Market strategy for Quicktime

Posted:
in Mac Software edited January 2014
I am very puzzled about Apple's current vision for Quicktime, and presumably we'll hear something about this from WWDC reports in June.



There are fewer and fewer sites offering Quicktime streams. Specifically my local NPR affiliate does not offer the on-line radio broadcast stream in Quicktime, only Real and WMP. In setting up the link using Real, a blurb from the stations flashed by, apologizing for the stream quality, stating that it is very expensive to stream the radio broadcast on-line.



After writing to the station (and Apple!) suggesting that Quicktime streaming might be cheaper and/or donated, I received the following reply from the station's Listener Relations contact:



"Quite to the contrary, Apple now charges a substantial fee to stream with Quicktime. We had a deal, at no cost to us, but they turned around and said, you have to pay for it, big time.

This may be the reason NPR no longer streams with Quicktime, which they have used for some time."



I thought Apple didn't charge for the number of streams using Quicktime Streaming Service, but in checking the website it appears only the first 4000 streams are free. Does Quicktime have a viable future for these kinds of streams?

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 5
    herbivoreherbivore Posts: 132member
    I believe the key to the future of QuickTime lies in its requirement for the proper functionality of iTunes4.



    When Apple releases iTunes4 and the music store for Windows, QuickTime will achieve a fairly substantial degree of penetration in the market. At that time, it might make sense for a station to stream multimedia data using QuickTime.



    At present, it makes little sense to stream over QuickTime for a small percentage of the market.



    The market, however, would do well to heed Apple and QuickTime. They could otherwise quickly find themselves on the outside looking in.



    Apple has a habit of deciding that the market is not doing enough for the Mac platform and then producing a superior product themselves. Witness the success of iTunes and the iPod.



    I have no inside info, but I can see a day when Apple has a similar movie service to the iTunes music service. Again, dependent on QuickTime technology. This time, the Altivec unit is required to view full screen movies streamed over QuickTime. PC users will simply have to purchase a Mac in order to take full advantage of this type of service. And the companies who streamed their services over Real or Windows media will suddenly find themselves in a very uncomfortable position.



    Apple simply has too much of an investment in QuickTime to abandon the technology. QuickTime seems an integral part of Steve Jobs vision for Apple as a multimedia technology company. It won't be going away.



    The sooner that other companies embrace the technology, the better off they will be. Otherwise, they can always wait for Apple to drop another bomb.
  • Reply 2 of 5
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    QT might be positioned less as a front-end app and more as the technology framework it really is. If I were Apple, I'd push it as a service or architecture for other developers on Windows, Mac and maybe Linux too to utilize. The best exposure for QT has always been its incorporation into enhanced CDs and stuff like that. Basically, roll QT into a more enterprise-oriented marketing pitch, ala WebObjects (which they also do not tout enough).
  • Reply 3 of 5
    defjefdefjef Posts: 62member
    I think the point Wanderer is making is that quicktime is more expensive for web streams than Real and WMP.

    Even if quicktime is a better format, if its cheaper to stream using Real or WMP than people won't use quicktime to stream their content. Another blow against quicktime is in Apple's marketshare and that the majority of users and web developers (at least the ones I know) use Windows which comes preloaded with Windows Media Player. Apple should at least reduce the cost for general use and offer it for free in cases of non-profit organizations such as public radio.

    If Apple truely does want to embrace and promote creativity then they should allow it to be just as easy (if not easier) to use quicktime as a web-streaming solution as it currently is to use Real or WMP.
  • Reply 4 of 5
    jlljll Posts: 2,713member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Wanderer

    "Quite to the contrary, Apple now charges a substantial fee to stream with Quicktime. We had a deal, at no cost to us, but they turned around and said, you have to pay for it, big time.

    This may be the reason NPR no longer streams with Quicktime, which they have used for some time."




    AFAIK the only thing that costs money is if you stream MPEG-4 and that isn't Apple's fault.
  • Reply 5 of 5
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    I emailed an internet radio station about using the Quicktime format and they said they would, because it's free, but there's no easy way to block out the ads that go out to the radio listeners. Without that they can't use Quicktime.
Sign In or Register to comment.