Just to let you know, that following the decision of Yahoo and FIFA not to webcast on different platform than windows, I've closed my yahoo account and I will proceed to remove and not to use yahoo related stuff anymore.
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.
Yahoo: am I too radical?
- Thread starter swexplorer
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't use yahoo for anything other then instant messages, since many people I know have accounts with it. I do occasionally look at other parts of it, but never considered using any webcasts from it. I generally go to Apple's QuickTime site to get movie trailers and such. I don't have real player or wmp installed on my system at home, and don't have any plans to install it in the future.
One of the wonderful things about computers these days, is you have a choice to use things or not. If you choose to not use Yahoo, then don't.
As for the webcasting from Yahoo... what formats are they sending?? Is it just in wmp and real player, or do they offer the stream in QuickTime as well?? I don't really think it matters what they use for a hosting system, as long as they offer it in QuickTime, I consider it an option. No QuickTime and I won't even consider it.
One of the wonderful things about computers these days, is you have a choice to use things or not. If you choose to not use Yahoo, then don't.
As for the webcasting from Yahoo... what formats are they sending?? Is it just in wmp and real player, or do they offer the stream in QuickTime as well?? I don't really think it matters what they use for a hosting system, as long as they offer it in QuickTime, I consider it an option. No QuickTime and I won't even consider it.
Re: No Quicktime
Gee, that really helps
since I couldn't read Italian if my life depended on it (which it doesn't).
How about an English version????
Oh, and don't believe everything you read.
Gee, that really helps
since I couldn't read Italian if my life depended on it (which it doesn't).How about an English version????
Oh, and don't believe everything you read.
Re: Re: No Quicktime
He's right though. Check this link out. The important part is "Mac, Unix and Real media player are not supported."
On the italian site swexplorer linked, it basically just says that they couldn't justify the cost of supporting the mac platform, considering how small that market is (rather paraphrased).
Originally posted by AlphaTech
Gee, that really helps
How about an English version????
Oh, and don't believe everything you read.
He's right though. Check this link out. The important part is "Mac, Unix and Real media player are not supported."
On the italian site swexplorer linked, it basically just says that they couldn't justify the cost of supporting the mac platform, considering how small that market is (rather paraphrased).
hmmm i thought that i read on the reg that it was just that they weren't using quicktime and that mac users would have to use WMP?
That's pretty weak...
It's weird how there's this shakeout these days between sites going QT/MPEG4 and those locking themselves in with WiMP...
It's weird how there's this shakeout these days between sites going QT/MPEG4 and those locking themselves in with WiMP...
QuickTime
This may be a stupid question, but is QuickTime becoming more or less popular these days? I heard somewhere that QuickTime is used for about 50% of the content on the web, but is that anywhere near right? Thanks
Bill
This may be a stupid question, but is QuickTime becoming more or less popular these days? I heard somewhere that QuickTime is used for about 50% of the content on the web, but is that anywhere near right? Thanks
Bill
Re: Re: Re: No Quicktime
Hey britboy.... How about a URL that actually WORKS??? That thing is not an url...
Hey britboy.... How about a URL that actually WORKS??? That thing is not an url...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No Quicktime
Funnny... you wanker... Here I was, thinking that you were going to put up an information url... should have known better...
Funnny... you wanker... Here I was, thinking that you were going to put up an information url... should have known better...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No Quicktime
Huh? The link is to the streaming page. If you read what's in grey towards the bottom, you can see in the system requirements that mac's are not supported.
I didn't put in a link about why mac's aren't supported, because it's clearly stated in the italian one earlier. If it keeps you happy, here's the translation:
Originally posted by AlphaTech
Funnny... you wanker... Here I was, thinking that you were going to put up an information url... should have known better...
Huh? The link is to the streaming page. If you read what's in grey towards the bottom, you can see in the system requirements that mac's are not supported.
I didn't put in a link about why mac's aren't supported, because it's clearly stated in the italian one earlier. If it keeps you happy, here's the translation:
wow, they even ripped off the quicktime interface for the page!
Notice how clicking on the link to the stream on the yahoo site brings up a window asking you to choose between WMP, Real Player and Quicktime, you choose WMP, the "LAN" speed because there's no way anyone with a 512Kbps connection is going to watch a 100Kbps stream and then you're confronted with a page the looks just like quicktime player minus the buttons and window widgets ?
If they're not going to support quicktime, apple should order them to take the page down till they come up with a design of their own or support the player the design is based on. I would if I was apple.
Notice how clicking on the link to the stream on the yahoo site brings up a window asking you to choose between WMP, Real Player and Quicktime, you choose WMP, the "LAN" speed because there's no way anyone with a 512Kbps connection is going to watch a 100Kbps stream and then you're confronted with a page the looks just like quicktime player minus the buttons and window widgets ?
If they're not going to support quicktime, apple should order them to take the page down till they come up with a design of their own or support the player the design is based on. I would if I was apple.
Realplayer and WiMP don't charge for simple encoding and fullscreen support.
That's one reason why Quicktime isn't the big gun in the streaming world anymore. how many people are going to be prepared to pay for simply playing back fullscreen or converting from one format to another ?
With realplayer, anyone can create audio and video streams, anyone can view full screen and anyone can see they're codecs are lame quality compared with quicktime.
WMA is awful, Real Audio is even worse, Realvideo is ropey as hell and ASF has never been any good. Even when you Do view other video stream formats in fullscreen, the playback is generally pixelated and totally inferior to quicktime.
Like the dominance of windows over other OSs, the rise of the alternatives to quicktime has got to have a large amount to do with the cost to people. You can build 3 reasonably capable PCs for the cost of the mid range G4, that's 3 potential windows users for 1 mac user, just think of how many users apple were loosing when they had the stupidly high prices of '95 and '96 with the 9600 etc... People buy what they can afford, the cost over quality trend in the hardware world works in the software world just as much. It doesn't matter what's best to people, an individual would want the best but as a whole people follow the crowd or whatever costs them the least while gaining them the most. Few people read between the lines or really look into what they're really getting so they think "encoding, fullscreen playback, runs on my PC and it's Free, I'll use that", they don't think "well the quality's great, it's got a proven record, there are alternatives that do the same thing at a lower quality but it's got to be worth it.... have my £30!"
Yahoo are playing right in microsoft's greedy monopolistic hands here, next they'll be advertising the HaloBox, sorry Xbox all over their site.
I think if apple released quicktime with fullscreen support, basic encoding features and the ability to create you're own streaming video and audio on both plaforms for free, reserving more detailed encoding settings and features for registered users, they'd start to see a lot more using it.
At least that's what I think's causing the competition to have the upper hand.
That's one reason why Quicktime isn't the big gun in the streaming world anymore. how many people are going to be prepared to pay for simply playing back fullscreen or converting from one format to another ?
With realplayer, anyone can create audio and video streams, anyone can view full screen and anyone can see they're codecs are lame quality compared with quicktime.
WMA is awful, Real Audio is even worse, Realvideo is ropey as hell and ASF has never been any good. Even when you Do view other video stream formats in fullscreen, the playback is generally pixelated and totally inferior to quicktime.
Like the dominance of windows over other OSs, the rise of the alternatives to quicktime has got to have a large amount to do with the cost to people. You can build 3 reasonably capable PCs for the cost of the mid range G4, that's 3 potential windows users for 1 mac user, just think of how many users apple were loosing when they had the stupidly high prices of '95 and '96 with the 9600 etc... People buy what they can afford, the cost over quality trend in the hardware world works in the software world just as much. It doesn't matter what's best to people, an individual would want the best but as a whole people follow the crowd or whatever costs them the least while gaining them the most. Few people read between the lines or really look into what they're really getting so they think "encoding, fullscreen playback, runs on my PC and it's Free, I'll use that", they don't think "well the quality's great, it's got a proven record, there are alternatives that do the same thing at a lower quality but it's got to be worth it.... have my £30!"
Yahoo are playing right in microsoft's greedy monopolistic hands here, next they'll be advertising the HaloBox, sorry Xbox all over their site.
I think if apple released quicktime with fullscreen support, basic encoding features and the ability to create you're own streaming video and audio on both plaforms for free, reserving more detailed encoding settings and features for registered users, they'd start to see a lot more using it.
At least that's what I think's causing the competition to have the upper hand.
Yahoo is full of idiots
You ever try to play some of their games and they Mac and Unix does not work? But then it works? I mean Java shouldn't be a problem in a browser. Basically, they are retards, and it may be compatible for us anyway.
You ever try to play some of their games and they Mac and Unix does not work? But then it works? I mean Java shouldn't be a problem in a browser. Basically, they are retards, and it may be compatible for us anyway.