Which is a shame, cause there are alot of great movies i want to watch on my mac, and no... hate taking up hard drive space for digital copies. so i want built in Blu-Ray
Which is a shame, cause there are alot of great movies i want to watch on my mac, and no... hate taking up hard drive space for digital copies. so i want built in Blu-Ray
Did movist steal macrabbit's replacement VLC icon? You can even clearly read "VLC" on it.
(vlc replacement icons here)
http://macrabbit.com/goodies/
(vlc replacement icons here)
http://macrabbit.com/goodies/
The thing is that Apple neither offers the same nor do they offer anything better. The reason why people download and use VLC on OS X is that QuickTime Player simply doesn't cut it and lacks the support for a large amount of common - and uncommon - video and audio formats.
Sure, there are Third Party plugins for QuickTime. But they are THIRD PARTY solutions. It's not Apple who make QuickTime usable.
VLC is also Third Party, but comes with everything needed out of the box.
And besides that, there are enough users for whom the words FREEDOM and CHOICE mean something. That are usually users who do not want to be locked into one vendor - and his "good will" to keep supporting certain features that some of their customers want to have or simply need.
If Apple had their way, you'd only be watching rented movies with your QuickTime Player. I don't know about you, but I certainly do not want to support that.
It's probably because of the libdvdcss library it uses to play DVD files. It's never been legally challenged, but a lot of the Linux distros do not include it because of fear of legal repercussions (you're of course able to install it on your own).
I can't imagine they'd have any other reason to block any part of VLC. I'd like to know the specifics of what the problems are.
Can QT/Perian or Movist alter subtitle timings? TBH I don't do that as much as I used to, now that subtitle websites are better organised, but I still need it sometimes.
I use VLC to play all the movies on my computer. Quicktime may allow you to use subtitles, but good luck turning them off.
Also, when using Quicktime to stream video, you can't skip ahead unless it's buffered. VLC allows you to skip to any part of a streaming video, and then buffer from whichever point you set.
Ever try and watch a video where the audio and video didn't sync properly? Well no problem with VLC. Takes only a second to fix. Can you do that with Quicktime? No.
MKVs also suck on Quicktime. It's an inferior video player and I'm happy VLC is around. I would also be happy to donate some money to them in the near future or even pay for the app.
My 2c.
Also, when using Quicktime to stream video, you can't skip ahead unless it's buffered. VLC allows you to skip to any part of a streaming video, and then buffer from whichever point you set.
Ever try and watch a video where the audio and video didn't sync properly? Well no problem with VLC. Takes only a second to fix. Can you do that with Quicktime? No.
MKVs also suck on Quicktime. It's an inferior video player and I'm happy VLC is around. I would also be happy to donate some money to them in the near future or even pay for the app.
My 2c.
Quicktime is fine if you just want to play movie trailers off Apple.com but if you need to play any other video types VLC was superb and free
I have VLC just in case a video file wouldn't play, but I only use it on these rare occasions (corrupt file, unfinished download, etc...). But VLC's interface is horrible, there's a small window with the playback controls on it, and then there's the video window, with again, the playback controls at the bottom. What's the point of having two windows? I would seriously like VLC as a plugin for QuickTime just like Perian, I like having ONE player to play everything.
Ive been using VLC for years and it plays practically everything. In fact, I use it with WMV files simply because it doesnt have to pre-cache them like QuickTime X and Flip4Mac. Not to mention, it plays practically every DivX file too without spamming your Mac with unnecessary trial software like actual DivX (DivX convertor, DivX player, etc).
Itll be a shame if it goes away.
Itll be a shame if it goes away.
Every video players plays every codec on Windows, it's one of the reasons why I mainly use Windows when I turn on my MacBook. I haven't tried QT in a while, but I remember needing to pay for the ability to watch a video in full screen. That's a big no to me.
You haven't used QuickTime in a long time, then. Full-screen is no longer exclusive to QuickTime Plus.
As for "every video player plays every codec in Windows", that's only true if you install all of the codecs required to play each type of video. That's no different than how the setup works in QuickTime: you have ot install additional codecs to get certain types of files to play back.